Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Dec 1994

Vol. 447 No. 8

Select Committee on Legislation and Security of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Immunity) Bill, 1994: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is not the Bill which I had originally hoped to bring before this House to deal with privilege of witnesses before Oireachtas Committees and related matters. As Deputies will have noticed from the draft text furnished to them yesterday, that Bill was much wider in its scope than the measure which I am bringing forward today. Unfortunately, the priority which we were required by the exigencies of coalition Government to accord to other Bills widened the time gap between Government approval of the scheme and the production of a definitive text much beyond the normal.

As perusal of that document will show, the complex issues involved in such legislation were considered in depth both in my Department and the Attorney General's office after the normal process of interdepartmental consultation which always precedes legislation had been completed. Any Member who has held ministerial office will, I think, understand the exasperation I feel at introducing a rapidly produced measure on the same subject to cope with a transient problem.

One of the features of Oireachtas life which has been often remarked on is the ease with which its Members, however partisan their behaviour to each other may be on the floor of this House, manage to work effectively and enthusiastically together on committees in an atmosphere untainted by party political strife. During the lifetime of this Government, my colleagues and I endeavoured to build on this foundation and sponsored the creation by this House and the Seanad of new kinds of committees which were given a meaningful and constructive role in the detailed oversight of those aspects of Government operation which have the most immediate and continuing impact on the public — the spending plans of Government as expressed in the annual Estimates and the policy of the Government and individual Ministers as manifested in legislation. It is, I think, common ground among all the Members of this House that, even in the limited period of their existence, the contribution the chairmen and members of those committees have made to the better functioning of our Legislature and our public service has been substantial.

Our earlier consideration of the issues of compellability of witnesses and the privileges essential to enable them to give evidence without fear of adverse legal consequences was conceived as a necessary underpinning to those committees. Our underlying assumption was that, equipped with the new powers which we envisaged for them, committees of the Oireachtas would be enabled to function with greater effectiveness and to enhance their contribution to the public betterment.

The manner in which committees had traditionally operated may have led us — it certainly led me — to take it for granted that the cross-party co-operation would persist. We also assumed that the revamped committee regime to which we were comitted would focus its investigative efforts on those areas of governmental operation where the simple fact that up to 165 Members could pursue disparate lines of inquiry precluded proper examination of the details of any Government proposal. The areas I had in mind were those where the scale of resources involved: the technical complexity or the interplay of a range of divergent influences on a particular decision allowed potentially significant developments to take place without serious or effective intervention by elected representatives.

An expanded committee system such as the one I envisage — with relatively smaller groups of members on each committee was our answer to the "accountability gap" which could too easily develop under the traditional parliamentary process.

My regret as one of a new generation of parliamentarians is that at the same time as we were pushing ahead with an evolving programme of Oireachtas reform, those features and values of our existing committee scene which offered most potential for development began to be eroded by the intrusion into them of short term partisan objectives.

The insulation of the committees from the daily skirmishes in this House provided intermittently ineffective and on specific occasions attempts were made to open second fronts in the parliamentary battle in particular committee rooms. This, though not a universal trend, was disturbing.

What we have seen this week is, I hope, its apogee — a conscious decision by Opposition parties to operate the mechanics of the committee system as nothing more than an instrument of partisan conflict. Progress towards a co-operative exercise by legislators in bringing their distilled wisdom to bear on the problems of our society has been arrested by a drift back to shibboleths and sloganeering: analysis has been abandoned for accusation; new ways in parliamentarianism for the old-fashioned witch-hunt.

I may sound disillusioned. I am.

Deputy Ray Burke is too.

It is difficult for the target of a witch-hunt to approach these matters dispassionately but I will try.

When my original proposals to empower Oireachtas committees to compel the attendance of witnesses and to require them to give evidence were put into circulation through the various Government Departments, I was disappointed at the notes of caution which permeated some of the advice tendered to myself and other Ministers.

My instinctive reaction as one committed to the reform of public institutions — and despite what people might say there are many of us in that category in Fianna Fáil — was to interpret this as innate conservatism or the knee-jerk reaction of a group which felt threatened by change. Having served on one of the most effective Public Accounts Committees which this House had seen and which operated in the traditional non-partisan manner, I was inclined — Deputy Gay Mitchell who is in the House was Chairman at the time — to disregard suggestions that any powers voted to a committee of this House might be used oppressively, without due regard to natural justice or that a witness's evidence might be sought with more regard to a partisan headline than to drawing out the unalloyed truth about a particular matter.

However, what I have seen this week suggests that the criticisms of my original proposals may have been based on a more realistic evaluation of the impulse for destructiveness in our parliamentary process. Maybe that is another of the mistakes I made during the past two years.

From time to time, Members of this House are required by the problems of their constituents to resort to checking out the detailed legislative provisions which cover aspects of normal living. They are sometimes dismayed to discover that the root of the problem is a statute from the distant past adjusted by successive amendments at irregular and often long intervals. Laws are usually intended to endure and those who frame them attempt to anticipate all possible permutations of problems.

The Bill before this House is unusual in that it is not designed for posterity; it is tailored to an issue which faces us now and has a simple purpose — to ensure that witnesses before a specific committee who do not already enjoy the absolute privilege accorded to Members of the Oireachtas at a meeting of an Oireachtas committee — are accorded protection from the hazards of litigation arising from the evidence they give to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security in the inquiry it is currently undertaking.

The Bill relates only to the particular inquiry entrusted to the committee on 6 December 1994. It has no application beyond that — either for that committee or for any other committee.

Generally Acts are brought into operation by ministerial order. In this case, because of the Dáil's right under the Constitution to regulate its own procedures, a different mechanism is required. Therefore the Bill, if enacted, will be brought into operation by resolution of Dáil Éireann.

The Chairman of that committee has already reported to the House on the committee's intention to seek evidence from a number of people who are not Members of the Oireachtas. They include public servants and the Attorney General who is a Constitutional officer.

The Attorney General has, as the Chairman explained, indicated that he is prepared to give evidence to the committee only if certain pre-conditions are satisfied; those conditions which could be met by the Government without reference to this House have already been met; the remaining condition — the grant of absolute privilege — is one which is not within the Government's gift: it can be conferred only by an Act of the Oireachtas. Given the controversy stirred up on the matters under consideration by the committee, it is possible that if the Attorney General had not raised this issue, some other witness called before the committee might have taken a similar attitude.

Can the Minister say what the quotation is?

I will, certainly.

Let us hear the Minister, without interruption.

The quotation I am about to give — some of which I believe is in the newspapers this morning — is a memorandum which the Attorney General gave to members of Government last night. I propose to have it circulated to the Whips for further circulation if they deem it necessary. I have the permission of the Attorney General to circulate it to the Whips and I will do so. The Attorney General's note states:

The Bill in its initial form contained a basic provision giving witnesses the same privilege afforded to witnesses giving evidence in the High Court. This is not an absolute privilege. If a witness in the High Court was to take advantage of his or her position to utter something defamatory, having no reference to the cause or matter of inquiry but introduced maliciously for his or her own purpose, no privilege or immunity would attach. The privilege provided for in the Act will be similarly limited."

Privilege applies not only to evidence given before the committee but also to any document or thing — the most obvious example being a tape recording or video — produced or sent to the committee at its request. It protects the witness not only from civil, but also from criminal proceedings.

Doubts have been expressed about the impact on privilege of the presence at committee hearings of the public, press or broadcasting facilities. The Bill seeks to put this beyond all possible doubt by providing that their presence will not diminish the privilege which it is intended to confer on witnesses.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have already emphasised to this House that it is not within the power of the Oireachtas even when its Members are animated by the most high minded motives to deprive citizens of this State of certain fundamental rights which derive from the Constitution. Failure in the past by a committee of this House to pay due regard to those rights culminated in its actions being set aside in the courts. Two sections make explicit provision for the protection of the rights of witnesses and identifiable third parties referred to at the committee's proceedings. It was implied some days ago in this House that protection of this type was a mechanism to obstruct the legitimate pursuit of the committee's mandate. To set the matter beyond doubt, I will quote the specific explanation, furnished by the Attorney General, for the addition of these sections to the initial draft of the Bill. This is part of the document to which I referred earlier. It states:

I understand that questions have been raised regarding the constitutionality of the Bill. Having considered possibilities in this area, I have considered it advisable to insert in the Bill a provision providing for the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with the principles of constitutional justice. These were laid down in the case of Re. Haughey (1971 I.R. 217 at P. 263.) They are

(a) the right to be furnished with a statement of evidence to be given by other witnesses,

(b) the right to cross-examine by counsel or solicitor,

(c) the right to give rebutting evidence and

(d) the right to address, by counsel or solicitor, the Committee in his or her own defence.

Apart from providing the above safeguards for witnesses it has appeared to me too to be advisable to make provision for the position of a third party who is not called to give evidence before the Committee and finds him or her being prima facie defamed in evidence given. Such a person should be given the right to give evidence and enjoy the other procedural safeguards set out above. In addition witnesses as well as such third parties should be entitled to call witnesses on their behalf if necessary.

It may be that the above procedural safeguards could be provided for in an informal way such as by amendment of the Standing Orders of the Committee. Including them in the Bill however will make it clear that parties likely to be adversely affected by statements made by witnesses before the Committee will enjoy all procedural safeguards.

The issue in relation to the provision of procedural safeguards is of course only relevant in a situation where a person's constitutional right to his or her good name is in issue.

Arguably, in the present case the good name of a number of proposed witnesses at least may be called into question.

The Act when passed will enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. Whilst the position may not be entirely without doubt the Act as it stands in my opinion is constitutional. In the event however of the Committee conducting its proceedings in such a way as there is not strict compliance with the rules of constitutional justice, a question mark could be placed over the entire of same. The possibility of a person who considered himself or herself adversely affected by the failure of the committee to comply with such rules having recourse to the courts for appropriate relief could not, in my view, be ruled out. Obviously the courts would have to think carefully before granting injunctive relief in respect of the proceedings of a Dáil Committee. However, if the manner of conduct of those proceedings was such as not to provide adequate protection for the constitutional rights of witnesses to their good name the courts would, in my view, be prepared to intervene. This factor is another one that should be taken into account in considering the desirability of proceeding in the way proposed.

Another section provides for the payment of reasonable costs to a person appearing either in person or through a legal representative before the committee or furnishing evidence. This requirement, too, arises from a specific High Court judgement based on the Haughey case which recognised that inquiries by an Oireachtas committee or tribunal could put a witness in "a position more analogous to that of a person accused of a criminal offence than to that of a witness to facts" and therefore entitled to legal representation and to "be indemnified by the State against the expense incurred for such legal representation".

Members of all parties in this House will be aware that the Bill I am introducing was the subject of inter-party consultation yesterday. The text which has been produced attempts to address the various concerns expressed in those discussions. I am aware that potential problems are still being teased out and it may be necessary to make some adjustments to the Bill on Committee Stage.

One point made to me repeatedly when my original Bill underwent the scrutiny of Ministers and civil servants was that changes in the power of committees could not leave us with committees functioning as they had before invested with this new authority. Changes in the relationship between a committee and its witnesses, I was told, had to bring about fundamental changes in the way in which committees worked. Anyone who believed that committees with an inquisitorial dimension could function in the same way as a court or a tribunal without the checks and balances built into the operation of those institutions, I was informed, had got things totally wrong.

Once a committee set out upon an investigative road, involving witnesses making statements under privilege and a compulsion on witnesses to attend, the basic concepts of natural justice which underpin our Constitution come automatically into play. What we have seen this week suggests that this particular message has not been adequately communicated to or absorbed by Members of this House.

What the change means is that a freeranging, spontaneous line of questioning initiated by a Member, as the spirit moves him or her, has to be reviewed so that a witness has a clear indication of the matters about which he or she is to be questioned.

The latitude traditionally, often very productively, accorded to committee Members in interpreting the terms of reference of their committee will have to be reined in. Most of all it will require that Members abandon at the door of the committee room the preconceptions they might bring to bear on the same issue were it before the whole House. This places a particular burden of responsibility on the Chair but does not stop there. Even the most astute and vigilant chairperson will find it impossible to predict whether a particular line of questioning initiated by a Member will elicit a reply improperly damaging to a third party. It is true that mechanisms to correct or rebut such statements can be put in place but if, as the proverb has it, the spoken word cannot be recalled, the immediate impact of a sound bite on a live broadcast of committee proceedings is even less susceptible to effective correction. This fact alone shifts the burden of responsibility from the chairpersons towards the individual Member. From my experience as a committee Member, I am conscious of the difficulty of shedding old and valued modes of working but there will have to be changes effected.

I mentioned the difficult task facing chairpersons in controlling the contribution of Members whose quirks and proclivities they know from working in the intimacy of a committee. These difficulties are increased immeasurably when, as in the present instance, non-Members of a committee exercise their right to attend and be heard. I suspect that in the transition committees questioning privileged witnesses or functioning in an investigation mode, in the interests of effective operation, the right to participate will have to be curtailed in some way.

Lastly, I come to witnesses who are to be invested with privilege and rendered substantially, if not totally, unamenable to the law for what they say or transmit. This is a very unusual circumstance. It is my contention that it is essential that the privilege to be confirmed in this Bill be balanced by a clear recognition that they have clear responsibilities. I referred to this matter of privilege and abuse thereof in the House in a speech I made within the past month or so. I said then that privilege was a very precious facility for Members of this House, very essential to democracy. I said also that privilege brought corresponding responsibilities. This becomes even clearer when considering the type of committee about which we are now talking. Members cannot come into this House and utter a sound bite that will sound good on television or make accusations against Members within or outside this House, as happened in the recent past. I am not referring specifically to the events of the past couple of weeks.

I hope one hypothetical danger with which the Bill, in its present form, will not have to deal is the possibility of a witness appearing before this committee, making an allegation, then withdrawing when his or her statement is to be put to the test of cross-examination. Ideally some sanction should be available to prevent such an occurence.

The Bill I had earlier planned to bring before this House did address this problem. It provided a trade off between compellability of witnesses and the grant of privilege. A witness could be compelled under strict penalties to come before certain committees or produce certain documentation which in normal circumstances could bring adverse legal consequences down about their ears. Obviously in these circumstances, it was essential to provide a corresponding level of immunity from the law.

Such a balance is absent from this Bill and the thinking which influenced the Government in this regard will be evident to all. Compellability involves, as those who read the preliminary draft text yesterday will appreciate — recognition that certain categories of information or even certain categories of person be exempted.

Clearly the choices which this or any Government envisages in that respect will be a matter, at any time, of legitimate political controversy. But, since this measure is purpose-built for one inquiry and the persons whom the committee indicated they wished to question would be expected to be co-operative, once their constitutional rights were adequately protected it is presumed, in this case, that compellability is not essential or required.

I began by referring to another Bill which I had hoped for some time past to introduce in the House in the present session. While this Bill falls much short of that, it does afford an opportunity to ascertain how elements of what I wished to introduce might work in practice. Manufacturers and marketers resort to trial runs to see how innovations can be improved. Rarely are we in this House afforded an opportunity to test drive a new process. It is vital to the future development of our committees that this exercise be approached with the sense of justice, fairness and non-partisanship which has for so long characterised committees of this House.

I should like to bring one matter to the attention of Members which will be dealt with on Committee Stage. I am referring to the Order of Dáil Éireann, mentioned in the Bill, which lapsed because the Committee reported back yesterday. The Bill will be amended on Committee Stage to take that into account, which means there should be no problem in that respect.

I am not sure in what form my script has been distributed. I apologise for some of the possible bad constructions in parts. Nonetheless it contains in general what I wanted to say. I must emphasise the Bill has resulted from the decision of party leaders yesterday. I have no doubt that it will be amended on Committee Stage.

I received this Bill in its amended form about an hour ago. Like the Minister of State, my response is based on my first reading of the amended Bill. For that reason we may have to give it more careful attention on Committee Stage so that we know precisely what it is we are doing.

I should like to make some brief comments on the contribution of the Minister of State. I was a member of the senior investigative committee of this House, the Committee of Public Accounts, for almost ten years and its Chairman for almost six years during what was probably the most reforming period of that committee. As the Minister of State suggested, that committee did undertake much useful work. Therefore, I feel well qualified to comment on the role of an all-party committee if its terms of reference are properly determined at the outset. I will return to that point later.

I hope the Minister of State will not mind if I take him to task about his reference to a conscious decision by Opposition parties in regard to the debate. That is quite a partisan comment. In so far as there was fault, it lay with Members on all sides of the House in recent days and does not apply just to Opposition parties. Deputy Burke made that clear yesterday.

The reference by the Minister of State to the most effective Committee of Public Accounts, on which he served and which I had the great privilege to chair, is worthy of consideration. That committee met in a committee room, not in the Dáil Chamber, and prepared its work by way of an agenda which set long and short term objectives. A committee meeting held in a committee room has the effect of removing part of our adversarial system. The recent committee meeting in the Dáil Chamber had to deal with a Government in opposition which gives rise to a more adversarial position. It would be more effective if that committee met in a committee room with a smaller number of Members around the table where the natural approach of Members changes.

When quoting from the memo of the Attorney General, the Minister of State paid particular attention to the question of presumption of constitutionality and read at great length what the Attorney General had to say in this regard. It seems to contain a suggestion of a warning to the House that if it does not adopt the Bill in its present form it may be challenged. If that is the case, perhaps it would be best to send the Bill to the President to test its constitutionality at the outset so as to avoid a Member of the House or a member of the public challenging its constitutionality when we are in the middle of examining it. That point may need to be considered.

The Minister of State said further:

Members of all parties in this House will be aware that the Bill which I am introducing was the subject of inter-party consultation yesterday. The text which has been produced attempts to address the various concerns expressed in those discussions. I am aware that some further teasing out of potential problems is still taking place and it may be necessary for some adjustments to the Bill to be made on Committee Stage.

I agree with that. I have only read the Bill once and I have not been able to take legal advice on sections about which I am concerned. Section 3 allows witnesses to require the committee to do certain things. When I have responded to the Minister's comments I will return to that point.

The Minister of State referred to whether a particular line of questioning initiated by a Member will elicit a reply improperly damaging to a third party. He also mentioned the difficulties facing chairpersons. A legal opinion on that is contained in an earlier report presented to the House. It is time we gave consideration to appointing counsel for the committees of the House. Constitutional practice here diverges from that in Britain from which our system evolved. The British Attorney General is a Member of Parliament and therefore advises it. The Irish Attorney General is not a Member of Parliament and even if a future one were — the next Attorney General may not be — he is not the adviser to Parliament, he is the law officer, the adviser of the Government. He is not in a position to advise Parliament and, therefore, Parliament may have to consider creating an office of law agent to Parliament. Why should we not do that? Why should it be necessary when considering questions of, for example, natural justice to hire the service of barristers and solicitors. We have seen how those costs have got completely out of control in the recent beef tribunal inquiry. If we are to go down that road why not establish the office of law agent to Parliament, someone who could advise the Ceann Comhairle and committee chairpersons and have counsel for a committee who could attend meetings and advise it in its role in investigative matters. That might be a way of affording protection to the committee in such matters.

The question of the protection of witnesses must also be considered. It would not be beyond the realms of possibility to retain a protector of witnesses on a part-time, full time or fee basis. I put down the marker that lawyers are quick to advise Parliament about the need to involve lawyers. There is a separation of powers between Parliament and the courts which means that we cannot intefere with the courts but neither can they interfere with Parliament. I would be very slow to accept that we should allow counsel be retained for this or that and have their fees charged to the Department of Finance.

What about the wigs and gowns? The Deputy said that counsel should not wear them.

The wigs and gowns have long since been on the bonfire on the green.

We have the free services of a lawyer here.

The Deputy demands the right to tell counsel what to wear and then he tells them they cannot interfere with how a committee is run.

It is proper that the law of the land should state precisely what should happen in the courts and lawyers should realise that they must comply with the law we have set down here. As Deputy McDowell will know there are no independent republics.

What about the independence of the courts?

Deputy McDowell has diverted me from my line of argument.

We will wave a wig in front of your face the next time.

It is time we considered making available to Parliament the services of a law agent who would be a permanent official. What would the setting up of such an office do? We must bear in mind that people on this side are hoping to go into Government soon. The setting up of such an office would copperfasten the independence of Parliament, not just from the Government and the courts, but from the Civil Service whose members have dictated the pace for both Parliament and Government for too long. I made that point the day this Dáil met to form a Government. I warned the newly elected TDs about that. I have been in Government and Opposition and we must assert our independence as a Parliament, not just from the Executive, but from the Civil Service and the courts.

It is the right of Parliament that it be accounted to. A committee is only as good as its chairman. That holds for a residents association, a youth club, a parliamentary committee or a tribunal of inquiry. If we are to go down the road of parliamentary committee investigation — which would be a healthy one — we have to consider how matters are dealt with elsewhere. Judges are required to take an oath of office. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the Ceann Comhairle and the committee chairpersons might be required to take such an oath? Such an oath would require them to uphold the independence of the committee, irrespective of who is the chairperson. That would put the chairperson beyond the influence of the party in so far as he or she would have taken an oath of office. It would also require a chairperson to adhere to that oath and remove pressures. That suggestion is worthy of consideration.

I wish to raise some other points. Regarding the question of natural justice, I remind the House that the list of witnesses invited to date include the Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, SC, and the former Attorney General and former President of the High Court, Mr. Harold Whelehan, SC, both of whom have indicated that they want to waive that right; Mr. Whelehan is willing to come before the committee regardless of whether this legislation is in place. Both are advocates who have no difficulty defending themselves. Also invited is Mr. Matthew Russell, senior legal assistant in the Office of the Attorney General, a regular witness at the Committee of Public Accounts and also well capable of taking care of himself; Mr. James Hamilton, legal assistant in the Office of the Attorney General — I do not know the man but I presume he has some knowledge of this case; Secretary of the Department of Justice; the research officer in the Office of the Attorney General who located the Duggan case and the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. All these people have advice available to them. The other people invited are members of the Government and the Government Chief Whip. The only other person invited is Dr. Martin Mansergh who, I am sure, is also capable of getting advice.

The Deputy left out the former Labour Ministers.

Yes, members of the Labour Party recently resigned from the Government.

They are able to look after themselves.

As the Government found out.

Most, if not all of those people are quite capable of taking care of themselves. The question of natural justice was not raised by the committee; it was raised by the Government during the very short interval of an hour and a half. The Taoiseach came into the House and said that in the interval he asked the Attorney General to report on the question of natural justice. It is an important question relating to how we go about our business, but in terms of these witnesses I doubt if the same concern applies.

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy because he did not interrupt me, but the matter of natural justice was raised, as I recall it, by the Attorney General in a note to Government.

I have the record here and I recall the Taoiseach saying that he asked for advice.

Let us not anticipate Committee Stage.

Another matter that concerns me — this is an important concern — is that potential witnesses are preparing the legislation, the terms of reference under which they will be examined. The Attorney General and officers in his office as well as Government Ministers who will be called before the committee are setting out the terms of reference of the committee. One of my concerns about that is that section 3 (1) of the Bill under the heading "Rights of witnesses before the Committee" states:

A witness before the committee—

(a) may, in person or through a legal representative—

(i) appear before, and make submissions (including submissions in writing) to, the committee,

(ii) require the committee—

(I) to request the attendance of specified persons before the committee to give evidence to it, and

(II) to request the appropriate persons to produce or send specified documents to it,

It does not state, "ask" the committee; it states, "require" the committee. A witness before the committee may require a committee of Parliament to do his or her will.

The section is worded in such a way because the witnesses are preparing the Bill. They may not have deliberately intended to insert such wording, but none of us can be judges of our own cause. It is wrong that a witness should have the right to so require. I am concerned about that wording and that perhaps the people who produced the Bill, maybe unconsciously, are giving too much consideration to their defensive position. We need to be careful about that section and ensure we do not give witnesses more power than the committee.

Section 3 (1) (c) states that a witness before the committee "shall, before giving evidence to the committee, be furnished by or on behalf of the committee with a statement of the evidence given or then proposed to be given to the committee by any other witnesses before the committee and a copy of any documents produced or sent to the committee". Section 3 (2) states; "The committee shall comply with a requirement under subsection (1) of this section." I will have to take legal advice on that section which I read for the first time this morning. I am not in favour of giving to witnesses, including civil servants, Ministers, former Ministers and persons outside this House, greater power than the committee. That section will have to be amended, but I will not commit myself to that until I have taken legal advice.

It is the Attorney General's advice.

Deputy Mitchell is right, one cannot force a committee to do what a witness wants.

The way we prepare for our investigation may be as important as the investigation. It is important that the Chairman and convenors, in a practical, non-partisan way, set out a draft approach to the investigation, perhaps consulting widely with other people, to be put before the committee for approval.

This Bill addresses only the current investigation into the seven month delay, the actions of the various people involved and allegations of cover-up. It gives powers specifically in regard to this investigation. It should empower the Attorney General and others to give not just the facts but the truth. People may ask what is the difference between the facts and the truth. For example a photograph of a dilapidated complex of flats in my constituency might represent a fact. However, if a few nice plants were placed around the flats and a photograph was taken it would also represent a fact but not the truth. It would take from the reality of the dilapidation. I want to hear not just facts but the truth, and if the sky falls, so be it. Regardless of what happens we must get to the end of this matter and present the truth.

It is a little disingenuous of some people who in recent days were prepared to go into Government and put this matter behind them to make pronouncements on the 9 o'clock news last night about their concern that the truth should come out. Let us all be concerned with bringing out the truth. Let us bring out the full truth in this matter and let nobody hide behind it. We all seemed to be happy to suggest at the outset that this question hinges on a individual who is not an elected person, but there is more than one person involved in this case and all those responsible must be brought to account.

The Constitution states that Dáil Éireann is the House of Representatives. That is not stated often enough in this House. We represent the people who elected us. That is democracy. People who think that democracy is a terrible way of life should look at the areas where democracy has failed — for example. Yugoslavia and behind the Iron Curtain before the end of the Cold War. Democracy is a very important part of our way of life. As the House of Representatives it is to us, through a committee of this House, not to any tribunal of inquiry headed by a judge, lawyer or anybody else that there must be accountability.

I wish to refer in particular to the Committee of Public Accounts' special report on the future role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts — Stationery Office reference PL 5645 — dated May 1988 and signed by myself as chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. It was undertaken by the Advisory Group on Public Financial Accountability, which I also had the honour to chair on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts, and endorsed the review of the Committee of Public Accounts and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to how we conduct our affairs.

We appended to that report, for the first time ever, senior counsel's opinion given by Mr. Frank Clarke, the current chairman of the Bar Council. We did not seek the opinion of the Attorney General because he is the adviser to the Government. I wish to quote from his opinion on pages 67 and 68 of the report, for the sake of those who will be advising us on Committee Stage. Under the heading "Compelling of Witnesses" he said:

I see no problem in conferring a power to compel the attendance of witnesses or any incidental powers such as a requirement to produce documents or to answer questions. This power can be enforced by making it an offence (with appropriate sentence) to fail to attend under subpoena or to carry out other incidental directions. The Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedures) Act 1970 made such a provision in S.3(1). S.3(4) provided for punishment of persons in contempt by the High Court. In the Haughey 1971.I.R.217 the Supreme Court held that S.3(4) created an ordinary criminal offence. The section was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution for reasons of the unlimited nature of the penalty that could be imposed without a full jury trial. There is nothing in that decision which would prevent a similar section which either conferred a right to trial by jury or limited the penalty to a penalty appropriate for a minor offence from being consistent with the Constitution. For example the Employment Appeals Tribunal has, under S.39(17) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 similar powers with provision for a fine of £20 on summary conviction although the penalty has subsequently been increased. I would suggest that section as a model.

Under the heading "Privilege of Witnesses" he said:

It is interesting that the 1970 Act above referred to conferred privilege upon witnesses (S.3(2). (It should be noted that the 1970 Act related only to the Committee while engaged in the performance of certain functions effectively confined to the investigation of the expenditure of a certain grant in aid for Northern Ireland relief. It did not apply to the generality of the Committee's work). It should also be noted that witnesses before select committees of the English House of Commons have the benefits of absolute privilege (C. F. Halsbury's Laws of England Lit.Ed. Vol 28 para 103). As I read the debates on the 1976 Act there was no serious doubt as to the legality or constitutionality of the deleted section 3 (which would have conferred privilege on witnesses). There was doubt as to the advisability of conferring absolute privilege on witnesses who might abuse their position by making wild accusations under the cloak of privilege. It does not seem that the then Attorney General considered that there was any legal difficulty (see Senate Report). It is very doubtful if such a privilege exists at common law. I would therefore see no reason in principle why privilege could not be extended to witnesses. I do believe, as a matter of practicality, that consideration should be given to limiting that privilege. Members of the House, while not amenable to the Courts, are amenable to the House itself. Witnesses would not, nor could they constitutionally be made amenable to the House. It would therefore seem dangerous to confer a completely unqualified privilege. What limitations there should be would seem a question of policy rather than law but the following suggestions occur:—

(a) a removal of privilege for evidence given maliciously;

(b) no privilege for evidence not requested by the Committee i.e. if a witness were to volunteer evidence outside the scope of the Committee's request;

(c) no privilege after a witness is requested to cease giving evidence.

Such limitations would not seem to limit the usefulness of privilege to genuine witnesses but might prevent the abuse of privilege which could bring the privilege itself into disrepute.

I have quoted at length because I want this opinion to be considered carefully before Committee Stage. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) could be incorporated into the Bill we are discussing today to protect, in natural justice, persons from wild allegations.

If we are serious about openness, accountability and reform we must serve the country, not the system. It is time we got back to basic principles. I argued in Opposition and on the other side of the House in Government that Parliament stands in place of the people; we need a dose of democracy as well as accountability and a system under which the Government accounts openly and truthfully to Parliament which, in turn, answers for its mandate to the people at election time. I ask the Minister of State to confirm that the various waivers requested by the current Attorney General have been granted.

The Carysfort report was prepared by the Committee of Public Accounts under my chairmanship — the Minister of State was a constructive member. Although there were political considerations the committee prepared a vital, fair and balanced report which got to the truth and the facts of the matter without costing the country a penny more than the cost of having a Parliament and without the cost involved at the Beef Tribunal.

I am not in favour of going down a road which would require us to take on teams of barristers and solicitors. While we may need a law agent and we require advice, the way to do this is to empower ourselves and leave the Executive to rely on the advice of the Attorney General. I will have further comments to make on Committee Stage after I have had an opportunity to take advice on the detailed sections of the Bill.

The Labour Party welcomes the publication of a Bill to enable the committee undertake the task entrusted to it by the Dáil. We will support it on Second Stage. Although we had drafted an alternative measure we were happy to defer in the knowledge that this Bill was drafted by and has the support of the Attorney General. It is ironic that he will be the first person to avail of the freedoms contained within it.

Having examined this Bill and our own Bill I am satisfied that the measure before the House will meet the main objective we set out to achieve. Principally, it will enable those who wish to do so to tell what Deputy Ray Burke yesterday described as the full unvarnished truth and to do so without fear or favour.

The Labour Party supports the enactment of the Bill, subject to essential amendments which will be necessary at the earliest opportunity. We recognise that it is an interim measure designed to facilitate the work of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security but it does not, of course, deal with the broader issues of privilege and compellability in general. As the House is well aware, comprehensive legislation on these subjects has been promised for many years and it will be one of the urgent tasks of the new Government to bring in the wider legislation as part of any strategy for renewal ultimately agreed.

The events that led to the need for this Bill prove, if proof was needed, that a strategy for renewal is urgently required. Specifically, all Members must agree on the need to renew and consolidate the only proper relationship that can exist between the political system and those it aims to serve, a relationship based on trust, openness and accountability. The Minister of State in moving the Bill referred to the many reforms in the committee system and I do not quarrel with the assertion that those changes have been wide-ranging, beneficial and deep but, without legislation along these lines, we still stop short of enabling the House to act as a truly investigative body. Recent experiences have shown that alternative methods of investigation available to the House, notably the sworn public inquiry, involve a number of potential issues that cause concern to the public, including, of course, the potential for very large and unacceptable expense and very long delays. The model that can be developed from this Bill offers the House an alternative, which if properly constructed, would be the most appropriate method of carrying out fact finding investigations speedily in a great many cases.

I should emphasise that the work being carried out by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security is simply a fact finding operation on behalf of this House. It is neither a criminal trial, a civil trial, a Star Chamber nor an inquisition. Still less can it be a political exercise targeted at individuals. What we want and what the public is entitled to is simply to find out exactly what happened.

Deputy Gay Mitchell touched on a number of difficulties in the Bill, I support his points and there may well be others that must be examined seriously on Committee Stage. I fully support the point he made on power being given to any witness to require the committee to request the attendance of another person. That is totally unacceptable and it must be the committee's own decision to decide what witnesses are appropriate to request to attend before the committee. Certainly, a witness might well suggest to the committee that evidence from a particular person might be helpful to it in its endeavours to ascertain the full facts. That is acceptable and understandable, but it would then be a matter for the committee to consider whether that was appropriate in all the circumstances. At the end of the day it must be the committee's prerogative and the committee will decide whether to accede to a request of that nature, otherwise, one could have a reductio ad absurdum with the committee going on for ever with an unending stream of witnesses peripherally relevant being called before the committee. That is completely unacceptable situation.

By getting anybody to testify to the committee they can effectively take it over.

That is right, under privilege.

If I could get in as a witness, I could say I want 20 other people.

That is right. There is another matter on which Deputy Gay Mitchell touched but did not amplify, the provision in section 3 (1) (c), the requirement that before any witness is required to give evidence the witness must be furnished with a statement of all the other witnesses it is intended to call before the committee. That is a very strange provision——

How do you start?

——and if it were to stand, it would take a very long time before this committee could get under way. I do not know if the committee has the investigators and statement takers available to it who would have to go around a whole range of people taking statements.

How do you force official A?

The committee is supposed to take statements, it was set up to take statements and that is the reason witnesses are called. The purpose of a fact finding committee is to take statements and ascertain the facts. The questioning is not so much cross-examination in the court trial sense but to raise further questions on a particular sequence of facts that had not been sufficiently clarified or adverted to by a witness. Further questions are then asked to elucidate matters, not necessarily with the intent of tripping up the witness but to get the full range of facts that all the Members of the committee would require so that at the end of the day it would be enabled to prepare its report with the full facts and information before it. I do not think the committee has a judgmental role; to say that it accepts one particular sequence of facts or regards a submission as probable or improbable. No value judgment by the committee is called for in any particular evidence.

Every Member's opinion of the evidence is as good as the next.

Absolutely. The committee will report back to the House and to the public and the House may deal with it in an appropriate manner. That is the object of the exercise and I am puzzled as to why it should be seen necessary to stymie the possibility of this committee getting under way with its work until a complete range of statements have been taken from every potential witness. It may be decided during a hearing that a witness, in accordance with his entitlements, requires further witnesses: evidence will have been given, further evidence is yet to be given and the requirement to furnish witnesses in advance with all the statements will have been breached, ipso facto there seems to be a matter that cannot stand and which will require attention on Committee Stage.

There are other points I wish to raise on Committee Stage but it is not appropriate to go into them in detail on Second Stage. Serious matters need to be addressed by the Minister of State and he should come up with practical suggestions on Committee Stage.

The Bill raises constitutional questions but it seems that it has been drafted with a view to securing constitutional propriety and has addressed protections for the good name and reputation of any person affected by the work of the committee. The Bill protects not only the rights of witnesses but amounts in effect to a right of reply which may be exercised by a third party who is referred to in evidence before the committee. The Committee is to investigate whether we have witnessed a series of examples of ministerial incompetence of the highest order or an organised cover up by Ministers. It is not possible for anyone to draw definitive conclusions on all the issues before the evidence has been heard and no one ought to do so.

The mere fact of an investigation does not take away from the central issue which has emerged with absolute clarity, namely, that this House was seriously misled on Tuesday, 15 November on a matter of fundamental importance. What we are about is the attempt to discover who was involved in misleading the House, the reason it was done and the motivation behind it. Nothing that the committee does can excuse the fact that this House was misled or change the fact that it was right that this House should withdraw, as it did, its confidence and support from the Taoiseach and the then outgoing Government as a result.

The Labour Party will support the Bill on Second Stage and looks forward to assisting in making the necessary amendment to it on Committee Stage next week.

I propose to share my time with Deputy Michael McDowell.

I am sure that is agreed, Deputy.

I do not wish to be obstructive but is it not normal procedure for spokespersons to share their time. Every other slot of time is available.

We are not taking any additional time. I had agreed this, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, with the Opposition spokespersons but as the Minister of State was speaking, I did not have an opportunity to ask him. This Bill is presented from Finance and so there is a joint element of responsibility. As Justice spokesperson and as a member of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security I have been handling these matters and Deputy McDowell is Finance spokesperson so there is a shared element of responsibility. I hope the Chair would give a ruling, therefore, which would grant the request.

It is a matter for the House, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We have no problem about it.

It is a matter for the House.

The reason I indicated so readily that I understood it would be agreeable is that I have a listing in front of me but——

It is a matter for the House.

——I must ask if there is an objection.

It is a matter for the House.

I know it is a matter for the House but I am putting my objection on the record.

If this is the beginning of openness and accountability, God help us.

The Chair must make a ruling on this and as there is an objection, I must indicate to the Deputy that it is not in order for her to share time.

I had intended making a contribution which was supportive of many of the Minister's statements but I regard it as remarkable that a Minister, who is prating on in public about accountability, should object to my speaking in this debate.

I am not objecting.

We are trying to be co-operative and wish to make some decent points on the Bill.

Can I clarify the position?

I want to respond to that.

May we leave this please. Minister? I have indicated the position. The ruling is that Deputy O'Donnell may not share time. There may well be time later for Deputy McDowell to make a contribution.

There probably will not be and the Minister of State is trying to muzzle me on Second Stage. Why will the Minister not let me speak?

In case Deputy McDowell tries to distort what I am doing, the normal procedure is that there is no sharing of time on spokespersons' opening statements. I will gladly give Deputy McDowell 15 minutes of Government time at a later stage if he wishes.

Fair enough.

I am not trying to preclude him from speaking. I have no problem with him making a contribution but I was not made aware of this beforehand and I believe we should abide by the normal procedure. If the House decides otherwise, I have no problem with that.

Will the Minister of State withdraw his objection?

It is not a matter for the House at this stage. The matter has been cleared up.

On a point of order, if the Minister of State is willing to withdraw his objection, there is no point in me——

I asked if there was an objection and it was put to me that there was an objection. I have to take it as such and I am now calling Deputy O'Donnell.

I cannot see why the Minister will not withdraw his objection.

May I make a suggestion? In the interest of having a reasonable, cordial debate on a Bill which we are all interested in passing, the Minister of State should withdraw his objection.

What is the Minister of State afraid of?

We all wish to make a reasonable contribution and the Minister of State should respond to a reasonable request.

Deputy O'Keeffe has made his point.

During my time as a Member of this House I have seen spokespersons sharing time when making their opening statements.

By agreement beforehand with the Whips.

The Minister of State was speaking when we tried to agree it. I mentioned it to the Whip's office before I came into the House. Perhaps the Minister of State's assistant did not pass on the message to him.

As I read it, there was a request to share time and there was an objection. I call on Deputy O'Donnell to make her statement without further interruption.

On a point of order, I merely ask——

I believe Minister Dempsey wishes to be of assistance.

I have no objection to Deputy McDowell making a contribution. If he wants to share time I will allow him to do that but I hope that Deputy McDowell will be here for the entirety of the debate and that he will not rush off somewhere else to do his business.

I am not doing anything of the sort.

Thank you, Minister. The objection is withdrawn. There is a sharing of time, as requested, between Deputies O'Donnell and McDowell. There are 30 minutes available to the Deputies.

I am grateful to the Minister of State.

I compliment the Minister of State on his approach.

Before this controversy arose. I thought this debate was being conducted in an atmosphere which was without acrimony. I am glad we are back to a little normality.

Before entering upon consideration of this Bill it is appropriate that we take note of the fact that the past few weeks — and particularly the past few days — have been historic in terms of the evolution of the committee system. It was unfortunate that we had to go through the pain of the committee sitting in full view of the public while it underwent a critical learning stage. It may have been unpleasant for the public to watch the proceeding but it was an important procedure to go through. Sometimes the proceedings of this House are not necessarily attractive to the public. We are here to do business, to develop the committee system and to get through our work and we must forget about the outside world looking in on us. We are not in the business of producing television programmes, we are here to do hard work and from that point of view we should be proud that we have reached this point. We had to go through that difficult day on which the select committee met in order to develop the committee process further, given the circumstances which formed the background to that committee's debate.

We have witnessed the coming of age of this House. Woodrow Wilson, onetime US President, speaking on the investigative role of Congress in exercising its function of overseeing the Executive and exposing corruption, said:

The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function. The argument is not only that discussed and interrogated administration is the only pure and efficient administration, but more that the only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration.

We are witnessing, as these events unfold, a coming of age of this House. It would be politically disingenuous to ignore the fact that today's proceedings are the culmination of a series of events which have been caused by the failure of an Administration to answer questions adequately and to be open and transparent. I will say no more about that but it would be disingenuous of us to discuss this Bill as if it had been produced in the normal course of events. It has been produced against a backdrop of unprecedented misleading of this House.

The Bill performs a valuable and important function. Article 15.13 of the constitution, implemented by way of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1976 recognises that Members of the Houses are not amenable in respect of any utterances in either House to any authority other than the House itself. This absolute privilege extends to utterances before any committee of the House because such a committee, in essence, is the alter ego of the House which established it. However, the privilege only extends to Members of the House. Clearly, it would be unfair and inequitable if a person appearing before the committee who was not a Member of the Oireachtas was left open to defamation actions in respect of evidence he or she gave to the committee.

The Progressive Democrats welcome the granting of High Court witness status to those who appear and give evidence before the committee. In the Bill as originally drafted there was a danger that sweeping privileges and immunities would be granted to witnesses which could carry the risk of serious abuse. As the Minister said and the Attorney General acknowledged, there is a real danger that in a forum such as this witnesses might be called before the committee purely for the purpose of making defamatory or scurrilous statements in order to score political points secure in the knowledge that they could not be sued for defamation. The danger is that the committee could degenerate from being a serious inquiry into a political side show. We heard Deputy Taylor outline the capacity of the new section to unravel the Bill. It will need substantial amendment if the inquiry is not to degenerate into chaos.

We are trying to establish the truth but it has been like pulling teeth to get any information from Ministers reporting to the House by way of parliamentary replies. It has been a slow, painful and in the main, inconclusive process. Much of the information has come to light through the media and leaked documents. It is unsatisfactory to say the least.

When we look at the limitations placed on the powers of the committee it is clear that it is totally dependent on the willingness of witnesses to co-operate with it. No one can be forced to appear before the committee nor can anyone who appears before it be forced to answer a question if he or she does not wish to do so. If cross-examination is about to yield results a witness can simply clam up or sing dumb.

In the United States where Congress has sweeping investigatory powers, it has been recognised for many years that compulsory powers to compel the attendance of witnesses, backed up with powers to commit for contempt, i.e. penalties, is the only sure way to establish the truth. The granting of immunity and privilege to witnesses appearing before the committee will go some way towards encouraging witnesses to give evidence to the committee freely and without fear of the consequences. We must recognise that witnesses will remain free to refuse to answer any question. They will be free to refuse to produce documents which the committee may require and they will not be required to give evidence on oath. It will be necessary to have the highest degree of co-operation from those who appear before the committee.

The committee's inability to compel witnesses to appear may ultimately completely frustrate its objectives although one hopes that those named in the motion and in the list in the agreed report to the Dáil will have no difficulty in appearing before the committee to give evidence. It is regrettable that the legislation on compellability and privelege of witnesses, which is in draft form, is not ready. It has been long promised. The Programme for Government states it will be brought forward as a priority but that document is now two years old and it is a pity that the Administration did not do so.

Another obstacle to the committee's task of establishing the truth arises from provision of immunity to prosecution contained in section 2 (3). This section implies that a witness who makes false statements to the committee will not be answerable to anyone. This immunity goes significantly further than the position that obtains before a court. In a court proceeding if a witness lies to the court the judge may send papers relating to the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that a case may be initiated against that witness. In the case of the committee of inquiry there is no such sanction. Anyone who lies will get off scot-free.

As the Bill has been changed from the draft we saw yesterday some of my comments may be irrelevant. We were surprised at the new section this morning——

In the note from the Attorney General which I read earlier he said a witness will only have the same privilege as a witness before the High Court. That is his advice. I am not sure if it is contained in the Bill.

Section 2 (3) states:

A statement or admission made by a person before the committee, or a document produced or sent by a person to the committee at its request, shall not be admissible as evidence against the person in any criminal proceedings and subsection (1) shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

The point is still relevant. If a witness lies, a judge may send papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That provision is not contained in this Bill and in the case of the committee no such sanction exists.

There are other aspects which relate to Cabinet confidentiality. Ministers are on the list of witnesses and I expect the issue of Cabinet confidentiality may arise. In the Attorney General v. Hamilton the Supreme Court found that, as a matter of Constitutional law, Cabinet discussions were confidential. This principle has been honoured more in the breach than the observance in the past few weeks. The Government relied on the principle and gave detailed information about what happened at Cabinet when it suited and dispensed with it when it saw fit. It is to be hoped that the inquiry will not be impeded by overreliance on or application of this principle. I hope Ministers will be forthright in the evidence they give to the committee.

Those appearing before the committee will be entitled to the protection of the rules of natural justice. That means that those whose good name is impugned — that may mean most of those who will be summoned — will be entitled to advance notice of the allegations made against them, to legal representation and cross-examination of persons making allegations against them. As we predicted with gloom, this will inevitably slow down the business of the inquiry. Everyone is entitled to natural justice but it is hoped that those appearing before the committee will, like the Attorney General, regard themselves as having nothing to fear or hide and will not require legal representation.

From the point of view of my party, it is not intended that this inquiry should be a witch-hunt, a star chamber or a show trial. We have a duty to establish the truth of the serious misleading of the House which occurred on a number of occassions. The committee has been set up by the Dáil with that simple objective. It is everyone's wish that we conduct ourselves in a dignified way and that the committee will be a fair proceeding which will fulfil the mandate given to it by the House.

Reference was made to the inherent conflict between the role of the Attorney General as legal adviser to the Government and his role as guardian of the public interest and advising this House. In the X case the Attorney General took an action and initiated proceedings and we had the extraordinary situation that the then Taoiseach advised the parents of the girl to appeal this. There was an inherent conflict there between the role of the Attorney General as guardian of the Constitution, as he saw it, and his role as legal adviser to the Government. There is a necessity in the long term to look at the inherent conflict between the role of the Attorney General as legal adviser to the Government and his role as guardian of the public interest. At times conflict can arise between those two roles.

I agree with the Minister that the traditional latitude enjoyed by committees must be curtailed. This can be agreed before the committee inquires into this matter. When I say, traditional latitude, I am referring to open ended questioning, free flowing questions or any other points which Members suddenly think of. This is not a dignified or honest way to proceed and it is not fair to either the witnesses or the Members of the committee.

I have always been very careful not to abuse the absolute privilege enjoyed by Members of this House. I agree with the Minister and others that Members should be very careful not to abuse the absolute privilege enjoyed by them but rather should use it in a responsible manner and ensure that they do not damage the good names of people. Two or three weeks ago I raised the matter of a swimming coach who had initiated a judicial review of a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute him on alleged child abuse charges. I did not name the person and I will not do so even though the name has been made public and the allegations have been the subject of much controversy.

I raised that matter because the defence of a lapse of time was used, even before the trial began, to ensure that the person could not be prosecuted. Serious consideration must be given to the defence of a lapse of time in child abuse cases which inherently involve a lapse of time between the alleged offence and the reporting of it. This was a key issue in the Brendan Smyth affair and the alleged reason for the delay. In this jurisdiction paedophiles and child abusers are using the defence of a lapse of time to avoid prosecution. Serious consideration must be given to the use of injunctions to stop the Director of Public Prosecutions initiating prosecution proceedings in cases involving a lapse of time.

The Minister of State made a very thoughtful contribution in which he raised some issues with which I agree and others with which I disagree. It is important that we look calmly and collectively at the legislation and see if it is the best we can do. The Minister of State said that the legislation is, in effect, a test run. I appreciate that he feels under pressure in this matter and obviously being a guinea pig in a test run is not the happiest position for anyone. Apart from that, and the personalities involved, we have to approach this matter very carefully.

When I came into the House the other day and saw the Attorney General sitting where the Tánaiste normally sits and a huge amphitheatre of people, including myself at one stage, in various degrees of excitement I was struck that this was not the format or way in which to conduct the business of the committee. I asked the Taoiseach, who attended the committee, to elucidate some questions which had arisen such as whether he had an indemnity, would this not do the Attorney General, whether qualified privilege did not apply to the Attorney General, was he really saying that the defence of no malice was not enough for him and whether Ministers were seriously contemplating bringing lawyers before the House. While I did not get an answer to any of them I got much flak for having raised them. If committees of the House are to function as inquiring bodies they cannot function in anything like the manner we saw on Wednesday. Rather they should be held in committee rooms, the format should be different and, as the Minister of State has clearly implied. Members should not be free to roll in from the Members' bar and let fly a few——

Important questions?

——insults and walk out without hearing the answer. We cannot have a similar arrangement in future. I fully accept the very strong points made by the Minister of State in this regard.

I equally disagree with the Minister if he is claiming that this function should have been handed over to an independent judicial or quasi-judicial person. As Deputies Mitchell and Taylor said, it is a complete mistake to view this House simply as a Legislature. It is not, it is a House of representatives, a House which demands accountability. Half of the function of the House is to demand accountability and express free convictions on issues. Legislation is not the only function of this House. The sad fact is that in our constitutional tradition since the foundation of the State the Executive has been so dominant that it regards this House as a place into which one comes to fence on the subject of truth in the form of parliamentary questions and to push through legislation because one happens to control a majority of the Members.

I agree with the Minister that it is desirable that there should be a non-partisan approach in committees. However, when one looks at the committee systems in Westminster and on Capitol Hill in Washington it is equally clear that when partisan issues come before a committee the members behave in a partisan manner. This is sensible and the House cannot confine partisanship, which may seem a dirty term to some but which means following one's convictions, to full meetings of the House. Partisanship has a role in committees but it must be confined and fair.

One of the problems with our system which does not apply so rigidly in Westminister and, in particular, on Capitol Hill is that we have the culture of the Whip. I am happy to attend committee meetings on a consumer credit Bill and to table amendments but I object, if I am told it is a non-partisan body, to having an amendment, no matter how meritorious, being decided not on its merits but by the Minister who is against it and who knows she can effectively press a button and produce bodies, who did not even listen to the debate, to vote it down. We should not get overly romantic about these non-partisan committees. The truth is slightly different and the matter is not as simple as was suggested.

I want to make an important and fundmental point. Reference has been made to the Haughey decision and the rights of individuals has been emphasised. I have believed for a long time — I say this critically of the courts and the Legislature — that the balance is wrongly struck. We should be much more vigorous and vigilant in ferreting out the truth and slightly less respectful of the good names and reputations of people. Many of our problems flow from the absence of a free and unfettered press. There is much cant about the need to fetter the press and to suppress public debate in the interest of the good name of citizens. I much prefer the American model where the freedom of speech article in the Constitution is given much more emphasis and where, by contrast, the rights of individuals in public life to prevent debate or discussion of their activities is given much less emphasis. One of the problems with this House is that we are infected by a judicial error, that is the imbalance between the individual's right to his reputation and freedom of speech which characterises virtually every organ of Irish society.

I would much prefer — I am very strongly convinced of this — a free press. The Minister will look on this with a somewhat jaundiced eye but Geraldine Kennedy did what this House could not do. That is a fundamental fact, and if she had been threatened by a writ for defamation, could not stand over her story to the point of being able to prove it in court rather than requiring others to disprove it and had a timid editor we would have had a very different result. We might not be here discussing this matter and history might be very different.

I value freedom of speech first, reputation second. That is my view. The Constitution mentions both but I believe the balance is wrongly struck in Irish society. In that context — that is another point on which I did not get an answer from the Taoiseach the other day — I do not accept the proposition that Ministers, who face embarrassing questions as opposed to the usual run of the mill when they can be economical with the truth or suit themselves in replies to parliamentary questions, should come in with a battery of lawyers to fend off questions put by their fellow parliamentarians. The idea that Members should bring lawyers to represent them in matters to do with the business of the House, misleading of the House or allegations that the House was misled, is as offensive to me as Members coming in with prepared scripts which their mind does not run along with. It is much worse if a lawyer comes in and tells one Member of the House what he can ask another Member in relation to an allegation that the House was misled. We are big boys and girls in this House and we should be able to look after ourselves. I applaud the fact that the former Attorney General and the present Attorney General were willing to come into this House and say they did not need representation. It is easy for them.

They are lawyers.

One does not deserve ministerial office if one cannot account for oneself without a barrister or a solicitor. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dempsey, is perfectly capable of answering questions without a barrister or a solicitor to tell him how.

The Minister of State feels he is at the wrong end of the witch hunt. For his consolation — I may be disappointed when all the facts are revealed — he has never been on my number one target list in this matter and I have never seen him as the villain of the piece. Perhaps he knows something I do not know. In case the Minister is under pressure, I have not seen him as one who should be worried.

The adjournment debate was the only mistake.

On the question of openness, the Labour Party is proposing a referendum to reverse the decision on Cabinet confidentiality. Before going to the people on the issue, we should try it by means of a Bill because the composition of the Supreme Court is changed and is now chaired by the Chief Justice who rejected that argument when he presided at the tribunal. It is terrible that we have to go to the people in this matter to establish the principle of openness.

A Deputy

We are the people.

In this House we represent the people and we should be willing to put a Bill before the Supreme Court dealing with that issue before asking the people to vote for some incredibly convoluted amendment to the Constitution which is now becoming littered with amendments to undo the combined doings of the former Attorney General and the courts. We should not push that any further.

The Minister implied that Members coming to the committees to make inquiries should remember that they cannot be wholly partisan. I accept that to a point but it should not mean that a Member who does not have strong views on a matter cannot participate in a committee. We are not supposed to be independent, like judges, under the Constitution. They are entitled to participate in this committee just as much as those who have strong prejudices and strong views on the matter. In effect, the Ministers who appear before this committee will be just as partisan in their own defence as those who will ask the questions in an attempt to elicit the truth. We should not be forced by some misapprehension of what the Constitution requires to convert our committee system into mini courts. They do not have to be. We should not be driven by lawyers, in particular — I warn against lawyers——

——to arrive at the view that nothing in this House can be done by way of inquiry unless we convert the House into a tribunal or, unless, we convert the committees of the House into courts. That is not necessary. It is not necessary on Capitol Hill or in Westminster even though they consider themselves to be a court. It should not be necessary in a healthy, open, free speaking democracy. This country needs much more free speech and much less concern about the camouflage net of peoples' reputation. I want to lift the curtain and see what is under it.

In view of what Deputy McDowell has said, would he mind being available in case I feel in need of anything?

The Minister of State accurately described what we are doing here as a test drive for a completely new procedure and a new approach in the way committees of the House do their business. It is an important test drive because what we witnessed in the House on Wednesday is something I hope we will not experience again. They we had the unedifying spectacle that the Select Committee on Legislation and Security became completely bogged down in procedural and legal wrangles in regard to a simple task which the committee was asked to perform.

It is worth recalling that the House, as the representatives of the people, attempted to do what it charged the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to do and which was straightforward: First, it charged the committee to find out why for a period of seven months an office of this State did nothing to extradite a man who had committed the most obscene offences against little children; second, to find out what responsibility, if any, the former Attorney General, who was in charge of that office at the time, have and, in the light of that, why did the Fianna Fáil members of the outgoing Government persist in appointing him to the second highest judicial appointment in the country; third, when the cat was out of the bag, did the Fianna Fáil members of the Government club together to cover up what had happened and mislead the Dáil in that area.

It is very straightforward. Like other parliaments in other democracies the people have a right to expect that this parliament would be able, in a very simple way on behalf of the people, to try to get to what was called here on Wednesday, the unvarnished truth. The people watched in some horror on Wednesday as they saw their representatives, whom they elected to speak on their behalf, to ask straightforward questions on their behalf, being frustrated and caught in a position of being unable to hear even the first witness before the committee. It is easy to blame each other for that. It is easy to allege that one side of the House attempted to frustrate the proceedings and that another side of the House had got it wrong, first time round, and so on.

It is probably more accurate to say that we are going through this procedure for the first time. This is the first time a committee of the House, other than the Committee of Public Accounts, had been asked to do what parliamentary committees do in other countries: that is to ask straightforward questions of public servants in the ordinary everyday language of the people rather than in the complicated language of the lawyer and to endeavour to establish in a straightforward way what happened.

One of the reasons we have failed up to now to have that type of procedure in place in Ireland is that we have inherited the most centralised and most secretive systems of public administrations anywhere in the world. Our entire public administration is surrounded by a culture of secrecy which promotes the idea that the people should not know, that they do not have a right to know and when they ask questions they should be provided with minimum information. What passes for public accountability when Ministers are asked parliamentary questions is an exercise in avoiding straightforward answers. Replies to parliamentary questions are masterpieces in avoiding what is actually asked. The question is parsed to ascertain what can be got away with in terms of a minimum answer. It was stated repeatedly at the beef tribunal that there would not have been a need for its establishment if the questions, which took three years to answer in the tribunal, were answered by Ministers when they were originally asked in the House. The Bill before us provides not for an inquisitorial approach by committees but for a process whereby information to which the public is entitled, whether from Ministers, civil servants or members of public bodies, is given freely, honestly and fairly. It involves nothing more complicated.

I have been a member of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security since its establishment. On numerous occasions we asked — not in terms of adopting partisan politics or an adversarial approach, because the requests were made from all sides of the committee — for simple changes to be made to the procedures of the committee. When there was a serious crime problem we requested that the Garda Commissioner or senior members of the Garda should come before the committee so that we could talk to them directly about the problems of policing. We would also have liked people from the prison service to attend the committee. When debating the refugee Bill we suggested that members of non-governmental organisations, who had made substantive submissions to the committee about their concerns, should attend the committee so that we could talk to them directly. This process is not about investigation or people having to protect themselves with lawyers, rather it is a process of dialogue between those elected to represent the people and those in authority or some other walk of life. We asked that the rules of the committee be changed and we made repeated requests for the publication of the substantive legislation to which the Minister of State referred.

Although the proceedings on Wednesday last were very tortuous, at least we have got to a point where, after 20 years of trying, legislation which will give privilege to witnesses appearing before committees has come before the House, albeit for one committee and one particular function. While the legislation relates only to the recent controversy and the task given to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security in that regard, I hope as soon as a new Government is formed the more substantive legislation will be brought before the House to enable all committees to engage in dialogue with public servants and others.

The Bill will enable the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to proceed with the questioning of witnesses in the context of the Attorney General affair. I am anxious that we should hear the present Attorney General as soon as possible. It is significant that he should seek the level of protection he outlined on Wednesday before being willing to provide a statement to the committee.

There is concern that this is a type of witch hunt or star chamber exercise against individual public servants or Ministers and that it will be used for partisan purposes. I do not wish to see such an exercise engaged in by a committee. We have a simple job to do and it is possible for us to do it in an orderly and civilised manner. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy McDowell in that it would not be appropriate to bring a witness into this Chamber where he or she would be surrounded by a large number of Deputies who are used to performing here in a political adversarial manner. The proceedings of the committee should be conducted in a committee room in a format that not only legally protects witnesses appearing before it but also protects them against an intimidating atmosphere. The atmosphere should be as relaxed as possible. The committee should agree a set of procedures for the investigation. It has approximately 30 members, but any Member of the House can attend and speak. While 30 is a large number of people with a right to question witnesses, it is horrifying that we could end up with the 165 Members of the House questioning them. That should not happen. The committee must agree a set of procedures whereby the questioning of witnesses is carried out in an orderly fashion. For the committee to be effective, as well as to be fair to witnesses, that must be agreed. The object of this exercise is to find out what happened, not to score points. The committee will be effective only if it is enabled to pursue questioning in an orderly manner.

The Bill addresses two main issues. I have no difficulty with the provision which will give privilege to witnesses appearing before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. The Bill also deals with the question of natural justice; first, by providing the right to legal representation for witnesses; second, by providing certain rights to witnesses to cross examine other witnesses and to require the committee to do certain things; and, third, by providing a right to costs in the context of legal representation.

It is perfectly proper, that witnesses appearing before this committee should have the right to legal representation although I agree with Deputy Michael McDowell that it is totally inappropriate that Members of the House should come in here with legal representation. I disagree with the payment of legal costs by the State. This process must be kept simple and straightforward. This is a House of Parliament, a House of people's representatives, whose purpose is to express, on behalf of the people, in the people's language, the views of the people and to ask the questions the people want answered. It is not a court where very fine legal argument can be advanced.

Every witness will have legal representation — perhaps a solicitor and a couple of barristers who insist on cross-examining other witnesses and then insist on putting requests to the committee — this exercise will never be completed and, if anything, will end up being more bogged down than was the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. If somebody appearing before the committee feels the need to have legal representation he should be entitled to it but I do not see why the taxpayer should have to pay for such representation. The section providing for the payment of legal costs should be deleted. Otherwise we shall have more lawyers and legal representatives at the committee——

——than members.

——all being paid by the taxpayer, than members asking straightforward questions and control will pass from the elected Members of the House, whose primary responsibility it is, to the lawyers who will control it with legal argument.

We witnessed what happened in this Chamber on Wednesday last. All a few people need do is raise some procedural points, a couple of constitutional issues and those of us who are not lawyers are at sixes and sevens. The few lawyers we have in the House can cause sufficient mayhem here in the normal course of events but, I am horrified at the prospect of them being paid to do so by the taxpayer. There are plenty of precedents of fora at which people are entitled to legal representation but not necessarily entitled to costs.

Take the example of Westminister.

An employee who is dismissed and appears before the Employment Appeals Tribunal is entitled to legal representation but not to costs. A person appearing before a rents tribunal may have legal representation but not necessarily be repaid costs. Therefore, the provision for payment of costs by the State must be deleted. People waiting for over a year on free legal aid lists, or who may feel aggrieved, for example, about some remark made about them in a newspaper or in this House who cannot exercise their legal right because they do not have the wherewithal to do so would feel insulted if they discovered that people being asked straightforward questions about their functions as public servants in respect of jobs they were doing on behalf of the taxpayer, being paid for by the taxpayer should insist on legal representation at the taxpayers' expense. The taxpayer cannot be asked to foot the bill for this. If people want legal representation they can have it but not at the taxpayers' expense.

Another matter that concerns me — I must emphasise I am reading the provisions of this Bill very much as a lay person — is that section 3 provides that a witness appearing before the committee may appear in person or through a legal representative. Section 4 provides for a person other than a witness before the committee to appear in person or through a legal representative. If this committee calls a witness I do not accept that the witness should not turn up but send in a lawyer to appear on his or her behalf. I want that matter clarified and dealt with before proceeding any further. I can envisage circumstances in which a witness may be accompanied by a lawyer to advise him and so on and that is fine, but sending in a lawyer instead is not acceptable. We must deal with that. If a witness does not want to appear nothing in the law can force him or her to appear, but we cannot have a lawyer appearing instead.

On witnesses requiring the committee to request the attendance of specified or appropriate persons to produce or send specified documents to it I agree with Deputy Gay Mitchell and others that it is not acceptable that a witness effectively can dictate what that committee does. If a witness wanted to frustrate the proceedings, all he or she would have to do would be to quote section 3 (1) (a) (ii) and say that, pursuant to that section, he requires the committee to request the attendance of any number of people to appear before it or any number of documents to be produced. That is not on. By all means, witnesses may request the committee to request other witnesses to appear but it should be left to the discretion of the committee what witnesses are called rather than be a requirement of witnesses.

My concern is that the Bill may end up frustrating our initial objective. What we set out to do — as a Parliament, not as a court or some type of tribunal — was to ask some straightforward questions and endeavour to establish what was done in public offices of this State. It is a matter of accountability, of keeping it simple, of asking straightforward questions and endeavouring to establish to the best of our ability precisely what took place.

I am concerned that some sections will create a monster, something that will continue forever, control of which will pass from the elected representatives to lawyers appearing on behalf of witnesses, or with them, and that we will never ever get to the end of it. My concern is that this exercise, which should be completed within a very short period, which should not be that complicated, will drag on interminably. We are attempting here to devise a procedure whereby it will be possible for a committee of the House, within a short space of time, to call servants of this State, to ask them straightforward questions and establish what took place. That is reasonable but I fear we may end up with a process that will go on interminably, that will become a gravy train for lawyers, in circumstances in which there is an incentive for everybody appearing before the committee to have a legal team and because costs will be provided, there will be an incentive for the whole process to be strung out.

Before its passage a number of the provisions of this Bill warrants amendment.

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Will the Minister of State and other Deputies bear in mind that the terms of reference of the committee about which we are talking do not involve producing a report and that at the end of the day one person's view about what they hear is as good as another?

I have already heard the Deputy.

I make that point because a report will not be produced.

I am mindful of that.

Let us hear the Deputy in possession.

I listened with interest to Deputy Gilmore's contribution, particularly what he said about accountability and quickly producing the more substantive legislation on competence and compellability of witnesses, etc. If the omens are correct I may be asking him from the opposite side of the House about his promises and commitments in that regard.

The Minister may have got the omens wrong.

They may be wrong but I was speaking in the context of them being right. Deputy Gilmore said that we should not blame each other for the conclusion and the débacle here on Wednesday and I agree. However, his remarks are strangely at odds with the statement by his party leader on television that night, when, twice, he blamed Fianna Fáil for the position, and accused its members of filibustering.

The Deputy should not tempt me to agree with him.

I take what the Deputy said today as repudiation of that comment and I am glad he has withdrawn it.

No, it is not. I agree with him.

That is very provocative.

Deputy Gilmore disagreed with his party leader five minutes ago and now he is agreeing with him.

I did not disagree with him.

Deputy Gilmore should not blame him and then later agree with him. Our objective on this side is to get at the truth as speedily as possible. That is why we proposed an alternative procedure on Tuesday which we consider would have been more effective in achieving that objective. However, the House, in its wisdom, decided to proceed in this manner and we accept its ruling.

The history of events is well known. As the committee was beginning its deliberations on Wednesday morning, the secretary to the Government received correspondence, with certain requests, from the Attorney General. Having reflected on the matter at lunchtime the Attorney General decided that one of those requests could only be met by way of resolution of this House. Accordingly, we drafted this legislation. Yesterday, our party leader and Tánaiste, Deputy Ahern, suggested we discuss Second Stage today and reflect on the points over the weekend before Committee Stage. It is precisely because of the difficulties outlined by the various speakers this morning he suggested that procedure and we were wise to adopt it.

The first request by the Attorney General was absolute privilege, but that request has been modified to the privilege that extends to witnesses in High Court proceedings.

And rightly so.

I have not had much opportunity to study the Bill but, having regard to the Attorney General's advice, it seems that the privilege in question is some type of hybrid between "qualified" and "absolute" privilege, something more than qualified but not absolute. We will have to examine its parameters between now and Tuesday to determine what it entails. When the request was made initially by the Attorney General we wanted to accede because we wanted the committee to proceed with its work but we were concerned as to whether we could grant what he wanted because of constitutional problems outlined of which we were cognisant.

Deputies will be aware that under Article 15 of the Constitution Members who speak in this House are absolutely privileged in relation to anything they say. This Bill extends something less than absolute privilege to each and every witness, albeit witnesses who come before this committee for its duration. We have to consider whether we can do that constitutionally, particularly in view of Article 43.2º of the Constitution which obliges the State to have laws on its Statute Book to enable people to vindicate their good name. This gives rise to very serious considerations and the initial legislation produced by the non-Fianna Fáil Members of the House falls short of the constitutional obligations in Article 43.2º.

Because we want matters to proceed and to get at the truth of this matter as soon as possible, we have introduced, on the advice of the Attorney General, a number of modifications with one objective, to make the legislation as safe as we can within the obligations laid down by the Constitution. The Fianna Fáil Party and the Attorney General are trying to make the legislation as invulnerable as possible to constitutional challenge, not for the reason of selfpreservation but to ensure that witnesses coming before the committee — I envisage a broad range of witnesses will be called — will voluntarily come forward, because there is no compellability, to tell the truth, without fear or favour, regardless of who may suffer. That is our sole motivation in introducing these modifications to the scheme as originally proposed by Opposition members.

We have introduced three modifications. One is modifying absolute privilege to that granted to a High Court witness. The second is that instead of applying the provisions of the legislation to all committees they will terminate within a year. I do not know how that would operate in practice because a committee could be in the middle of its deliberations when its privilege for witnesses under the legislation would be due to expire. Also we have included what the Attorney General regards as being necessary to meet the requirements of constitutional justice as outlined by the Supreme Court in the Haughey case. I agree with virtually everything Deputies Gilmore, McDowell, O'Donnell and others said about the complexity of sections 3 and 4 and their implications for the proper functioning of this committee because our objective is to get at the truth as quickly as possible. I share the reservations of the Deputies opposite and between now and Tuesday we will have to examine the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Haughey case in minute detail to consider whether all those measures are necessary; whether that judgment obliges us to have the cumbersome procedure of taking endless statements and circulating them to numerous people. It would be farcical to allow witnesses who come before the committee to retain lawyers. That would be absurd and not what was intended. We must examine all those matters to ensure this Bill is as invulnerable as possible to constitutional challenge so that witnesses will come forward and tell the truth. We have to consider between now and Committee Stage on Tuesday whether this massive cumbersome procedure, which has been inserted in the Bill on the advice of the Attorney General, is necessary.

Everyone must consider those issues.

When I said "we", I was referring to the membership of Dáil Éireann. I want to restate Fianna Fáil's position on this matter. There is no compellability for witnesses. We want everyone who is requested to come forward to do so. As Deputies correctly pointed out, there is no obligation on anybody to answer every question asked — they can refuse to do so. We want to persuade people that this Bill is invulnerable to constitutional challenge in so far as that can be achieved. We want people to feel free to answer all questions put to them in a truthful, honest and open manner. Our objective is to get at the truth and, as a colleague of mine said yesterday, "the unvarnished truth". Fair-minded people, who reflect on the political aspects of this matter, will admit that it is as much, if not more, in Fianna Fáil's interest to ensure that the truth emerges as soon as possible. Truth — unlike justice — will not necessarily be denied because it is delayed.

I think it was the great poet and master of the English language, John Keats, who once wrote: "Truth is beauty, beauty truth: that is all you need to know for that is all there is to know." In that context I firmly believe that the people are not only entitled to expect the truth but that the truth must be given to them plainly and simply by this House, which is the centre of our democracy. Representatives are not here on their own account; they are here to represent the people. It is extremely important that the powers of this House be strengthened to enable it to get the truth at all times. In this respect the legislation will help this democratic institution. As will be apparent, there is open conflict within the Executive regarding events in recent weeks. The people are entitled to expect that this House will be in a position to exercise its democratic function by presenting them with the whole story.

A suggestion was made that perhaps the best way to proceed is to request a senior judicial figure to investigate the events of recent weeks. There was a very strong argument behind that proposal. I now believe that we have, unfortunately, entered a legal quagmire. For example, questions could be raised on the constitutionality of this Bill. One could certainly argue that if the Bill granted absolute privilege, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional because of the citizen's right to the protection of his good name under Article 40 of the Constitution.

That is what I said the other day.

In this respect privilege extended to Members of the House under Article 15 of the Constitution is necessitous so that the democratic function can be properly exercised. In the same way, in the exercise of democracy committees of the House also have privilege under the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Privilege and Procedures) Act, 1976.

The Bill guarantees and underpins the constitutional rights of persons who may be accused of wrongdoing. I do not believe any witness would have appeared if this Bill had not been introduced, whatever about its constitutionality. The Attorney General has done this House and the public a great and distinguished service by bringing this matter to their notice. Any fair-minded person, irrespective of political persuasion, would accept that what happened here on Wednesday, was an absolute charade and a shambles. Most of the Members of this House, excludiny yourself, Sir, could — some did, in theory — become self-appointed senior counsel. It is not in the interests of getting to the bottom of this entire saga that 165 practising politicians would become self-appointed senior counsel and examine and cross-examine witnesses. If that occurred and I have little doubt it would take Solomon to answer all the questions and he would be sitting in that seat for about two years before we would proceed to the next Solomon.

In those circumstances it is crucially important to have a tight rein on the questioning. It might be fair to put forward the proposition that the Select Committee on Legislation and Security should be the investigating authority or body and that in this respect the committee would draw up rules of procedure to ensure we would not have a repeat of the débacle in this House on Wednesday.

This legislation and this matter has brought to light something many of us believed for years. The Attorney General is seeking privilege before agreeing to be examined by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security and he is perfectly correct because if our draconian libel laws did not render him vulnerable — I believe they would not — in all probability they might render some other witness vulnerable to an action taken by somebody outside the House. In this context there is an urgent need — many informed commentators agree — to look again at the draconian defamation laws.

Like other speakers, I sincerely hope that witnesses will not come in here complete with legal teams. It would be preferable if a senior counsel sat alongside the chairman and advised him on any improper line of questioning of witnesses by Members of the committee. In this way the witness would get a fair hearing, fair questions would be asked and there would be no witch-hunt.

I have a reservation on the constitutionality of the Bill, but whatever mechanism is required to get the truth must be used. If this House fails to get to the truth of what happened in recent weeks, the democratic institutions of the State will have been undermined. I wish to say on behalf of my parliamentary colleagues, on my own behalf and, I am sure, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party throughout the country, that we want the truth; we want the entire story. Nothing less will be accepted by the people, it is the very least to which they are entitled.

I wish to share my time with my colleague. Deputy Browne.

I am sure that is satisfactory. Agreed.

I wish to avoid repeating points made by other speakers but I want to address certain aspects of this Bill, particularly an issue central to this debate. I want to go back to the start of this matter without going into the tortured history of it. Ultimately, the job of the select committee will be to take the statements of those who have been involved in the events of recent days, to ask questions and to get answers. The select committee is also designed to ensure proper accountability to this House by Ministers for their actions. I listened with interest to Deputy Dempsey's speech. While I accept some of the points he made and that some of the issues he raised are worthy of discussion not alone today but on other occasions, including the question of how we should deal with the committee system in the future, I found his speech to be a very sad one and I say that without acrimony. I found it sad because it seems that he has failed to understand the central point, which is the responsibility of the Government to be accountable to this House and the responsibility of the Taoiseach and Ministers when asked questions to give a full and truthful account of events in which they have been involved and for which they are constitutionally responsible to the House.

The Minister of State in his speech mentioned that a decision had been made by Opposition parties "to operate the mechanics of the committee system as nothing more than an instrument of partisan conflict." That is an outrageous charge. I do not take the Minister of State as being an unintelligent person; he is an able Member of this House but it is extraordinary at a time when members of his own party, such as Deputy Burke, are calling for the unvarnished truth that he cannot come to terms with the reality that contradictory stories have been told in this House by the Taoiseach and Ministers about events which took place over a series of four days, that their accounts are mutually contradictory and inconsistent and fly in the face substantially of the account of the Attorney General. There is a constitutional duty imposed on this House to find out the true position.

The Minister of State made reference to a witchhunt. No one is engaged in a witchhunt. Are we to believe that Members of this House are engaged in a witchhunt if we seek to make the Government accountable as we are required to do by the Constitution and raise reasonable questions that we are entitled to ask when there are blatant inconsistencies in what Ministers are telling the House? That is to miss the point. If the select committee that has been appointed to deal with this matter raises those questions it will not be engaged in a witchhunt; it will be acting as the agent of this House the Members of which are elected by the people to ensure that the Government is held accountable for its actions. If we had anything less democracy would be at serious risk. Instead of this Parliament acting properly as a democratic chamber it would be a mere charade, window-dressing, to give a stamp of authenticity to Governments which felt they could operate, in the manner the Government treated this House — with contempt. While I find many things in Deputy Dempsey's speech——

The Minister of State.

——that are not controversial and need to be debated, on the central issue that is of concern there is a failure to appreciate the serious implications of what has occurred.

There is something in his speech which gives rise to considerable concern. No other speaker has highlighted this. We should have clarification. When he appeared before this House on Wednesday the Attorney General informed us that he had certain requirements, one of which was that he be conferred with absolute privilege. As other Members have said, this legislation provides for privilege for witnesses but not absolute privilege. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, also referred to this matter in his speech.

The speech of the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, contains a quote from the Attorney General's document which was leaked last night and which reads as follows:

The Bill in its initial form contained a basic provision giving witnesses the same privilege afforded to witnesses giving evidence in the High Court. This is not an absolute privilege.

Is the Minister of State telling the House that, even if this Bill is enacted, the present Attorney General will not give evidence before the House or the select committee or answer questions put to him or is the Attorney General, in the leaked statement included in the newspapers today, telling not alone this House but the people that because this Bill will not afford him absolute privilege he will not be in a position to answer questions? That is a fundamental question that no one has raised. The Attorney General who has sought absolute privilege has advised that this legislation does not provide it. The Attorney General who has behaved honourably has said that without absolute privilege he is not answering questions or making a statement. I do not think anyone has as yet understood the importance of this. I would like that matter clarified before the day is out.

There has been much talk, during the shambles on Wednesday and today in a more ordered way, about the Haughey case and the need for natural justice. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, fairly raised issues, as did other speakers, including the need to examine that case carefully to ensure that, instead of getting answers to questions, we do not end up with a legal circus. I am anxious to ensure we do not end up in such a position but I am also anxious to ensure that the select committee performs its function properly and that questions are answered.

In a sense the select committee is being asked to do what the committee in the United States which dealt with the Watergate issue was asked to do. In dealing with that issue members of the United States Senate were empowered to ask questions about events which had occurred. In this context we are asking a select committee to ask questions about events which have occurred and which, on a political level in a democracy, are at the same level as the Watergate scandal in the United States. If I were to coin a brief description of what has happened during the past three weeks in the context of the behaviour of Fianna Fáil Ministers I would term it "Merriongate", the exact equivalent of Watergate. It is a landmark in Irish politics of a failure by Government Ministers to account democratically and truthfully for events which have occurred.

We do not know the answers to the questions. The Deputy sees people as being guilty even before the select committee sits.

It is the equivalent in the Irish political system of Watergate.

This is grossly unfair. The purpose of the select committee is to establish the facts, not to hang people before it sits. That is a regrettable comment.

We should confine our remarks to the measure before the House. We should not anticipate the committee procedure or the committee that is in operation, if that is the position.

In relation to the Haughey case, the position should be clarified in the following way. As we are aware, the former Attorney General and the present Attorney General are not seeking legal representation. We are entitled to know whether the Taoiseach or any Cabinet Minister will be seeking legal representation. This issue differs substantially from the judgment in the Haughey case, Irish Reports 1971, which was dealt with both in the High Court and the Supreme Court.

In that case the Supreme Court took the view that Mr. Jock Haughey, who was before a committee of this House and has been asked to deal with specific issues, was more than a witness, that he was a party and if the allegation against him was substantiated criminal charges could follow. He was not therefore a witness being asked questions but someone at risk of criminal charges. He was not a Member of this House, a major and important distinction.

There is a question of any of those we have asked to attend as witnesses before the select committee being guilty of criminal conduct; such issue does not arise. In the context of Cabinet Ministers, it is not a question of criminal conduct but rather political accountability, no more and no less, for events which have taken place. This is an entirely different issue from the one which arose in the Haughey case. The Haughey case was used by the Attorney General, no doubt in good faith, in the presentation he made on the need to deal with the issues of natural justice. A Member of this House who is a Minister is accountable to this House. Under our Constitution, Members have a constitutional right on behalf of the people to put questions to the Taoiseach and Cabinet Ministers with regard to their conduct. That constitutional right vested in Members is conferred on them by the electorate. It is a sacred duty of Members, on the Opposition side in particular, to ensure that Government is accountable.

In the Haughey case, these issues were never raised because they were of no relevance as the person who went before the High Court and the Supreme Court in those proceedings was an unelected individual who was asked to give evidence on a matter which left him open to criminal charges if a particular view was taken. There is a major constitutional and legal difference in this area but it has not been considered or debated by this House and it is of crucial importance in how we proceed. The same can be said for all the nonpolitical witnesses who may be asked to come before the committee, whether officials in the Attorney General's office or others. The issue of their being liable for any charges does not arise. They should be asked questions so that events can be pieced together and the truth unravelled in the same manner as occurs in the Committee of Public Accounts.

Between now and Tuesday we should look very carefully at this matter. I do not believe it is desirable that we have a panoply of lawyers at committee sittings. That will not work. I also share the view that we should not have committees with 35 Members asking questions as that is not appropriate. It is of crucial importance that we fine tune this Bill to get things done so that all sides of the House can ensure that the truth comes out and that we fully and properly perform our constitutional duty and represent the concerns expressed by an overwhelming majority of Irish people.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I cannot understand why witnesses have to have the protection of law and the Attorney General has had to have privilege when we are investigating. Deputy Shatter has been able to clarify the difference between this case and the precedent set by the Haughey case where criminal charges could follow. I congratulate him on doing so. We have taken from the dignity of this House by failing to have committees that are able to act.

Even if this legislation is passed I think the Select Committee on Legislation and Security will be hamstrung from the word go. The witnesses may have legal advisers who may tell them that they need not answer. In the course of his speech the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, said:

What the change means is that the free ranging, spontaneous line of questioning initiated by a member as the spirit moves him or her has to be reviewed — so that a witness has a clear indication of the matters about which he or she is to be questioned.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if I ask a question arising from what has been said I may be told that I am outside the scope of what is going on. There is no end to the knots we will get ourselves into. If I ask a question that is unfair to the witness, he or she has the right to reply and refute what I have said. We are making mountains out of molehills. We cannot ask the witnesses what happened. I agree that this Chamber was a most unsuitable setting for Tuesday's committee meeting. All that was needed was a few lions roaming around between the seats. It did not lend itself to any kind of reason.

People can have two different views on the system. On the question of the order of witnesses I had clear thoughts on who should follow whom but the Government held a different view. It is very difficult to reach agreement and we need to have a smaller committee. The Committee on Legislation and Security should have met where it normally meets and things would have been under more control. The range of people offering made the Chairman's task almost impossible.

The question of natural justice has come to the fore. There is no reason that natural justice should not come to the defence of everybody questioned by a committee. As I mentioned earlier, the Committee of Public Accounts calls people to appear before it and the protection of natural justice should have been afforded to everybody investigated in the past. It does not apply only in this case.

We are offering to pay the costs of legal advisers to witnesses and it will resemble a court setting. Our committee should have the power to ask questions without having the proceedings overrun by wigs and gowns. That is something we should avoid like the plague. I hope we will return to a simpler form of investigative committee where everybody enjoys fair play. Questions are asked to establish the facts and people should have the right of reply there and then. Everybody's character has to be protected. I do not want a witch hunt but it is time we arrived at a conclusion.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Dermot Ahern.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I want to give a layman's interpretation of what has been happening. We are trying to utilise common sense to the best of our ability and given that we have embarked on this course of action we should take an optimistic view of what may occur.

This is historic ground breaking legislation and the Dáil is heading towards a new horizon. It is in uncharted territory but that is not something to fear. Every institution has to evolve, mature and grow and while it will have growing pains we should not be afraid.

It is essential that the proceedings arising from the passage of this Bill be conducted in an orderly and responsible manner. If the conclusions reached following this committee of inquiry are to have substance and merit and are worthwhile in their achievements, the way in which the proceedings are conducted must be to the highest possible standards. All Members of this House must keep that to the forefront of their minds. As many speakers said, there can be no repeat of Wednesday's débacle in this House.

Fianna Fáil Members who contributed from these benches during Wednesday's debate were concise and cohesive. There were no lengthy filibustering contributions from the Fianna Fáil benches during that debate and I reject suggestions from other Members that there were.

The alternative to what we are trying to achieve within our own domain if we do not follow this course of action is something akin to another beef tribunal, which would be unacceptable. We are only too aware of the time factors and the costs involved in that tribunal, the unwieldy process and how issues became clouded — perhaps necessarily — in legal jargon, but when it ended the people who wanted the issues clarified were as wise as they were at the beginning. Members do not want a repeat of that.

I will resist any attempt by lawyers to hijack the proceedings upon which we are about to embark in the days ahead. I say that not only to Members but to people outside. These proceedings may be interesting debating points for those in the Law Library, and rightly so, but they should let us get on with the primacy of business which we are conducting within the confines of this Parliament. We do not have to end up in a legal quagmire if everybody takes a responsible and ordered approach to the business we must conduct. Certainly there must be reasonable legal parameters but common-sense must prevail because we want the plain simple truth.

Only the Dáil has absolute privilege under the Constitution. However — and this is important — there is a presumption of constitutionality to all Bills post-1937. If we are to break new ground, we must take a reasonable chance with this Bill and it behoves us to do so. We must have confidence in the Dáil to deal with these matters in breaking new ground and the Oireachtas is entitled to regulate its own affairs. Indeed, the courts have always recognised the inviolability of the Oireachtas. In recent times there were several cases of judicial review arising from the beef tribunal and when they were argued in the courts, the courts took cognisance of parliaments in other jurisdictions. The spirit of this Bill is in keeping with the spirit of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. The indications are clear that witnesses are willing to come before this committee and that is also helpful.

The Fianna Fáil Party, Members of the Opposition, the people who support us and the public are entitled to the truth and it is necessary that all the facts be made available. This point did not arise earlier, and I am not directing it at any individual inside or outside this House, but it strikes me that if anybody giving evidence during the proceedings that will follow the passing of this legislation speaks the truth, they should have no fear of a successful libel action being taken against them. That is an important point which we should all bear in mind. Anyone who speaks the truth can do so with confidence and without fear, but what do we seek? We seek the truth about the delay in the Brendan Smyth case and I reject any suggestion that somehow it was caused politically. Clearly, it was not and we, the representatives of the people, are anxious to determine why a person, who had a record of paedophile activity over such a long period of time, escaped extradition and being dealt with as speedily as possible.

We also want to know the truth about the provision of information in the Duggan case but we want to know whether conflicting information was given to members of the Government. There seems to be a strong indication that was the case. I reject Deputy Shatter's remarks earlier because he introduced a discordant note when he tried to pass judgment, before the proceedings have even begun, on Ministers. I reject an attempt by any Member of this House to do that and similar attempts by some sections of the media who carried the same line into the public domain.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): And one of the Deputy's own last night.

We want to get at the truth.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Amen.

We want the truth about who was informed, precisely what information was given, when, and in what form. We also want to get the truth behind the rumour machine that operates here when Deputy Rabbitte gets into full swing. He stated, in the midst of all these difficulties, that the foundations of the State would be rocked by revelations he believed were on file. Of course, we later found out that that was untrue and without foundation. It is not the first time that such a hand grenade, so to speak, has been dropped by Deputy Rabbitte into this House.

Yet he is complimented in the media.

That is outrageous. Ministers of this party are answerable to the Dáil and they have always answered to this House when questions were raised. There is nothing new about this procedure and we are not seeking to suggest that that has not been the case. It has been the case in regard to Ministers from many parties in this House but, particularly in the present context, the Ministers within this party.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton did not hear the Deputy.

People who are not Ministers are also answerable for the time they were office holders and for events in their time in office. This committee should not and cannot be a tribunal, a court, a star Chamber or a show trial. We are not here to find people guilty, to pass sentence, to pillory anyone or to embark on a witch-hunt. We want to establish the truth in a fair and even way so that nobody jumps to conclusions. Many so-called experts jumped to incorrect conclusions based on partial information. I hope the procedure we have embarked on will stand the test of time and make a fundamental contribution not only to the issue before us but to the workings of the Chamber.

I was one of the first speakers in the debate last Wednesday to raise the issue of how privilege would be adopted in this forum. I referred to the first witness, the Attorney General. At that time I did not know he had already written to the Government indicating his difficulties in this regard. I thank the last speaker for the comments he made about those who contributed on this side of the House. I was accused of filibustering by Deputy Rabbitte here and by Deputy De Rossa on the plinth. I made my point concisely, as I tend to do in the House, unlike others. I said there was extreme difficulty in people being questioned here by, potentially, 165 Members about the events surrounding the last few weeks.

I pointed out in the debate last Wednesday that this motion was railroaded through. I called it a rainbow motion because it was put together by those purporting to put a rainbow coalition together. This first document they put before the House does not augur well for what is ahead of us in the coming months. I say "months" because I am not sure it will last much longer.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Give them time.

Anyone with knowledge of procedure would have known there were extreme difficulties in putting this before the House. You do not need legal training to know that. Many Members opposite talk about civil liberty and claim to be its only guardians, yet they were willing to have a political witch hunt until they realised it would broaden out into something bigger. We made it quite clear when the establishment of the beef tribunal was proposed that there would be severe difficulties in relation to it. We can say we told you so. Last Wednesday we said there would be extreme difficulties in this regard and I hope later on we are not in a position to say "we told you so". I am on record as pointing this out.

Members opposite make great play of the fact that they are the only people in favour of protecting civil liberties. If they form a government I hope their record will be better than it was last Wednesday when they were inclined to take away any vestige of civil liberties from anyone prepared to appear before the committee.

This is an extremely serious matter. It is not a talk show. It is not a "Gay Byrne Show" or Sound Bite, as some prominent Members on the far side of the House would like it to be. This will have extreme implications not only for the reputations of politicians and those who appear before the committee but also for those who may be affected by the evidence given.

Some people suggest that Ministers are not entitled to the same legal rights as every other citizen. Article 40.3.2º of the Constitution states:

The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

It does not exclude ministerial office holders. I vehemently disagree with an article in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times by Mr. Gywnn Morgan who stated that this right should not apply to protect Ministers in their present position. If a school child read the Constitution he could tell him Ministers are as entitled to have their names vindicated as anyone else.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): To answer parliamentary questions.

During the beef tribunal names were bandied about under the protection of absolute privilege. What would happen if, as we propose——

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is not a criminal trial.

I am not against the Bill. We want this matter sorted out and the truth established not only in the interests of my party but the democratic process.

Absolute privilege in the House has been abused over the years by Members who say things here which they are not prepared to repeat outside. I wonder will that happen when this legislation is in place. Will people be able to say anything they like here but not repeat it outside? We should always respect the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle when they implement the rules we put in place. Members have abused the right to absolute privilege. Will witnesses who will have privilege be subject to the same restrictions that the Ceann Comhairle or Leas-Cheann Comhairle would put in place? If Members mention the name of a person the Ceann Comhairle immediately stops the Member. Will that happen to witnesses?

Another issue which is not addressed in the Bill because of its rushed nature is the compellability of witnesses. We are operating on a wing and a prayer. We assume people will appear before the committee but we do not know if they will do so. Perhaps we may wish to call others who have not been listed.

As regards the Chamber being an investigatory body I would have had difficulty with the new programme for government, purported to be put together by Fianna Fáil and Labour, where it referred to a committee of investigation regarding matters of public interest. In other words, we were going to give credence to the accusation often levelled against us on media talk shows that we are a reactive body to public events. Perhaps it is not a bad thing that Fianna Fáil's name will not be on a programme of government which includes that provision. It will be a talk show, transmitted live for everybody to hear.

I have difficulty about the costs issue. That issue was deliberated on in the Haughey case. It signposts the way in which we should proceed and Members might look at that case.

The Attorney General stated he put a document to the Government. Effectively he was trying to break the solicitor-client relationship between himself and the Government. Deputy O'Keeffe is a solicitor and I would have thought he would have known better than to suggest that perhaps individual members of the Government were not entitled to independent legal advice in that regard. If a client went to Jim O'Keeffe or Dermot Ahern as a solicitor and was told the solicitor wanted to repeat outside everything that was said in the room and break the absolute duty of a legal representative to keep confidential the instructions given to him or her by the client, how could anyone prevent the client from going to another solicitor to find out if this was right? That is what Members on the other side of the House seemed to suggest on Wednesday.

On the question of absolute privilege, as Deputy Shatter said, when one looks at the way in which the goal posts have been changed in the past 48 hours one can understand why there was utter confusion at 3 a.m. Absolute privilege is not, as was suggested, within the gift of the Government by written agreement — eventually the penny dropped — or within the remit of Parliament. This is why we have this Bill which, as Deputy O'Dea correctly said, is a hybrid of qualified and absolute privilege. I am not sure whether it is an improvement from the point of view of witnesses who are already entitled to qualified privilege.

Even though it does not confer absolute privilege, the Bill may be open to question. In this context, I disagree with the many points made, some by Members on this side of the House. Articles 15.12 and 15.13 of the Constitution would require amendment to allow non-members the same right as Members of the House. I question whether we could enact legislation which would give us absolute privilege for any remarks we make outside the House. I think not. The converse of this is what we are trying to do, that is give non-members privilege, absolute or otherwise, in the House. We are given absolute privilege under the Constitution and I cannot understand how the legislation will stand up to scrutiny. I hope I am wrong because Members on this side of the House do not want any delay in finding out the truth. I am speaking in particular for the members of Fianna Fáil who are unhappy with the way in which the party has been portrayed in recent weeks.

Under the Bill a person who gives evidence will be entitled to the same privileges enjoyed by them in the High Court. Will witnesses who give evidence in the House require a note to this effect? I wish to quote from the Report of the Committee on the Constitution on Article 15.10, Parliamentary Privilege:

Our Parliament can operate only within the confines laid down in the present Constitution, which was intended to provide the charter for all aspects of public affairs in this country. That Constitution has been very careful to outline detailed provisions about the court system to be established, the procedure for the trial of offences and the fundamental rights of the citizens, including the right to personal liberty and freedom of expression.

That finding copperfastens the view that this privilege can only be granted under the Constitution. Sometimes that 1967 report is referred to with great venom in other contexts. In the Haughey case Cearbhail Ó Dálaigh stated that in proceedings before any tribunal where a party to the proceedings is on risk of having his good name or property or person or any of his personal rights jeopardised, the proceedings may correctly be classed as proceedings which may affect his rights and in compliance with the Constitution the State, either by its enactments or through the courts, must outlaw any procedures which will restrict or prevent the party concerned from vindicating these rights. We do not need any other confirmation that we are entering a minefield with this legislation. As I said on Wednesday, the suggestion made by this side of the House would have been a much better way of finding out the truth, which is what Members on this side of the House want.

As Labour Party whip, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Reference has been made to the public reaction to the performance by members of the Committee on Legislation and Security on Wednesday. I do not agree with the comments made about the chairman of the committee, Deputy Wallace. In his opening remarks he requested the co-operation of all sides in these new and uncharted waters, in deciding how the committee would proceed, in making requests to people to present evidence and in identifying the difficulties with simultaneous broadcasting and the granting of privilege. It is unfair to suggest that he came into the meeting unprepared. The performance of Members during the day did not make his task any easier. Deputy Derek McDowell and I tried to be helpful and immediately acknowledged the assurances by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste that Mr. Fitzsimons would be given the indemnity he had requested.

I welcome Mr. Fitzsimons's decision to come before the committee. It is the first time in the history of the State that an Attorney General has made himself available to a committee of the House. Criticisms have been made of the procedures adopted but it should be pointed out that the House sitting in plenary session could not invite people to make submissions or answer questions. Although we knew there would be difficulties, the committee system was chosen after certain people indicated they would be prepared to attend the meeting. Some witnesses indicated that they were prepared to waive their right to legal representation and other rights so that they would have an opportunity to make statements and answer questions.

When it was pointed out that legislation would be necessary to protect witnesses the Labour Party and other parties indicated that they would be willing to facilitate the introduction of such a Bill. At a Whips meeting later in the day we were informed that while the Bill promised in the Programme for Government was at an advanced stage of preparation it was not completed and that the Taoiseach would make the Heads of the Bill available not only to the Whips but also to other Members if necessary. However, it was felt that this would not meet the immediate needs of the committee which had agreed a report to the Dáil which stated that it could not proceed without granting absolute privilege to its first witness, the Attorney General. The Labour Party was anxious to facilitate the Attorney General and sought the advice of the legal assistance available to it. I compliment the staff in the Bills Office who were prepared to work late that evening, after we had legal assistance, to prepare a Bill supported by all opposition parties to amend the 1976 Act, to extend privilege to witnesses. Under an existing order of this House that Opposition Bill was circulated but the following morning we were pleased to discover the Attorney General had prepared legislation and submitted same to Government. We decided that if the Attorney General felt this legislation would facilitate him to appear before the committee we would be inclined to accept it rather than run with the Labour Party Bill. I am pleased however, that the Attorney General took some of our suggestions on board.

I would remind Deputy Dermot Ahern who suggested the Fianna Fáil Party is not in Government because of a decision to set up an inquiry procedure or an investigation committee, that this was agreed by those charged with the responsibility of forming a Government by their respective political parties. It was agreed that if questions were to be answered properly there would have to be some procedure to enable people to be made aware of all the circumstances surrounding the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, in particular, and the failure to bring the Duggan case to the attention of the House at the appropriate time. It is appropriate to bring this to the attention of people who are trying to excuse themselves for not bringing forward information to the House so that it will not be misled. Some people have been accused of misleading the House and may not yet have had an opportunity to explain themselves. I am not pointing a finger at any person. The Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, wrote to the Attorney General asking for details of the questions raised by the Minister for Justice who had explained all of this on the floor of the House. The first paragraph of that letter states:

Up to approximately midday on Tuesday it was my firm understanding that on that afternoon the Dáil was going to be informed of the Duggan case by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Chief Whip. From such contacts I had had up until that time with all concerned, I had no reason to believe that anyone doubted the simple advice that I had given, namely, that the Smyth case was not the first case in which the section had been considered.

The Attorney General's advice was simple. I do not know how anybody is confused about it. He seemed to be in no doubt about the Duggan case and that people should not say the Smyth case was the first. If we had heard in the House on Tuesday that the Smyth case was not the first case there would have been no justification for the appointment of Mr. Whelehan, which brings us back to where we started. The unforgiveable aspect of all this is that the Taoiseach decided to proceed, in spite of his partner's reservations, with the appointment. If Government is about anything, it is about partnership, agreement, understanding and respect for each other.

And trust, which is a two way process.

The Chief Whip will agree that I was at all times forthcoming and co-operative in my capacity as assistant Whip.

The Deputy is very honourable.

I am available should any Member wish to ask me any questions in the House. We have accepted that the Attorney General's Bill is the better one and we note that it has been extended further. The Labour Party welcomes this Bill. I understand the Minister of State will amend the title of the Bill to extend privilege to committees other than the Select Committee on Legislation and Security or whatever other special committee may be set up.

The House will be aware that legislation on compellability of witnesses, which was a feature of the programme for a partnership Government, was not ready but was at an advanced stage and it was not possible to finalise that legislation before now. This interim Bill is welcome.

Deputy Mervyn Taylor, an expert on legal matters, commented on the first draft of the Bill. Many of the points we raised have been incorporated in it. However, the Attorney General has made a major change in sections 3 and 4 which we saw yesterday by introducing lengthy and detailed new procedures on the rights of witnesses before the committee and the rights of certain other third parties. Deputy Taylor, has already set out the Labour Party's position on this and has drawn attention to a number of practical logistical and legal difficulties in the complex and cumbersome provisions of sections 3 and 4. The Labour Party would like to see amendments considered on Committee Stage next Tuesday.

Yesterday, the Government made available to the Opposition parties a copy of the draft of the broader Bill on privilege. It contains a definition which for some reason is not contained in this Bill but which should be inserted. The broader Bill defines the word "evidence" as including "the expression of an opinion, belief, intention or allegation". Its effect is to extend the definition of privilege to statements which are not evidence in the technical legal sense, but which amount to statements of opinion — a point raised by Deputy McDowell. This definition could avoid legal problems further downstream but I would like to see it incorporated into this Bill if possible.

Section 2 sets out in general terms the entitlement of a witness appearing before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to similar privileges and immunities as a witness appearing before the High Court. Members of the Labour Party are somewhat concerned that the section as drafted appears to give immunity retrospectively to persons who gave evidence to the committee prior to the enactment of the Bill. This section should be amended to make it clear that the privilege will apply only to persons giving evidence after the Bill becomes law.

Sections 3 and 4 set out the complex procedural rights of witnesses and third parties. These new sections, the provisions of which will create major difficulties for a committee of the House as they will confer on witnesses rights that would normally be conferred on members of the committee. When the committee was established, it was up to it, not the House, to summon witnesses. The Bill confers rights on witnesses to summon other witnesses.

Section 3 (1) (a) (i) will allow witnesses to appear before and make submissions to the committee. The Labour Party does not have a difficulty with that, provided it is made clear that right to legal representation will not be appropriate for holders of Ministerial office. In that regard Deputy Ahern quoted the Constitution. Ministers, previous Ministers and Members of the House already have rights, especially in relation to immunity and privilege, which it is frequently claimed are abused. Why is it necessary to extend further privilege to those people? It will seriously undermine the principle of Government responsibility to Dáil Éireann if we concede that Ministers are entitled to legal representation in the exercise of their accountability to the Dáil or a committee of it.

Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) provides that the witness may require the committee to request the attendance of another person or the production of other evidence. That is misconceived and wrong. The decision as to who should call witnesses before it should be a matter for the committee. Section (3) (1) (b) allows witnesses to cross-examine other witnesses; I assume that is inserted for constitutional reasons.

Section 3 (1) (c) provides that, before giving evidence, the witness shall be furnished with statements of evidence to be given by other witnesses. That provision renders the entire Bill unworkable. Who will collect those statements from other witnesses? Who will provide the resources for that purpose? The Department of Finance will have reservations about providing resources or staff to allow such interviews to be conducted. If a person wishes to make a statement voluntarily in advance of the hearing, he or she should be allowed do so. Mr. Fitzsimons was prepared to do that. How will the committee function if, before calling its first witness, it must interview all witnesses? That would be ridiculous and unworkable. The Tánaiste stated yesterday that he was anxious the Bill should be workable so that the committee could carry out its functions properly.

Section 5 makes it mandatory for the Minister for Finance to pay the costs of witnesses. This is unnecessary and wrong. If we are to have provision on costs, it should be discretionary rather than mandatory. I have considerable sympathy with the view that section 5 should be deleted.

The Labour Party will support the Bill on Second Stage, but we will seek appropriate changes to it on Committee Stage next Tuesday. I commend the Second Reading to the House.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Briscoe.

I am sure that is satisfactory. Is that agreed? Agreed.

This debate underlines the fact that what happened here last Wednesday was ridiculous and ill thought out. The decision to ram a motion through the House without thinking through its complications and consequences was ill advised. Fundamental issues are at stake in terms of the Dáil having the capacity to get at the truth in a parliamentary context. The entire modus operandi will have to be revisited and the Dáil will have to re-examine this entire matter. I do not believe a committee such as the Select Committee on Legislation and Security is the proper vehicle for such inquiries. The fact that the committee has 30 members makes it too unwieldy to deal with the matters before it in a sufficient and expeditious manner. Last Wednesday 166 Deputies could have participated in the questioning of witnesses, a recipe for chaos. It was unfair of Deputy Owen to place the blame on the chairman, Deputy Wallace, and I ask her to withdraw the allegation in that regard she made on “Prime Time”. It was not Deputy Wallace who rushed the motion to set up the committee through the House. If there was a lack of preparation and research, responsibility must rest with the sponsors of the motion. A select committee with fewer Members of the House, representative of all parties, would be a far more efficient body for holding such inquiries.

The House has a duty to establish the truth in this matter. It is as much in our interests as it is in the interests of those in Opposition and the public that the unvarnished truth be told, but it must be done in a proper context. We should not ignore the fact that such committees could be motivated by purely political considerations. Deputy Cullen made a worthwhile comment about the way Deputy Rabbitte threw in a hand grenade, as it were, some weeks ago about a letter that would rock the foundation of the State. He did not withdraw it, despite the fact that we had an idea to whom he was referring. The fact that Members can abuse privilege and make irresponsible statements for political purposes is a classic illustration of how the proceedings of a committee can go wrong.

At the committee meeting last Wednesday an argument took place about the sequence in which witnesses would be called, illustrating political motivation and manipulation. Some people wanted certain witnesses called later in the day, but did not explain why. Some suggested that Mr. Matt Russell should be called after the Attorney General, which seemed logical and sequential, but others did not want him to be called before Ministers because that would not suit their line of questioning. I have not received a satisfactory answer from Members opposite as to why they wanted witnesses called in a particular sequence.

The Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, and the Táaiste made it clear that we want to get to the bottom of this matter and this Bill will enable us to set up a procedure by which we can ascertain the facts. In that regard it is welcome, although there are significant limitations to the proposed process.

In dealing with section 3 and the rights of witnesses before the committee we need to be very careful. It is my prediction — and certain Members of the Opposition have already suggested that amendments will be tabled — that in tabling such amendments we must be very careful we do not render the provisions of the Bill constitutionally unsound. There is a very grave danger that, if we tamper with the rights of witnesses, we will be doing so. That aspect is extremely important.

I read yesterday a memorandum the Department of Justice prepared in respect of a longer Bill on compellability and privilege in which that very point was made — that adequate safeguards must be provided to ensure the constitutionality of the Bill bearing in mind Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution dealing with natural rights and the rights of citizens.

If Members were listening to "Morning Ireland" this morning they will have heard the representative of the Association of Higher Civil Servants, Mr. Séan O'Riordan, advance very strong points about the perceived need, from his perspective, to guarantee such rights to his members and to civil servants in general. We must be very careful about those. I did not like the tone of Deputy Gay Mitchell's approach to the matter, which was very derogatory of civil servants. He seemed to be saying: how dare civil servants tell the committee what to do or require the committee to do something. I say he was looking at that from the wrong perspective. The spirit of the section is not about giving extra power to civil servants to dictate or encroach on the powers of the committee but rather deals with civil servants' rights under natural justice and as citizens under the Constitution. As a House of Parliament we can never tamper with such rights and must be very careful if ever we attempt to do so. I accept that it creates difficulties in terms of the mechanics of the exercise but we must be absolutely sure we get the balance right, that we protect citizens' rights, particularly civil servants, and ensure that the Bill itself is constitutionally sound.

Mr. O'Riordan also raised the question of compellability. For example, a witness could give defamatory or wrong evidence about a civil servant and may not make himself of herself available for cross-examination, placing such civil servant in a very difficult position because, if there is not compellability, that witness does not have to reappear to face the committee. In addition, the manner in which the committee will arive at its findings is causing civil servants concern.

I consider it important to raise those issues in the House. The issue of legal representation needs to be further clarified. I disagree with Deputy Ferris that if civil servants are before the committee — if it is within the remit of the committee to call civil servants — they should not have to pay these costs.

They have rights already.

If civil servants come forward to assist the committee the State should meet the costs; that is fair enough.

They have rights already under the 1976 Act.

We are all in favour of freedom of information and free speech. Deputy McDowell said he was in favour of the balance being struck in favour of free speech and not in terms of the protection of the rights of the individual. That is a fundamental issue warranting careful scrutiny.

The reason the compellability issue was not brought before the House was the difficulty vis-àv-vis its constitutionality and so on. We must remember the reason we are here debating this Bill is that the Attorney General, who was the first witness, made it very clear that he wanted privilege and certain protections. As Deputy John O'Donoghue said, it is as well he did seek such protection because, in so doing, he has provided a service to the House itself.

I agree with other speakers about the absolute need for other Dáil reform in respect of which our party has not been slow. For example, we were the first to advocate a fundamental, root and branch reform of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. Our party leader led the way in that respect. All parties bear some responsibility for the manner in which the House has evolved as a democratic institution and in which parliamentary questions are answered. We had Fine Gael and Labour Ministers in the seventies and early eighties, but the culture did not really change in terms of answers to parliamentary questions. There was no great difference in that respect no matter who was in power. Indeed it could be said that in the past two to three years there has been a significant improvement in the clarity of answers, replies no longer being economic with information and there has been more information forthcoming. As I said, all parties must bear some responsibility for the manner in which this institution has evolved since the foundation of the State.

I want significant and fundamental Dáil reform. I want more legislative powers for committees of the House and for Members themselves. Members should see legislation at an early stage, the heads of all Bills should be laid before a committee of the House and Members should engage in a brainstorming session with civil servants in attendance to take on board the views of Members of the committee, bring forward a draft, which Members should sift through, and have that draft returned to the parliamentary draftsman so that Members would actually engage in legislating as opposed to receiving fait accompli legislation on the floor of the House and merely tabling minor amendments thereto.

When this exercise is over, this House needs to examine fundamentally this entire process, re-examine its capacity to hold inquiries of this sort within the context of the separation of powers and so on.

I am grateful to Deputy Martin for sharing his time.

I participated in the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts of 1970 and have some experience of how such committees work. From that experience I know that witnesses were allowed to literally say anything they wanted and it was extremely difficult to cross-examine a witness and to expose the credibility of such witness, as anybody reading through the reports of those proceedings will know. One particular witness — who had a dreadful record — made appalling allegations, totally unsubstantiated, against certain Members of this House but it was almost impossible to get that on the record because the then Chairman ruled that a witness could not be cross-examined on his credibility.

Subsequently when Mr. Jock Haughey came before the committee he challenged its constitutionality. At that time I had very good friends in the legal profession. They told me, in very blunt words: "Get the hell off that committee, it is unconstitutional; not only have you been warned that it is unconstitutional but, once you have been warned that it is unconstitutional, if you subsequently libel that witness, it is possible you might find yourself guilty of libel". That was the advice given me by a very eminent senior counsel. I did not resign from that committee but made my case for withdrawing from it and I told them my reasons for so doing. I said our first obligation here is to uphold the Constitution. I said that if we were directly accused of breaching that constitutionality, we had no alternative but to adjourn until such time as the court decided whether we were behaving in an unconstitutional manner. As the House will be aware, the High Court found that we were not behaving in a constitutional manner but the Supreme Court overruled that judgment. That was 24 years ago and nothing has been done since to regularise that position. Therefore, we have an obligation to ensure we are behaving in a constitutional manner now.

If one witness comes before this committee and challenges its constitutionality we shall have to await the outcome of a judgment, possibly, of the Supreme Court, on whether we are behaving in a constitutional manner. If, on receiving this Bill for signature, the President has any doubt whatsoever about its constitutionality, I have no doubt she will refer it to the Supreme Court. The important thing is that we proceed in a manner to ensure that we can get to the truth.

Some people in the media reporting events appear to want to find us on this side of the House guilty before we are even judged, they are not even waiting for members to appear before the committee. I question the credibility of some commentators because of their political affiliations, with which everybody will be familiar. I wonder to what extent they are being absolutely fair. For example, in this morning's Irish Independent there is an article by Brian Dowling, entitled “Key Whelehan meeting omitted from Dáil Letter”, carrying a paragraph of a letter from Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, the Attorney General which it was alleged was deleted from the version circulated in the Dáil. Yet the Attorney General has not yet given evidence to the committee — whether he will I do not know — and so cannot be asked: “Did you write that paragraph? Was it in the letter? Did you write it in one letter and then withdraw it and write another letter? Were you told to leave it in or take it out?” Those are the questions which need to be asked.

When I was interviewed last night about Deputy Burke's fears, I said I would certainly share them if he was right. Being naturally optimistic I thought all the facts had been revealed. I said that if I was wrong and Deputy Burke's worst fears were realised I would feel very deceived and angry. Before 1 p.m. today I gave a radio interview but the subsequent message broadcast on different networks that I, with other backbenchers, was calling for the heads of Ministers was untrue. When I telephoned the radio station and explained the position the interviewer agreed to correct the matter but the 2 o'clock news was the same, that I was calling for resignations.

The Deputy has a remedy for that.

Every word buys another word. I stand over what I said, that it is very bad if information has not been revealed. I am as anxious as the Government and all Fianna Fáil backbenchers to get to the truth of this matter. However, we must be careful when we proceed that the first witness who challenges the constitutionality of this committee does not succeed in bringing it to a halt. That may happen. If the Attorney General were to say next week that he would be happier if he could test the constitutionality of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security in the Supreme Court, that would give rise to further delays. From experience I know that our original proposal for investigating the charges in question was better than the way we are proceeding. We should be careful that this committee does not descend into a kangaroo court. I do not believe that people who are not elected to this House should have a right to appear before that committee and make whatever allegations they wish. The Bill provides that a witness, speaking under privilege, can say anything about a Member which may not relate to the matter into which we are inquiring. We must be careful in that regard; the Bill is being introduced with too much haste.

A few weeks ago Deputy Bruton was in deep trouble in a parliamentary context when his Front Bench spokesperson, Deputy Yates, said he, Deputy Bruton, might have to consider his position. I, and I am sure the public, can understand Fine Gael's anxiety to discredit Fianna Fáil and get into Government, but I remind all Members that the Irish; who as a nation have suffered injustice for years, have an innate sense of justice. I alert the Opposition to the fact that the public react when they see something going too far in one direction.

The whole débacle is most unfortunate and most people, with the exception of a few, are unhappy about it. I hope the committee's proceeding will be civilised. I note there are 12 Members on the Committee of Public Accounts. I was not reappointed to that committee.

The Deputy would be most welcome; he may be elected chairman of it.

The Select Committee on Legislation and Security, with a membership of 30, will be unworkable. I cannot see it completing its examination in a short time.

I am concerned that witnesses at that committee may be permitted to speak on any issue and that if a witness challenges this Bill it will result in the work of that committee being delayed. The President may decide to refer this Bill to the Supreme Court because of the position in which it places Members of the House and witnesses. If a witness challenges the constitutionality of that committee Members of the House may not be protected by privilege because they may be held to have breached that person's constitutional rights. That may be a good case to argue in court. The Constitution confers privilege on us and we must be careful what we say. It may well be considered that we were in breach of the Constitution.

I am delighted to have had an opportunity to speak on this matter and while I wish the committee, of which I am a member, every success I am doubtful about it being the correct forum for getting to the bottom of this matter.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

I am sure that is agreed.

This legislation, which has been promised for some time, has had a long gestation period. As a member of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies which regularly reviews State bodies, I understand the need for it. The chairman of that committee must warn witnesses from State-sponsored bodies who appear before it that they do not enjoy the privilege of Members of Dáil Éireann. It would be incorrect to state that the Bill is perfect. There are potential hazards in its provisions. Following the beef tribunal it was stated that if that matter had been properly investigated in the Dáil the tribunal would not have been necessary and such investigations in future should be carried out by the Dáil and not by way of tribunal. Members of the legal profession were the main beneficiaries of the beef tribunal and, having regard to the Attorney General's advice on the course we should chart for the future it is likely they will be the main beneficiaries in our inquiry.

An investigative approach requiring witnesses to attend before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security may take a long time. The sequence of events evolving from the Brendan Smyth case and recent revelations may mean that the Committee could spend some weeks in its deliberations. With the media involved in reporting the meetings of the committee there are hazards to be overcome. Witnesses who make allegations before that committee, some possibly with substance can claim privilege. The media reporting and the inquiry may continue for some time. As it may be some time before a witness who is the subject of allegations, appears before that committee much damage may have been done to that person's character. If allegations made are subsequently found to be incorrect following the examination of the witness who is the subject of them, the media may not focus on retracting them.

There are hazards associated with an inquiry which continues for some time. On occasion when witnesses refused to divulge information to the Joint Committee of Commercial State-sponsored Bodies — RTE was a classic example — members focused on the salaries of specific individuals in that organisation. The information was not divulged for whatever reason. However, the salaries of politicians are known. I was upset recently when media attention focused on the salary increases awarded to Ministers and the increase of 3 per cent awarded to Members which was based on an agreement dating back to 1992. All public representatives were ridiculed in local and national media. Our salary is a matter of public information, but when similar data is requested of State sponsored bodies it is not forthcoming. Yet those media people are at times the scourage of politicians in terms of being critical of the amount of money we earn. I do not intend to argue here as to whether we are worth our money; the public know the number of hours a politician works.

There is genuine public interest in what we are doing here. The buzzwords in this Chamber in recent times have been "accountability" and "transparency". It is only right that the public should focus on us, but my concern is that, in public attention being focused on this Chamber in future some people may be unfairly hurt.

Considering the limitations on committees, such as the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies who invite people for questioning, they are successful. Probably the most interesting experience I had in recent times was the questioning of members of Aer Lingus on the TEAM controversy. In that case both trade union and management officials were subject to much scrutiny. Indeed the inquiry could have gone on much longer. Committees will probably function better given the extra strengths regarding witnesses, but I would enter the caveat to which I have referred.

The debate on this Bill relates to the most important development in Dáil reform for decades. The debate generally has been very low key but it is very momentous. Thankfully it has none of the high drama of recent weeks. The decisions taken on this Bill will affect the development of parliamentary democracy for generations. Because of the lack of development of our committee system, parliamentary democracy has become increasingly ramshackle and has not kept pace with modern developments.

There are two separate aspects that need to be considered. First is what I would refer to as the substantive issue, which is separate from the procedural issue. On the substantive issue we want to know why there was such an appalling delay in the Attorney General's office in dealing with the Smyth case. Considering all the inquiries and all the verbiage so far, I still do not know the answer to that question. We also want to know the full circumstances surrounding the appointment of Harry Whelehan as President of the High Court and his subsequent resignation. We were not given the truth and do not know the full facts of the case. We also want to know the full facts that led to the obvious misleading of the Dáil in the middle of November. That collective package is what I refer to as the substantive issue.

We are focusing today on the procedural side. I do not believe we will get real answers to the substantive issue unless the procedures are right. It is salutary for us to consider the failure over the years on the part of all of us in this House to tackle the problem of procedures. It is an indictment of all of us and I spread the blame evenly. We have had ample time to take action in this regard. For example, there was the arms trial almost 25 years ago, the Haughey case that went to the High Court and, I think, the Supreme Court in 1971, and the phone tapping case that was referred to the Committee of Public Accounts many years ago, yet we have not focused our minds on developing the appropriate procedures to deal with these matters. To a large degree we relied on well-known tried and true procedures such as Dáil Questions, Adjournment debates and so on, but it is clear these have not been adequate. We must properly develop our procedures in regard to committees.

On Tuesday last we made the decision in the Dáil to refer to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security certain issues, essentially the substantive issues to which I have referred. The question arises of whose responsibility it was to ensure that these issues would be properly dealt with. I believe it was the responsibility of all of us, of the Government and Opposition, of every member of the committee. In my speech on Tuesday I referred to these difficulties, to the need to have ready a list of witnesses so that people could be notified and for documents to be organised and available to members of the committee.

I also mentioned to the chairman of the committee — I am not breaching a confidentiality — that he should take proper advice to ensure that he would be in a position to deal with the kind of questions I anticipated would be raised. I make no criticism of Deputy Dan Wallace, chairman of the committee. He did the best he could. I do not believe my colleague, Deputy Owen, intended criticism when she gave a gentle remainder to Deputy Wallace of his duties as chairman when she spoke recently about the matter on television. The proper procedures were not in place. Sufficient thought and consideration had not been given to them and unfortunately what developed in the committee on Wednesday was akin to a bear garden. However let us put that behind us and learn from it. Out of that chaos and bewilderment let us develop a realisation of the procedural difficulties and give a firm commitment to ensure that those difficulties will be resolved.

I was very glad that at the committee on Wednesday the Attorney General referred to his problems, which of course would also arise for anyone else appearing before the committee. There was a reaction of confusion to the points raised by the Attorney General. Ultimately, in a round-about, blundering way a conclusion was reached, that we needed legislation, and I am glad we are focusing on that legislation today. It would have been helpful if at an early stage in the committee on Wednesday focus was placed on the need for legislation and that there had been more discussion on that net point.

Consideration should be given to the fact that committees will not operate properly unless there is available to them proper legal advice. One may say that the Attorney General can provide that advice, but the Attorney General is the law officer to the Government and, unlike the position in the UK, he is not the law officer to the Dáil or the committees thereof. Legal advice should be available to the committees of this House; otherwise we will continue to run into problems.

When the resources of the Members of the House, lawyers, the Attorney General and everybody involved were focused on this problem, it produced results. But it took 25 years to get results. I think it was Johnson who said that nothing concentrates the mind more than the knowledge that you will be hanged in the morning. It was not a question of the Government or members thereof being hanged in the morning; it was a question of a deadline being met, and thankfully that has been done.

In dealing with the Bill reference has been made to the culture of secrecy. My colleague, Deputy Finucane, said that figures were not disclosed to the Committee of Public Accounts — he referred particularly to Gay Byrne's salary. I do not mind how much Gay Byrne earns — that is his own business to some degree — but there is a duty on the part of people who earn money from the public purse to disclose the amount involved and on those who pay out of the public or semi-State purse to answer those questions. Let me take Gay Byrne's salary as an example. In so far as this is paid from the public purse, it should be made known, on inquiry, to the Committee of Public Accounts or otherwise. So far as his private earnings are concerned, that is his own business.

The Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies.

I stand corrected; Deputy Mitchell's committee has not focused on this issue.

I do not blame public servants for the culture of secrecy; they inherited it but it is up to us to give them a lead. The message must go out that this culture of secrecy which has enveloped the State and all its institutions and systems must be rolled back and we must let in the light.

Reference has been made to the libel laws. As we are aware, the media has encountered problems in this regard. There is no simple answer, but we are not here to provide simple solutions. The Law Reform Commission has produced a report; and if that issue has to be tackled by a committee or on a consultative basis first, so be it. This matter should not continue in the same way as we have allowed the procedural problem to continue for so long.

Reference has been made to tribunals of inquiry. I do not believe judges should solve the problems of parliamentarians; there should be a separation of powers. We all know of the difficulties encountered by tribunals of inquiry. Apart from the question of enormous delays there is also, more importantly, the question of cost. The answer is not to refer matters to a tribunal of inquiry and then to complain about the cost. The day to complain about the cost of the beef tribunal was the day it was set up. We had enough examples — the tribunal of inquiry into the Whiddy Island disaster and the Kerry Babies case. Does anyone remember what these cases were about at this stage? However, they do remember the cost. We should have known how much the beef tribunal would cost rather than complain afterwards about it. We should look ahead and ensure that we develop our procedures in such a way that they will not lead to such appalling costs. We should develop our parliamentary system accordingly.

In relation to the procedures, the practicalities need to be worked out in advance, otherwise I foresee appalling problems. This should not be done in a beer garden atmosphere. There are solutions, but they are not simple and they should be worked out before the committee deals with the substantive business.

There are a number of other issues I will deal with on Committee Stage, but I wish to refer to the question of costs. It is very easy to say that there should be no costs and that people should pay for their own legal advice. Some people may not be able to afford to pay for this advice. Would they be placed at a disadvantage? The simple answer may not be the correct one. There are problems in relation to who will settle the costs. This issue should be teased out on Committee Stage.

For every complex problem there is a simple solution which does not work. We should work together to ensure that a workable and constitutional Bill is put in place so that, without the need for a kangaroo court or Star Chamber, we can establish the truth and clear the matter up once and for all.

I wish to share my time with Deputies de Valera and Callely.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this Bill the purpose of which is to establish the truth. It has been claimed on several occasions that this would not be in the interests of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is in our interests that the whole unvarnished truth is established. It is critical in terms of the credibility of the party that all relevant information in this sorry affair be made known. Fianna Fáil will bear the brunt of any failure to do so. No one should under-estimate the determination of my colleagues and I to ensure, whatever the cost, that this affair is put behind us.

As a Parliament, we are not equipped to undertake the inquiry needed. Legislation in this area has been considered since 1976. The need for such legislation has been identified on numerous occasions at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts. Dáil Éireann must accept collective responsibility for its failure to produce legislation which would have allowed us to deal with the matter before us. I agree wholeheartedly with what the previous speaker, Deputy O'Keeffe, had to say in this respect. This Bill which has been published by the Government marks an attempt to remedy the situation. Issues of the highest and lasting consequences must be resolved before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security proceeds to carry out its investigation.

Is this committee geared to conduct such an investigation? As structured it has potential to be a kangaroo court. It is unfair that witnesses will be open to questioning by 165 Deputies each of whom may have several questions. The select committee must urgently regulate its own affairs. Will it be limited to the spokespersons, a certain number of Deputies or a free for all? For instance, who will summarise, pronounce guilt or innocence or will everyone, as heretofore, be a judge?

Any witness called before a committee of the House will be required to tell the truth. Unlike Members of the House, they will not have immunity from being sued for what they may say in truthful evidence. Another imperative need must be balanced against the obvious need to provide for immunity. Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to protect their good name. Parliamentary immunity granted willy nilly has the potential to be a slanderer's charter. There is no means by which we can remedy abuse. As a Legislature, we have a duty to all the people and we must be mindful of our responsibility to protect the good name of every person who may be mentioned in evidence. I am thinking here especially of those who are not Members of the House. There is a long established convention in Dáil Éireann, with good reason, that persons who cannot defend themselves may not be named.

One of the options is to grant indemnity but not immunity to witnesses. This would serve to protect persons outside the House but witnesses may also find themselves involved in a lengthy legal process. Any subsequent action for slander would be a trial within a trial and constitute interference by the Judiciary in the remit of the Legislature. Given their extreme anxiety about the separation of powers this would be the last thing the Opposition parties would wish to see happen.

The provision of indemnity to witnesses would also lead to the State being saddled with endless legal bills. The position of the Opposition parties is rife with contradiction. The Fianna Fáil Party offered to have a judge appointed to investigate this matter but it was immediately dismissed. I am fully aware of the drawbacks of that route: the cost involved and the length of time of the beef tribunal would be a very strong argument against a judicial inquiry. Paradoxically the route the Fine Gael Party has insisted on brings into play the argument it used against a judicial investigation. Far from facilitating an immediate investigation the choice of the Committee on Legislation and Security is already causing delays. However much justice is done inside the House, untold injustice could be done to persons outside. The Committee on Legislation and Security is being turned into a potential "un-American activities committee" and there is no shortage of McCarthyites opposite. Deputy Michael McDowell by implication admitted this morning that he had a hit list for a witch hunt. I suppose he has returned to the law courts so we will forgive his absence.

This Bill is far from the perfect remedy in the situation facing us. However, it is an honest attempt by an honest party comprising honourable people to facilitate arriving at the truth. Fianna Fáil is determined to arrive at the truth and it is in our vital interest to do so.

The use of the Committee on Legislation and Security, as constituted, to hold an inquiry raises very serious legal questions. Under its present make-up the Oireachtas Committee would offend against or adversely affect (a) the rights of a party to defend its interest; (b) the right to be represented by a lawyer if so desired, thus exposing that party or witness to improper, unfair or incriminating questions in cross-examination; (c) under the present system there would appear to be a major difficulty that the procedures used by the committee might be regarded as unfair, as interpreted by the courts; and (d) while there is no power to compel the attendance of witnesses or to produce documents, this could in certain circumstances adversely affect the interest of any party giving evidence. Given this situation I am most surprised that the Opposition were not aware of the major legal and constitutional problems that could arise using the committee as a vehicle of inquiry. The spin that the Opposition wished to put on the proceedings of this House on Wednesday evening simply denigrated our political institutions, all for what the Opposition hoped would be a short term political gain. I believe the public has recognised the Opposition's words and actions of Wednesday last for what they were.

In seeking to protect witnesses and third parties in the committee structure it is proposed in this Bill to confer privilege — in other words a witness would be able to give evidence without fear of adverse legal consequences. Absolute privilege is not in the gift of Government. We are told it can only be conferred through an Act of the Oireachtas.

The Oireachtas must at all times be seen to protect the constitutional rights of all its citizens. We are talking about rights conferred by natural justice and if such protection is not afforded by an Oireachtas committee it could be challenged in the courts. Questions can be asked about the practicalities of having 30-plus members of the committee asking questions, and also with regard to the punitive powers, if any, of such a committee. We must be mindful also that a committee in its proceedings would have to comply with the laws of natural justice.

We are legislators, not judges, and if an inquisitorial dimension is to become part of our committee system — something I deemed to be unwise — the witness must be offered every protection in law. Members are used to hurling insults and abuse at each other in this Chamber without fear of litigation because they have what is known as absolute privilege. Any change in our committee system will have to bring with it a change in the attitude and behaviour of Members, a responsibility that must be recognised and undertaken. Members of the Oireachtas have such absolute privilege because they have been elected by the people and are therefore answerable to the people. Can the Oireachtas confer absolute privilege or can this only be done by the people. As I understand it, qualified privilege exists for all Oireachtas committees except the Committee of Public Accounts but that is only an interpretation of the law. It has not been tested in court. The privilege provided by this Bill will be a strictly limited privilege.

What will be the position of third parties under this proposed Bill? If witnesses are to be protected then what will be the position of those who are named by them? What constitutional rights have third parties? I have serious reservations as to whether this Bill complies with the constitutional provisions set out in Article 40.3.2º. It must be remembered that the distinctions between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary create a very delicate balance and there could be a danger of usurping the functions and powers of the courts as laid down by the Constitution, which alone can provide for a proper tribunal of inquiry.

It is never wise to rush legislation as this may result in bad law. Due consideration of the individual's constitutional right should never be interpreted as a delaying tactic but rather as reflecting a genuine concern and responsibility to get things right. I am pleased therefore that it is intended to limit the effect of this Bill to the hearings of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security so that further throught and consideration may be given to the wider matter in a calm and rational way.

A great deal has been said about this Bill and one must question what can be added to what has been said already. It is the desire of all Members that we recognise and respect the Constitution and that people have a right to justice when called before the committee.

Members have absolute privilege but an element of the general public is concerned at the manner in which this privilege is used. I support some of the views in that respect. It is worthwhile recalling the motion before the House on Tuesday last. The motion requested that the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to public business be suspended, pursuant to Standing Order 143, for the particular purpose of discussing a motion to request a person of judicial or senior legal status to inquire, on behalf of the House, into all circumstances surrounding the Fr. Brendan Smyth case and to give that person the necessary powers to summon all persons relevant to the inquiry and report back to the House as a matter of urgency. That motion was proposed by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, on behalf of the Government in order to deal with genuine public concern and to summon witnesses before the inquiry so as to ensure that a report was brought back to the House as a matter of urgency. It is the intent and desire of Fianna Fáil that that report be given to the House with the clearest transparency possible so that the full truth can be made available to all Members of this House and to the constituents we represent.

Sadly, the then referred to "24 hour rainbow", whose members were not even looking at their own true colours but more at the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, decided to rush to judgment and pursue a line they thought would perhaps politically taint one particular party, or an individual person or persons, by way of the motion they put before the House. That notice of motion was signed by Fine Gael, Labour, the Progressive Democrats and Democratic Left. It is indeed complex, consisting of one full page and four sections. Section 1 is made up of five subsections and section 2 is made up of three subsections. This motion represented one of the first decisions of the rainbow to address the matter of public concern on Tuesday last. I do not intend detailing the motion because it is not only confusing but contradictory.

A motion was referred to the very worthwhile Select Committee on Legislation and Security. I say that not just because I am the Fianna Fáil convenor of that committee but, for the first time in the past few months, we have had sittings of four standing committees of this House. It is important we do not lose sight of the success of the committees and that is why I was particularly proud to be the Fianna Fáil convenor of the committee in question. On occasions, members of the press had a field day in regard to politicians taking long holidays and so on but that was not the case.

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

I regret I am running out of time. The Select Committee on Legislation and Security dealt with many matters including the 1993 Estimates for Defence, Army pensions, the issue of equality and law reform, the Office of the Minister for Justice, the Garda Síochána, prisons, courts, land registry and registry of deeds, charitable donations and bequests. It also dealt with a number of Bills and meetings were held to deal with the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993, the Criminal Procedure Bill, 1993 and the Supplementary Estimates. We also dealt with the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill, the Criminal Justice (No. 3) Bill, the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, the Family Law Bill, the Maintenance Bill, the Refugee Bill and indeed many other Estimates. Much work has been done by the select committee. Because we were in our infancy we also recognised that we had certain problems, and certain restrictions were placed on us. Indeed, we took the opportunity of writing to the Government Chief Whip in order to tease out and address these matters. I wish to put on the record that both I and the Fine Gael Whip found the Chief Whip very forthcoming in trying to address the matters of concern and to give the committee the necessary powers to do what it was set up to do.

In conclusion, the purpose——

Thank you, Deputy, I must call on the next speaker.

In concluding, I regret the fact that a committee was asked to investigate an issue for which it did not have the relevant powers. Indeed, the people who requested the committee to carry out these investigations knew well, from their experience of dealing with Committee Stages of Bills that it would not have the powers to carry out the investigations required. I hope we can proceed as a matter of urgency.

I am calling Deputy Jim Mitchell.

May I say——

I ask the Deputy to conclude his contribution.

——that a number of successive Governments have had the opportunity——

Please, Deputy Callely.

——for over 20 years to address this matter of accountability——

The Deputy is now eroding another Member's time.

——to this House and they have failed. There is a serious and sad lack of——

Deputy Callely, I must ask you to resume your seat.

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Malley.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

I wish to state at the outset that while I am Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I speak here today in my capacity as an individual Deputy although, of course, my contribution will be informed by my experience as Chairman of that committee.

I am unhappy with the way we are proceeding in this matter. I have listened for the past number of hours to the contributions of Members of the House and it is clear that many Deputies are approaching this matter in a totally party political way rather than addressing (a) the most effective means of getting the truth and (b) the real legal and constitutional issues that arise.

Government motion.

We should not make haste with this proposal. Nothing is so urgent that it has to be rushed through the Houses today and next week. We should take our time.

The Deputy's party did not think that on Tuesday.

Give the Deputy a chance. He is changing again.

The Deputy, without interruption.

We should take our time because the issues involved are so profound. We should consider carefully all the implications of the precedent we would be setting by enacting this legislation in a hasty way. I do not believe that the issues at stake are of such urgency as to be rushed through this House. The House would be well advised to take its time in dealing with this issue. That is not to say it should be delayed but it certainly should not be rushed.

A number of principles will have to be established. Many committees of this House, not least the Committee of Public Accounts of which I have the honour to be Chairman, have built up over a long period — long before I became Chairman but including the time I have been Chairman — checks and balances in our system. There is a severe danger that many of these checks and balances already achieved and many that were likely to be achieved in the near future might be destroyed by ill-conceived and hasty precedents being set. I will totally oppose any suggestion that lawyers appear for witnesses before committees of this House. The implications of any such change would be horrendous. Apart from the cost, it would almost certainly stymie public accountability in a real way. I am totally against it. The kernel of the problem manifested itself gloriously in the past few weeks — it is one I have seen over the last seven years — where inadequate, deceitful and untrue answers were given to the House and Ministers feel that not only will they get away with it but the procedures——

That is totally unfair from a former Minister.

——and rulings by the Chair will protect them.

The role of the Ceann Comhairle in upholding the right of the House to seek information and make Ministers accountable must be redefined. Perhaps a Bill should be brought forward outlining the powers and duties of the Ceann Comhairle in ensuring Ministers give comprehensive answers in the House and are not protected by outdated procedures or rulings.

A new position of inspector general or general accounting officer should be created. Such a person would be accountable to the Ceann Comhairle and to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and, like the Comptroller and Auditor General, would have unimpeded access to even the most secret State file, be asked to establish the truth of matters in cases where there was well established concern and report to the committee who, in turn, would report to the House.

I table these suggestions as a means of improving accountability and transparency and ensuring Ministers are fully answerable to the House. Legislation would be necessary before such a position could be created and could contain a provision that every accounting officer would be required to co-operate fully with the general accounting officer and reveal cases where he is aware a Minister has misled the Dáil. That would be one way of dealing with the matter.

The issue has become a party political battle yet we are setting up some form of semi-judicial forum which neither the House nor any committee is capable of doing. I ask the House to look at the format which has been followed for 72 years, with great success, in the Committee of Public Accounts.

I hope it is evident I am speaking in a non-party political way. The politics of this must be separated from other issues.

Tell your own party that.

The Deputy's speech was totally party political.

Who wrote them all?

Deputy McDowell was correct when he spoke about excessive use of the Whip. We are whipped on every issue and do not think for ourselves. There are times when Deputies in all parties need to stand up against the system and their own Front Bench. The House might be well served if Deputies saw their duties in that light.

The Deputy's party made it political.

In the last half an hour I witnessed Fianna Fáil backbenchers come into the House to defend the indefensible by implication.

That is untrue.

It is inappropriate on an issue of such great importance that any Ministers suspected of misleading the House should be defended even by their backbenchers. By so doing, Parliament and backbenchers are undermined.

There should be a period of reflection over the weekend so that we can consider where our superior duty lies. I submit it is to ensure the case for public accountability is strengthened in the long term——

Hear, hear.

——and is not diminished by a rush to sort out an issue which, although important, is no longer urgent because the Government is in the process of being changed.

It is important for Fianna Fáil to do that because it is being made so political.

I received this Bill some time after 10 o'clock this morning and I then had to attend the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin Castle. I returned from that meeting a short time ago and have not had an opportunity to study the Bill in the way I would like for the purpose of making a speech on Second Stage. Therefore, the views I express are not fully researched but I hope they will be accepted as reasonably valid. I studied the version of the Bill available last night which was much shorter than this one.

One of the difficulties is that the new sections added overnight may not improve the Bill. There are three basic principles. The first is it introduces fair procedures at the expense of efficiency. The second is that under the Bill, if passed without amendment, we will have all the disadvantages of the delay and cost associated with tribunals of inquiry, like the beef tribunal and others under the 1921 Act without the advantage of a professional judge in charge of it. The third is, if passed in this form, the purpose and object of Dáil committees investigating matters reasonably rapidly will be frustrated.

I appreciate what the Deputy is saying. As I said, the Attorney General put these provisions in because of the Haughey case and the rights of natural justice. The deputy is reflecting the views of many Members.

I realise why they are there but the difficulties arise not so much in section 2 but what the consequences of sections 3 and 4 will be. We are copperfastening fair procedures at the expense of efficiency. All this arises from our Constitution. There are decided cases on these points — re Haughey, 1971, Irish Reports is the principal one. The Goodman v. Hamilton Nos. 1 and 2 cases reinforce those points. The principles laid down in the Haughey case were reiterated in the two Goodman cases so we are clear about the constitutional cases. In drafting the Bill, the Attorney General met the constitutional requirements. The advice I got in such a short time is that the Bill is constitutional and will not be open to challenge in so far as one can judge. However, this system will not work. The idea was that certain facts should be ascertained quickly and inexpensively.

Members must recall the Taoiseach and, I believe, the Minister of State reiterating time and again from 1 September onwards that we would never have another tribunal of inquiry and would have to devise some other way——

The Deputy created it.

They said it could be done by way of Dáil committees. Now we have a Dáil committee with all the disadvantages of a tribunal. I said in the House that this could last for months, conceivably for years. On reflection, I have no reason to believe that what I said was wrong.

How long it lasts depends on the agenda.

I would have thought that its duration would depend on the witnesses. If they turn up, as some witnesses did at recent tribunals, with a large bevy of very high powered lawyers to cross-examine virtually everybody——

The Deputy is using the lawyers very well.

If possible, I would prefer to make my speech without a running commentary.

Deputy O'Malley, without interruption, please.

There is a serious weakness in section 5 in addition to the problems created by sections 3 and 4. Under section 5 the Minister for Finance shall provide costs and expenses for any person who gives evidence and for all his legal representation. There is no discretion, which means that the greatest liar in creation could attend a committee, perjure himself and be exposed for having created huge problems for the State and must still, under section 5, be paid his costs and expenses. There has to be some discretion in these matters. That provision is wrong and the section should be deleted as its inclusion will merely encourage people to bring a large bevy of lawyers with them.

This is one of the marks of our society. I say this as a lawyer — I am a graduate in law, am professionally qualified in law and have practised law full-time for eight years and part-time for more years. I know what I am talking about. I have also spent much of my life as a non-lawyer. One of the features of our society is that we allow it increasingly to be dominated by lawyers. This is wrong. It arises in part out of our Constitution that the legal establishment, in the broadest sense, has milked the constitutional provisons for its own benefit. When I talk about the "establishment" I include all parts of the law, above and below the Bench. This is wrong. It should be possible for this House, as it is for almost every other western parliament, to inquire into the disputed facts of something very quickly. We cannot do that and we will never be able to do it — everything takes six to eight months and costs an absolute fortune.

To give an example of how the system should work, I ask the House to cast its mind back approximately a year to a very tragic event in a small town, Waco, Texas, where approximately 90 people who were members of a religious sect died in very unusual circumstances after, I think, the FBI had moved in to try to rescue them. Within 48 hours of that event the Attorney General of the United States, whose name I cannot recall, sat before the judiciary committee of the US Senate and accounted for what happened. She gave the committee as full a description as she could of exactly what happened, the events which led up to it, the decisions made and the circumstances. People in the United States were very concerned and much of the public concern and criticism which would otherwise have been made was dissipated because she came before that committee at such short notice.

We have to devise some means whereby we can do the same here. This would not take away people's constitutional rights. Our Constitution may well go overboard in terms of trying to guarantee personal rights if it prevents the democratically elected sovereign parliament established under it from inquiring into matters of public importance. I am not just talking about this case; there may be very many cases in future for which this legislation may well be taken as a precedent. This may well be an undesirable precedent.

I appreciate that the legislation has been prepared in a hurry. On reflection, it is correct that Committee and Final Stages will be taken next week. My party will suggest amendments and obviously we need an opportunity to think about them. I am sure other parties will also suggest amendments. We do not have to ask the Government, which is in a minority, to accept the amendments, we can ask all parties to accept them. I appeal to the Attorney General to try to bring about a more streamlined and efficient system in amendments without at the same time endangering the constitutionality of this provision. In looking at the Constitution, we will have to consider whether we can afford to maintain the kind of principles contained in some of these decided cases as far as inquiries by Parliament are concerned — it is all right outside it — and especially inquiries where the witnesses are Members of this House. It is not good enough that Ministers, who under the Constitution are answerable to this House should now have counsel appear for them within the House.

I am delighted to have the opportunity, however brief, to comment on the Bill. Many issues have properly been raised in the debate. This is a new departure and major issues arise. As a prospective witness of any committee set up under the Bill obviously I have a vested interest in the matter which I freely and openly declare. My only requirement in terms of the way matters are handled is that like everyone else, I expect and am entitled to presume that no conclusions will be drawn or inferred until we hear the full recollections from everybody concerned. By definition, recollections are not infallible and are imprecise. All reasonable and fair-minded people will come to their own conclusions when they hear the full evidence given by all the parties concerned.

I found it difficult to listen to the remarks of the Opposition Deputies who now declare their interest in fair procedures, the need to abide by proper procedures and for speedy and uncostly methods of inquiry into matters of concern to the House. We all agree with this but they did not show the same concern last Tuesday when there was a parliamentary frenzy for blood which did not quite work. My party has nothing to hide in this matter and flatly rejects the idea of deliberate concealment or conspiracy on matters of material interest to the House. Shame on those who organised and collaborated in that frenzy, including Deputy O'Malley and others, they did nothing to improve the good name of this House.

All the filibustering came from that side of the House.

The Minister without interruption, please.

I say to the Deputy——

He is leaving.

Deputy O'Malley finds it hard to listen to the truth but I am sure he will not mind if I say that an attempt was made this week without procedures or precedent to subject my party to a witch-hunt. My integrity is as important to me as other people's integrity is to them. I am accountable to my constituents, whom I have had the privilege to serve for ten years and from whom I have received a greater mandate than any other Member who represents that constituency. My good name is just as important to me as to a Progressive Democrat, a Fine Gael or a non-party man. I am not in public life to deal in a shabby way. I have a sense of fair play and of identity with every Irish citizen. I have always said that where people attempt the overkill, it usually rebounds on them — certainly that happened this week. It was not to the benefit of any Deputy involved in that charade that this House was brought into disrepute. There are substantive questions to be raised and answered. I would have no difficulty whatsoever, at any time, in giving my truthful recollection of events.

I have a conscience. The fact that I am a Fianna Fáil member should not indicate that I am less conscientious than any other person. My record compares with that of Deputy O'Malley or any other Members. In my short career I have not needed help from anybody as to how to conduct myself. I freely admit error, as I have often done, but I will not take lectures from perfectionists who never did anything for anybody, who get up on the high altar of political correctness and forget what parliamentary democracy is about. Recent converts to democratic politics, who are now seen as great defenders of the principles of parliamentary democracy in this House, forget that this is a parliamentary assembly, not a politburo. We do not require unanimous agreement in this House. I am sure there will be different recollections. I am simply asking for a suspension of any decisive conclusion until everyone has heard the full facts. I have no problem with that. My party and the people who have the privilege to serve in it, in whatever capacity, are interested in maintaining high standards.

What has happened here during the past few days is an attempt by political opponents to despise what we stand for and the constitutional republican philosophy I am proud to espouse. I will continue to do so throughout my political career. Those people had an opportunity to reinforce a stereotypical view of my party. Their only contribution to public life has been a negative reaction to what we have achieved and the contributions we have made. So be it. In a parliamentary democracy I have no problem dealing with those people in public or private debate at any time.

There is an opportunity for the House to deal with matters properly without seeking to eliminate or dilute constitutional rights, which we all have as Members and as private citizens, as a result of sacrifices made by previous generations to establish this House and its institutions. It has become fashionable in politics to decide that our institutions should be got rid of and that they do not fit the modern society in which we live. I dispute that very strongly. Our institutions have served us well, but of course there is always need for improvement.

This Bill puts forward a mechanism by which we as Members can seek to inquire into issues which are of concern to this House and the general public. I have no problem with that principle. Certainly there has been a gap in our operations which needs to be filled. One of the reasons we have not been able to come to a conclusion on these matters heretofore is that there are serious and substantive issues to be addressed which are basic to the constitutional rights of every citizen.

Those who seek, as Deputy O'Malley did in his short interruptions — I am delighted I can get under his skin so quickly——

I would be grateful if the Minister would conclude.

——to portray concern that proper procedures be adhered to as being a filibuster by my party have been proved by events to be incorrect. This House has now agreed that we must deal legislatively with this matter, in accordance with the law. That is proper and correct.

I have no problem whatsoever in coming before any committee to vindicate my good name, the good name of my colleagues or the good name of my party. The many opponents and enemies who will continue to assail my party will be gravely and sorely disappointed. I am confident that our position would be fully vindicated when the full deliberations are proceeded with under this committee.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share