Vol. 446 No. 1
14 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the measures, if any, the Government will undertake to have matters of major public concern fully investigated in view of his statement that this country would have no more tribunals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [687/94]
Apart from investigations, which may be initiated independently by the Garda or the Revenue Commissioners, there are other mechanisms available to the Government for the investigation of matters of public concern. These include ministerial investigations, which can be initiated on a statutory or non-statutory basis, and investigations into the affairs of companies under the Companies Act, 1990. There are also mechanisms available for people who feel aggrieved by decisions of public bodies to appeal to, for example, the Social Welfare Appeals Office, An Bord Pleanála or the Ombudsman.
I have asked the Government Chief Whip to conduct a wide-ranging examination of the ways in which matters of public concern are dealt with, particularly in other countries, and to report to myself and the Tánaiste as soon as possible.
The purpose of this examination is to find a more cost-effective means of conducting inquiries into matters of major public concern other than beef-type tribunals. In so doing the Government will ensure that any new procedure proposed will provide that any investigations undertaken will use fair procedures, as guaranteed by Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
Would the Taoiseach accept that had Ministers answered parliamentary questions here, as the Chairman of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry said on two occasions, we would not have needed a tribunal of inquiry in the first instance?
That is one allegation I hope the Deputy never will be able to throw at me because I have been accused of the opposite here, of imparting too much rather than too little information. I have always advocated and taken the view, in answering parliamentary questions, that it is better to err on the other side, giving long, educational answers where they are required. However, if one commands a single line reply only, well, that is all I can give.
The Taoiseach should await his ratings in tomorrow's press about his ten-page answer.
In the list of potential means of inquiring into matters of public importance just given by the Taoiseach he failed to mention the possibility that committees of this House, on occasion, might summon a Minister before it and hear how he or she is discharging his or her duty. Is the present position that the Government still adheres to the ludicrous proposition that Ministers are not responsible to committees of this House because they are responsible to the House in its entirely? Is that the advice of the Attorney General to this Government? If that is the advice of the Attorney General to the Government, can the Taoiseach tell us when we will have an Attorney General who believes that the Irish Constitution is the same as that in every other Western democracy, in that Ministers come before committees of their parliaments, testify when required to do so, answering questions in detail when it is appropriate that they should do so? Does he accept that parliamentary questions such as we have just had, which at best are parliamentary fencing, do not constitute the appropriate way to deal with serious matters such as export credit insurance?
As usual, Deputy McDowell does not listen to what I say in replying. I outlined the existing mechanisms that are there. I said I had asked the Chief Whip to look at others in different countries——
What about Ministers coming to the committees?
The Deputy knows, or I think he knows — he can tell me if he does not know when I will be glad to tell him — that the existing committee system is not adequate in its present form. There was a Supreme Court case back in 1970 which I am sure the Deputy remembers quite well.
The Haughey case.
The Haughey case, yes. The compellability of witnesses is one of the weaknesses of that system.
But there is a Bill in the offing.
Would the Deputy please listen? This Government is bringing forward legislation to address that position, when at least that discrepancy will be abolished, when we can then investigate strengthening our means of doing a job, giving us a more cost-effective result than was the case last time.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's latest reply, the point I made, which unfortunately the Taoiseach is evading——
I am not.
I am afraid he is. The point I made was that Ministers should be responsible to committees of this House.
They are.
When we asked that they be made responsible at the beginning of this Dáil the Taoiseach personally indicated that they could not be responsible because they were responsible to the whole House. Has the Taoiseach had time to reconsider that position and instruct his fellow Cabinet colleagues, when their ministerial duties so require, to attend and be examined before committees of this House, as is every other Minister in every other Western democracy, and give up this pretence that the Constitution renders Ministers amenable to the House only when sitting in its entirety in this Chamber?
I know the point the Deputy is trying to make, but I assure the House that Ministers are aware of and carry out their full responsibilities. While Deputy McDowell may believe this is the only Government that did not send Ministers to committees when requested by the Opposition, I would point out that I served on the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies——
Is it not time to change that position?
I am entitled to respond to the Deputy's question. When Irish Shipping was experiencing difficulties Deputy Jim Mitchell was Minister for Transport and the committee of which I was a member asked him and many other Ministers in the Coalition Government to attend.
Perhaps we should get rid of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts because he is asking too many questions.
Deputy Bruton has spoken eloquently over a long period of the need to reform the House. We have reformed the House more than any other Government in the past 20 years and we will continue to do so.
That concludes questions to the Taoiseach. We must now move to deal with questions nominated for priority.
On a point of order, will the Chair agree to defer Questions Nos. 15 and 27 to next Tuesday?
Yes, Deputy.
I ask the Chair to defer questions in my name until next Tuesday.
I ask that Question No. 21 in my name be deferred to next Tuesday also. On a point of order, the Taoiseach has refused to answer questions on the beef tribunal and has transferred the questions put to him to other Ministers.
