Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1995

Vol. 458 No. 6

Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Yesterday I referred to matters on the periphery of the compellability of witnesses Bill, my views on the committee system and how it will operate in the future. In the course of the inquiry into the collapse of the last Government difficulties arose on the question of privilege enjoyed by people appearing before the committee and it was agreed that the compellability of witnesses Bill would be given priority by the incoming Government. The Bill has been 20 years in gestation and much effort has been expended in the last 12 to 15 months to bring it before the Dáil, but I wonder if we have learned any lessons from the inquiry into the collapse of the last Government that brought these matters under public scrutiny. Legal opinions were offered and there was considerable debate inside and outside the House and in the committee, but I am not certain from my reading of it that the distilled wisdom of Members who contributed has been included in this Bill.

I wonder if any lessons have been learned from the fact that the committee of inquiry resembled a media circus. After the change of Government the same importance was not attached to it as in November and December 1994, but the general conclusion must be that people believed what they wanted to believe and there was no question of ensuring that the proceedings would not be prejudiced. However, that is not the point I wanted to make about that investigation. We spent many hours in this House discussing the legislation that gave the standing committee wide powers. I would like the Minister to explain on Committee Stage what happened to all the learned discussion on the provisions of that Act and why similar provisions are not included in this Bill.

There are some persons we cannot command to appear before a committee. However, it is open to the committee to call almost anybody provided it pays that person's reasonable expenses and provided the committee acts within its terms of reference. The compellability aspect of the Bill is to be found in the provision which provides that nonattendance in response to a committee's direction shall be an offence, and also in the provision that false evidence shall constitute perjury.

On the question of who may be called to give evidence section 6 (2) excuses from attendance any Dáil Deputy or Senator who has made relevant utterances in either House. This is a recipe for continued irresponsibility by Deputies on all sides. There is no reason Dáil Deputies should be excluded in this way when section 11 provides that persons giving evidence are to enjoy the same privilege as if the person were a witness before the High Court. Presumably this means privilege and immunity from defamation proceedings. According to section 7, civil servants and others may ask the Taoiseach to give them a letter excusing them from attendance if the matter being inquired into relates to confidential information, business sensitive information, information regarding the family life of a third party, or information whose disclosure might be prejudicial to the State in its relations with other states. The Taoiseach may refuse such a letter if it is in the public interest to do so. All this is confusing. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to explain it more fully when concluding this Stage or on Committee Stage.

Non-civil servants who have similar objections to the type of evidence being required of them are to be given an opportunity to have their concerns considered by the Public Offices Commission, and in due course the matter may be appealed to the High Court, all at the State's expense. These provisions are all new to Irish law, and some of the terminology employed requires clarification. What is meant, for example, by "necessary in the public interest"? This is what the commission or the High Court have to determine in respect of any information in respect of which a witness is invoking the commission and/or the court procedure. What is information given in confidence, and what constitutes information which would or might be prejudicial to a person?

Now we come to the next group of persons with whom this Bill is concerned. These are the third parties, the parties who are named by witnesses giving evidence and whose reputations are at stake. These are the persons who, because of immunity given to witnesses appearing before a committee, have only one opportunity to vindicate their name and that is by invoking the proposed procedure set out in section 10 whereby such a person, having been named or referred to in the proceedings, may appear and make submissions and also request the committee to call other witnesses who may be cross-examined on behalf of the named party. Presumably because of the requirement to protect the good name of such a person and to vindicate their constitutional rights, the committee is required, in the interest of justice, to comply with such a request and to advise such persons if their names have been mentioned in the course of the inquiry or committee proceedings. There are various provisions for adjournments of the committee's procedures to allow the use of other procedures to be processed. All in all, including various trips to the High Court, it seems that these proceedings are likely to be extremely long-winded and in most cases inconclusive. This needs further consideration.

In principle I am for openness, transparency and accountability in public affairs, as is every Member of this House. However, in trying to produce a Bill that lives up to that, we may be going down a road which will prove extremely costly in the future. It will not solve very much and will bring this House into further disrepute. In the recent past Ministers and others in this House have used the privilege enjoyed by Members to make wild allegations against people who are not in a position to defend themselves.

Despite the best efforts of the Chair who goes out of his way to ensure this does not happen, a Member is able to put the name of a person outside the House on the record. It is regrettable when politicians, be they Ministers or backbenchers who find themselves in difficulties throw mud at people outside the House who do not have an opportunity to defend themselves here. The temptation for people who find themselves in a hole is to blame somebody else and in recent years it seems to have become acceptable for a politician in difficulties to name people outside the House.

Politicians are in the public eye and cannot complain if accusations are made against them by Members on the other side of the House. We are paid to take it, and if we do not like it there are remedies open to us. However, it is not acceptable for them to name people outside the House. As Deputy O'Keeffe who operates a solicitor's practice knows, people spend a considerable time building up their businesses and professions and when it is alleged that they are involved, even in a peripheral way, in a scandal with which they may have nothing to do, the mud sticks. Even if the allegation is subsequently withdrawn in the House it will have had an extremely damaging effect on the person's practice. Many members do not come from this background, and those of us who do, have a particular responsibility to point out that such allegations have an abysmal effect, on a person's profession. People will be slow to avail of the service of a person who is closely associated with a political party and who is alleged to have been involved in an incident which may have taken place some years previously.

It is absolutely scandalous that Members on the other side of the House should have recently adopted this attitude. I would make the same point if it was adopted by Members on this side of the House. Many Members are now aware of the damage naming people can cause. Neither is it correct for Ministers who are in political difficulty to name civil servants or public servants in the House. In the past the tradition was that these people were not named. However, in recent years everyone seems to have become fair game. Perhaps we need to change the rules of the House in this regard. I am afraid under the Bill the names of people outside the House will be dragged into the debate in the case of investigations. In the past five years naming people in regard to particular issues of public interest which gave rise to difficulties both inside and outside the House has had an adverse psychological effect on their families. The psychological damage done to many of these innocent people will never be repaired. I do not want to be more specific than that. I earnestly request all Deputies to bear this point in mind. Given the competition among the members of political parties and between political parties, consideration must be given to tightening up the rules in this regard. I am afraid the Bill, which will extend the committees' powers of investigation, will put us further down this road.

Who will decide whether, say, a business person should be brought before a committee? This person may not have any involvement in the item under investigation but he may be connected to a political party. He would be correct in refusing to come before the committee. Who will decide on this matter? Will we have to traipse to the High Court every day for decisions in this regard? Regardless of what one says about their decisions, one readily recognises that the courts are independent. Many of the difficulties in the Dáil in regard to privilege, inquiries, etc. arise from the correct decision in 1971 in the Haughey case which more or less set down the rules under which people could defend their good names. This has given rise to some difficulties for politicians but I would prefer to be tried before the courts than to be brought before a committee where political accusations could be made and where I would have no rights. Regardless of the cost of going before the courts and given my experience in recent years and the partisanship on all sides of the House, I believe a business person would prefer to go before a court than before a committee of this House.

I have reservations about many aspects of the Bill. I am afraid that in our obsession to appear on the side of the angels and to show that we stand for openness, transparency and accountability we may enact legislation which is not justified and which will give rise to severe difficulties in the future. I will tease out these matters further with the Minister on Committee Stage.

I understand Deputy McCreevy's reservations about the Bill given that we are straying into new and strange waters in providing these additional powers for committees. However, we can only draw from our experience and he will agree that the investigation carried out earlier this year by the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security was worthwhile. I think he relished his role as a witness — he imparted some information and provided a degree of entertainment — and entered into the spirit of what the committee was trying to achieve.

We propose to introduce a new and exciting development into the committee system. This brings us back to the fundamental point about whether the committee system is good. When talking about the committee system we must look in broad terms at the role and function of the legislator. Over the years the powers have been drawn more towards the Executive while the Legislature has become more of a rubber stamp. Our membership of the European Union has accentuated this trend and while I understand the reasons for it I do not think it is beneficial to parliamentary democracy and it should be reversed. It cannot be reversed in the traditional way but one way to develop our parliamentary democracy is through the development of the committee system. We have been remiss in this regard during the years. There have been tentative developments, not least as a result of the proposal of the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton but we have not developed them fully and we need to look at other aspects of our parliamentary system.

With the centralisation of power in the hands of the Executive as opposed to the Legislature, we need to look at our Whip system, and what happens in other parliaments. We need to reflect on whether the tightly controlled parliamentary whip system is appropriate to modern democracy. In my view it is not, and it has to some degree stifled the development of parliamentary democracy. I accept that on issues of confidence, the budget or serious matters of that type there should be a tight whipping system but in other matters if people have genuine difficulties about a section in a Bill and would prefer something else they should be entitled to openly argue their case and if necessary put it to a vote.

I am attracted by some aspects of the American system in that regard where Democrat Senators quite freely oppose measures proposed by a Democrat President. Of course there has to be a balance and that applies to the development of our committee system as well. There is a great deal of good in the American system but there is some bad in it too, for example, the famous committee on un-American activities under Joe McCarthy. In the committee he chaired there was a paranoid obsession about anybody with an association with socialism. People were hounded out of their jobs and some were hounded into committing suicide because of the outrageous activities of that committee which developed into a witch-hunt. The Arthur Miller play "The Witches of Salem" was a reflection on the activities of that committee. That is the other side of the coin — committees can go overboard.

The Minister in introducing this Bill would have done a service to the House if he had examined the parliamentary systems in other countries and set out the pluses and minuses of the committee systems that have evolved in them. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle will sum up the Bill and will deal with it from now on. I am not anxious to send her on junkets around the world but it would be useful on Committee Stage if we had some idea what was happening in other countries and an input from Deputy Doyle on her research in this regard. Essentially what we are talking about is compulsion to attend, to produce documents and the right to privilege for somebody who appears before a committee.

The Bill to a certain degree is cautious and that is what one would expect in our bureaucratic culture and more importantly perhaps in the context of the constitutional constraints. It may be overcautious and this has to be teased out on Committee Stage. To a degree the Dáil has become a rubber stamp but a counter argument is that because of the views expressed in this House about the situation of the DPP, the Taoiseach has directed that there be a change in the Bill so that the exclusion of the DPP from the terms of the Bill will be changed. I applaud that. The Bill does not apply to the Attorney General or officers of the Attorney General except where the committee is a Committee of Public Accounts and there are other restrictions. I would like that to be looked at as well. I am not sure this is the right approach. The matter needs to be teased out on Committee Stage.

Earlier this year an officer from the Attorney General's office, referred to as "Witness A" was called before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. If I recollect rightly, three officers from the office of the Attorney General appeared before it at the committee's request. If something similar arose — and I certainly do not think it will with this Government — have we now specifically excluded them from being called under the terms of this Bill? This needs to be looked at further. I understand there may have to be restrictions but while having regard to constitutional constraints, they need to be fully justified and if they are not fully justified the question has to be raised as to whether the restrictions should be removed.

We should also look at how the committees could operate more efficiently and effectively in the future in the context of having these additional powers. It is fashionable to deride the inquiry of the subcommittee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security into the events leading to the fall of the last Government. Not least because I was a member of the subcommittee, I think that is altogether wrong. I recognise the restrictions that were on the subcommittee but broader issues have to be looked at. It is a question of comparing the benefits of a judicial inquiry with a committee inquiry. Cost is the first thing that springs to mind and when we compare the cost of that inquiry with the cost of the beef tribunal it cost approximately £35,000 but the beef tribunal cost approximately £35 million. There is no doubt who wins on that score. The second thing to spring to mind is the length of time. The committee inquiry took approximately three months and the beef tribunal inquiry took approximately three years.

Taking into account the constitutional constraints, time is a factor and an inquiry that meanders on forever is of little benefit because by the time the report comes out people have forgotten what it is about. There is also the question of conclusions. I appreciate that in the beef tribunal inquiry Mr. Justice Hamilton produced a very comprehensive report and I appreciate that there were huge constraints on the subcommittee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security but how many people can remember the main conclusions of the beef tribunal. That the committee could not produce findings of fact did not matter as the judge and jury were not the committee and should not have been the committee. The committee could have broken down into its constitutional political parties on this political issue.

The judge and jury are the general public. It is a question of public opinion deciding the relevant questions. Therefore, it did not matter that there was not a finding of fact in the report. Those are some of the matters that must be taken into account when deciding how to hold such inquiries in the future. It is lawyers who gain from judicial inquiries and the amount of money involved is exorbitant. In the rush to hold public inquiries in the past consideration was not given to the length of time or cost involved. If it is necessary to hold an inquiry in the future, due consideration should be given to holding it before a committee of the Oireachtas rather than by way of a judicial public inquiry.

There are many issues, some of which are touched on in the Bill and others that are not, that need to be examined. If inquiries are held before a committee of the Oireachtas we must carefully examine that committee's terms of reference. We would have to decide if it would be expected to reach conclusions of fact that might impugn the good name of an individual. The follow through from that would affect the conduct of any such proceedings irrespective of whether there is compellability.

Section 13 provides that a witness may be required to give evidence on oath and section 3(8) refers to the offence of perjury. The question of taking evidence on oath must be carefully examined. The terms of reference of an inquiry would need to specify if evidence is to be taken on oath. Considerable care should be taken before any such requirement is put on a committee. If an inquiry is of a political nature, it is not appropriate that evidence should be given on oath. Much of the evidence given to the Sub Committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security was hearsay, people's opinion as opposed to hard concrete facts. It is not appropriate that such evidence should be given under oath and if a person's opinion is wrong it should not lead to charges for the offence of perjury. That area must be teased out further on Committee Stage.

The size of a committee that would hear an inquiry is not dealt with in the Bill. The first day on which the Select Committee on Legislation and Security sat was similar to the activities in a bear garden. Sufficient thought was not given in advance to how matters should be conducted, they became more manageable when a sub-committee was established.

The most important matter arising from the Bill is the question of legal representation for a person called to give evidence before a committee. I am not pleading a case for lawyers, rather I am considering the constitutional aspects. Will a person called before a committee be entitled to legal representation? At what stage will he or she be entitled to such representation? Comments may have been made that would affect that person's good name before he or she comes before the committee. Should people be given notice in advance so that they can employ legal representation? Will we reach the stage where up to ten people could give evidence before a committee, all of whom will be entitled to legal representation? Will it be possible to cross-examine all witnesses? We must think through the processes and procedures that would arise in the context of the constitutional constraints of a person giving evidence before a committee.

The normal practice in judicial inquiries is to lodge statements in advance of the inquiry. There is a danger that such statements would contain tendentious material that should not be brought into the public domain. We will have to devise a procedure whereby statements can be examined by, say, a legal adviser and, if necessary, amended before entering the public domain. That matter must also be considered.

In general while the Bill is an improvement on the present position, it is experimental. The alternative is to sit and do nothing and I am not in favour of that. We must welcome it, understand the constitutional constraints under which it was produced and explore how far the legislation can comply with the Constitution while at the same time giving the committee the greatest possible role and scope. That challenge will lead to an interesting Committee Stage debate. The Bill will test the powers of the committee system to put it into the best possible shape before being enacted.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation and share many of the views articulated by Deputy O'Keeffe. In many respects the Bill is a rather limited measure when compared with the fine sounding rhetoric we heard last November, in particular about the need for greater accountability and transparency in the way the Civil Service, the Dáil and Government do their business. I am concerned about the limited nature of the Bill and the degree to which Members appear to be over anxious to prevent other senior public figures, whose daily decisions affect people's lives, from appearing before a committee of the Oireachtas to answer questions, namely, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General and the Governor of the Central Bank. There is no reason the Governor of the Central Bank should not be compelled to appear before a committee of the Oireachtas to defend his or her banking policies. In many ways we suffer from a hangover from our colonial past in the administration we inherited. We need greater transparency in the way the State administers its business. Many senior public officials with responsibility for a number of key areas should appear before Dáil committees or this House to explain the raison d'être for their policy decisions and the diffculties that arise in their respective portfolios from time to time.

If there is a difficulty in the Central Bank or trouble in the Office of the Attorney General or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, they should answer for it. People refer to the issues that achieved notoriety and publicity in this House. Many of us have seen the spectacle of Ministers defending some of these people and the Ministers concerned would have had little involvement in, or responsibility for, any wrongdoings or mistakes made. However, the tradition has been that the Minister comes before the House, even if they did not know anything about what happened in the office, to endeavour to answer the charge. They are very much dependent on information from a variety of sources, which has not proved up-to-date or accurate in the past. There is a need to open up the matter to a greater extent.

I am delighted the Bill has already been modified to facilitate bringing the Director of Public Prosecutions before the House to answer questions about the policy of his office and how it is administered. It was ludicrous that it took Marian Finucane's radio show to force this House and the Taoiseach to see there was a logical argument and a need for a mechanism compelling the Director of Public Prosecutions to answer questions before the House. I listened to that programme and thought it was good as interesting queries came from the general public about many important issues. I did not see why the same questions could not have been asked in this House by the elected representatives of the people, many of whom spoke on the show anyway. That incident illustrated the degree to which we are overcautious about the need for protection of individuals in powerful public office positions.

That applies equally to the Office of the Attorney General I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe. This Bill represents a rowing back from the position achieved last November by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security when the Attorney General and officials from his office answered questions when they came before the committee. This Bill seems to give too much protection to the Office of the Attorney General. While this office has a lot of responsibility for important issues, the Attorney General should be as accountable to the House on its duties as a Minister would be and have to answer questions in the same fashion. The Bill falls well short of that and it is a major drawback.

I am at a loss as to why the Bill only provides for the compellability of witnesses to the committees that already have these powers. The standing legislative committees, for example, are excluded from the remit of this Bill. All committees should have these powers because we can never foresee the circumstances when such powers may be necessary or need to be used by our legislative committees in respect of their duties and functions. Confining it to those committees that already enjoy the power to compel and summon witnesses before them is a limited measure and it needs to be changed.

Our present committee system is still not acting or operating effectively. When we debated the reform of Dáil procedures and the establishment of new committees earlier this year, we were given undertakings by the then Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Barrett, that legislative committees would have a role in formulating legislation by becoming involved much earlier than heretofore in their formulation and that committees could, for example, have brainstorming sessions on the Heads of Bills. They should also meet civil servants and committee members could offer their views as to what should go into legislation from the beginning. That has not happened. There has been no practical involvement of committees in the formulation of legislation at the early stages and this is regrettable.

I raised the Government of Universities Bill on the Order of Business on numerous occasions, much to the chagrin of the Ceann Comhairle. This is a classic case of where the Select Committee on Social Affairs should have been involved at a much earlier stage. A number of position papers have been produced on that Bill. Many of them are in the public domain because the media have secured them. The heads of the universities also have copies of these position papers and have been involved in negotiations and discussions with the Ministers, which is fair enough. It is now clear from media reports that there has been a considerable rowing back from the original position paper to the present one. The one body of people who have been totally excluded from the process are the Members of this House who are meant to be the legislators and have an input to the legislative process.

A final discussion document, which contains the agreed position of all the heads of the universities, the Minister and the Department of Education, will now come before the House almost as a fait accompli. The degree of influence or input which Members of this House will have on that will be negligible, as will the degree of changes made during the debate in this House. That is one example; there are many others. This example illustrates to me the degree to which our committee system is not effective in being involved in legislative proposals at an early stage and having a genuine input to framing legislation. That has not happened and is unlikely to happen.

The culture of secrecy and of not giving the full answers or information to Dáil questions or of giving evasive answers still reigns supreme. There has been no magical change. My experience of the education area tells me the emphasis seems to be on telling people only what one needs to tell, giving them the minimum amount of information and avoiding answering particular questions if at all possible. There is still a tremendous reluctance to publish reports. It is ridiculous that Members have to table Dáil questions asking for the publications of reports on education matters. I, like others, have had to do this. Some requests have been refused while others have been granted.

Many who read the statements made last November are disillusioned because nothing has changed in the process 12 months later. There was a minimalist change two weeks ago with the written question rule but the entire situation needs to be changed and be allied to the strategic management initiative in the Civil Service. Many civil servants would be more than willing to have more openness in how they operate and would have no problems with releasing more information. However, this is the way the system has operated for years. Everyone is part of it and unfortunately it is still continuing.

I am also concerned about a number of other features of the Bill. Section 7 (3) provides that, if the Taoiseach considers that it would be in the public interest to refuse to give such a declaration, he/she shall so refuse. That declaration concerns whether witnesses would have to give certain information they have at their disposal. There are procedures in section 6 where witnesses can claim exemption from giving certain information and four categories are listed. If the information they have falls into any of those categories, the committee cannot compel them to publish that information and that needs to be clarified.

The section also seems to give the Taoiseach a veto over whether that information can be disclosed by giving him the power to make a judgment in the public interest. That places the Taoiseach of the day in a difficult situation and it may be wise to remove it. The commission set up under the Ethics in Public Office Bill might be the appropriate body to decide on admissibility of information and whether witnesses should disclose certain information. There could be a conflict of interest between a Taoiseach and officials acting under him or her or under a Minister and the Taoiseach will decide whether the public interest is best served by the disclosure of information. If the Taoiseach makes the case that the information should not be disclosed he or she would be open to allegations of a cover up and hiding behind this procedure. We could write the script of what would transpire. Even if the decision was correct the perception would be one of hiding the truth and so on. That section must be examined and changed.

Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned legal representation. Will those who appear before committees have the right to legal representation and what form will it take? What are the implications for the effective implementation of the Bill if that proves to be the case? Another issue of concern is the definition of areas where information cannot be brought forward, in particular the heading "security of the State". When we consider the development of nuclear power and military technology we need not be paranoid about the security of the State. We probably overstate our case. We should put protections in place to ensure that "security of the State" is not used as a blocking measure to prevent the disclosure of information.

Senior public officials such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General and the Governor of the Central Bank should appear before committees and this House to answer for their activities. Section 5 details areas which are outside the scope of compellability in all circumstances. One of these is "matters currently before the courts including the European courts". What do we mean by "before the courts". Is a matter before the courts if a summons has been issued or if proceedings have been instituted? That must be clarified.

The Bill deals with Cabinet confidentiality to a certain extent. I share the caution which is manifest in the Bill. We may have a referendum on the issue in the future. If everything said at Cabinet is in the public domain we would go down the road of government by the media with which I do not agree. We need to clarify the relationship between this Bill and the promised Bill and referendum on Cabinet confidentiality.

Civil servants are precluded from offering an opinion on policy. That is correct as politicians are responsible for policy. They are elected by the people to run the country according to their political manifestos and are judged on their performance in subsequent elections. The function of the Civil Service is to serve the political mandate of politicians. In a memorable speech in 1924 Kevin O'Higgins set the ground rules of the relationship between the Civil Service and politicians and between the Garda Síochána and the civil arm of the State. Those fundamental principles still hold true. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of politicians ideas and policy, some of which are daft, politicians are elected by the people and the will of the people must reign supreme in a democracy.

The Bill is limited and does not usher in a new era of transparency in the way the State conducts its business. On 16 November 1994 the Taoiseach stated:

We need a new government that will reform the institutions of this State to make every Member of this House who holds office truly accountable. We need reform to ensure that when the answers to questions asked in the House are not adequate the Ceann Comhairle can demand that a further answer be given.

We know that no one demands that the Ceann Comhairle put pressure on anyone, particularly on the Government side, to provide more information or ensure questions are answered. I thank the Chair for allowing me contribute to the debate and look forward to putting down amendments on Committee Stage.

There is a possibility that I may wish to share my time. It would appear to many who read the title of the Bill that this should be a most boring and mundane debate. However, it is an interesting one and Deputy Martin's contribution has shown the diversity of opinion on the issue.

The Bill is a first step in giving an opportunity to those who are unaccustomed to participating in the system to see how business is conducted. People can be assured that the concerns they express to public representatives will not only be addressed by them but by the representative with responsibility for the area in question.

There is a saying that information is power. It is extremely dangerous to relinquish the power to distribute information. We live in a technical era and it will be obvious to the public if a question is not properly put and answered or if insufficient notice is taken of a query.

Society is changing and I hate when people say it is crumbling around us. However, it will crumble if we do not welcome and manage the change. The system has not changed for 20 years. This Bill is a first step in the process of change. People demand to know exactly how the business of Government is conducted and they are right to demand accountability because they pay for and elect Governments. Responsibility and accountability are two sides of the same coin so far as democracy is concerned.

Our democracy has been tarnished by the steadfast refusal of successive Government to throw open the shutters on the business of Government. Not only Governments but politicians have suffered because of this. For years Ministers were able to complacently dodge Dáil questions secure in the knowledge that no forum had the power to bring them to book. This practice, to which Deputy Martin referred, of giving as little information as possible as late as possible culminated in the refusal of Fianna Fáil Ministers to answer questions on the beef industry. Everyone recognises that this was a mistake. It was a denial of democracy which led to the hugely expensive beef tribunal.

This Bill is a cornerstone of this Government's programme of renewal together with other elements such as the introduction of freedom of information legislation, a relaxation of the absolute principle of Cabinet confidentiality, a review of the Official Secrets Act and the reform of the antediluvian Ministers and Secretaries Act. This Bill is a small part of a package which will be the first step. These measures form a comprehensive package of reform designed to shed light on the process of Government, and to ensure that those who formulate and implement policy are fully accountable to Members of the Oireachtas and, ultimately, the people.

Since the foundation of the State we have witnessed a fundamental alteration in the relationship between Government and those it governs. Yet our institutions have not kept pace with social and political changes. Many of our procedures were adopted wholesale from Westminster, not withstanding the fact that unlike the UK we have a written Constitution. The unwritten English Constitution of Walter Bagehot has hung over successive Irish Governments over the past 70 years. The 19th century view outlined by Bagehot was that the business of Government was to govern rather than to inform. The principle of consent, an essential pillar of democracy which we uphold, was reserved for general elections. That was the only time he considered the public had a right to be consulted. Democracy was viewed as periodic rather than continuous.

As we approach the 21st century there is a growing impetus to broaden our democracy. If we consider the civil wars which have taken place in Europe, it is essential that we cherish our democracy and ensure that it works. There is also a realisation that elected representatives must function not only as legislators but also as monitors on behalf of the people.

Until now the Oireachtas committees have largely been confined to teasing out the finer points of legislation. That is a valuable role and, indeed, the legislative function of committees is often underestimated by commentators who view Deputies as overpaid apparatchiks who spend their days trotting between the voting lobby and the Dáil bar.

However, the ability of committees to examine and probe the issues of the day — with the exception of the Committee of Public Accounts—has been limited by the absence of legislation enabling them to compel the attendance of appropriate witnesses who have been deterred by the absence of privilege. We must not forget that. It is easy to publicly call for an official to attend a committee to be scrutinised. I would not consider the use of the word "explain" to be correct. If a witness comes before a committee, he should articulate his position rather than explain. We should not be in an adversarial position.

The public views the committees as being largely irrelevant. The proposals in this legislation will help to transform the role of the Oireachtas committees enabling them on behalf of the electorate, to delve into matters of public importance and to seek answers to questions being asked by the people. However, I am concerned at the restrictions in the legislation. The two contributors I listened to this morning expressed the same fears. I appreciate there are certain matters which, in the public interest, must remain closed to public scrutiny.

I do not understand why, according to section 5, discussions by civil servants at committees appointed by the Government should be exempt from this legislation. Surely such discussions do not fall under the imperative of Cabinet confidentiality? If they do, is that not a reason to speedily reform the Cabinet confidentiality rules rather than limiting the scope of the legislation? I do not understand why information used to assess liability for taxes, duties and other payments owed to the State and public bodies should not be covered. It is possible to reveal such information without compromising the individual's right to privacy. Fair taxation is essential to the equitable conduct of public affairs. There is a perception that taxation in this State is anything but fair and that PAYE workers bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden, while the self-employed and large farmers pay less then their due.

It is in the public interest that information regarding tax liabilities, especially liabilities which are not met, be disclosed to Members of the Oireachtas. There are a number of precedents for disclosing such information without referring to named individuals and I urge the Minister to revisit this section with a view to bringing taxation matters within the scope of the legislation.

Section 3, which exempts certain officeholders, also appears to present some problems. I believe the Taoiseach is looking at this and it should be noted that the Government side as well as the Opposition have reservations. I appreciate the need to maintain the independence of the Judiciary and legal officers of the State. However, I would welcome a broadening of the compellability provision as regards the Office of the Attorney General whose function is political as well as administrative. Committees other than the Committee of Public Accounts should be entitled to compel witnesses from the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General are referred to almost daily. Previously, these Offices were rarely mentioned and only in relation to very technical matters. We should look again at this section.

On a more positive note. I welcome the section which exempts from compellability the source of any information contained in a statement by a Member of the Oireachtas in the House or in a committee. The trust between a Member of the Oireachtas and the public — this Bill is about how we relate to those who elect us — is essential to the functioning of our democracy. The public must feel free to come to any Oireachtas Member with information or questions secure in the knowledge that the source of such information will not be revealed and that they will not be exposed to adverse consequences as a result of having passed on such information. I will not revisit debates we have had over the years as a result of information passed on to Oireachtas Members.

This principle is copperfastened in the Bill and I hope the concept of protection of sources will be enshrined in other legislation in this area. In this regard, I hope the forthcoming Freedom of Information Bill will contain a clause enabling journalists to protect their sources except in certain clearly defined cases where it is in the public interest for such sources to be revealed.

On entering office the Taoiseach said that Government must be as transparent as if it were being conducted behind a pane of glass. This legislation will go some way towards fulfilling that aspiration. It is, however, only one element of a package of reforms which must be speedily enacted if our democracy is to be strengthened. As for Government being conducted behind a pane of glass, there are still certain elements that need to be protected.

A recent book about Deputy Reynolds, who will go down in history as being mainly responsible for bringing about peace, refers to an off-the-cuff remark by a Minister whose statement at a currency crisis meeting resulted in a decrease in the German Mark. There are times when we need to be careful what we say and how we say it. We must be as open as possible and inform the people who elect us how we spend their money and order their lives.

I welcome this Bill, in which I have more than a passing interest. Having sought for the best part of two years to have it introduced, I am delighted it has at last made an appearance. I very much regret that some of the restrictions, about which I was concerned and which I discussed with officials when I was Minister of State, remain in the Bill. It does not differ greatly from the draft of the previous Bill. Why did it take such a long time to bring before the House a Bill that was in draft form this time last year and appears not to have been altered greatly in the meantime? The Government is supposed to be totally committed to openness, transparency and accountability, but that claim rings hollow with many people, and their doubts are justified by the fact that it took 12 months to bring this Bill before the House.

In certain quarters of the Civil Service as well as in political circles there are grave reservations about this and other Bills. It was my experience in dealing with civil servants that many of them would welcome much more openness and an opportunity at various times to justify actions taken under policy directions by Minister. There is perhaps a suspicion that civil servants do not welcome Bills such as this, but the vast majority, particularly civil servants other than those at top levels in Departments, would be happier with a more open system. Very often they wish to justify their actions but do not have an opportunity to do so. Perhaps that opportunity will be available to them under this and other Bills.

Having had knowledge of the previous draft of the Bill, I wonder whether it is worth the bother of putting this legislation through the House. Party because of my experience of the Bill introduced this time last year to allow a committee to investigate events at that time and partly because of background information I received about the implications of the Haughey judgment, I do not know whether this Bill will be effective or whether the constitutional rights of people appearing before committees will be vindicated. While I agree committees should have powers of investigation. I have no doubt that, even on enactment of this Bill, clever individuals will be able to tie committees up in knots on the basis of that much-cherished document, the Constitution. There must be ways and means of vindicating the rights of people appearing before committees but in that respect I am not sure this Bill will be effective.

The Bill will be very helpful to the House in investigating political matters relating to the activities of Ministers since it provides for the setting up of political inquiries. The history of inquiries since the foundation of the State, whether relating to the beef tribunal or Locke's distillery, is not good in that reports have been produced but no conclusions have been drawn. Some form of inquiry is necessary to deal with charges of a political nature which are sometimes made in this House, and this Bill goes some way towards dealing with that matter.

Does anybody believe that under section 7 (1) it will be possible to make inquiries into certain matters? Will the Opposition, or even concerned Government Deputies, ever be in a position to make inquiries? Will the Taoiseach of the day sign a certificate at any time in the future to say that a person should give evidence to this committee? It is difficult to believe, in view of the escape clause in section 7 (1), that a Taoiseach would sign a document to compel somebody to go before a committee and answer questions where they would be embarrassing for the Government and might mean a Minister or the Government having to resign. That provision should be looked at again. The Taoiseach will have a role with regard to matters pertaining to the security of the State but that role should not be as all-encompassing as it is in this section. A Taoiseach can effectively stop an inquiry in its tracks by refusing to say that a person must come before a committee. That should not be allowed in view of what this Bill is attempting to do.

We have seen a recent example of what can happen in this regard. A Government Minister was loud in his condemnation of certain activities of a semi-State company. There have been three calls for an inquiry and the Government parties have voted them down on three occasions. That clearly illustrates what will happen. Section 7 (1) will facilitate that happening again and we will be back to square one. We are bringing ourselves into disrepute.

I reiterate the point made by Deputies Martin, O'Keeffe and others. Why does the Bill restrict to certain committees the right to send for papers, documents and witnesses? It should not contain that restriction as all committees of this House should have those powers. We have the remedy in our own hands — we can change the terms of reference of each of the committees to give them the power to send for persons and papers although it would be a pity if we had to follow that route because many of the legislative committees would go off on all sorts of tangents. The Bill should not contain that restriction. Every committee of the House should have that power by resolution of the House which will ensure that the committee does not necessarily make the decision itself. The House should be able to give powers to a committee to investigate certain matters and it should not be restricted to the committees mentioned in the Bill.

I do not agree with section 3 which provides that the Attorney General should not come before a committee. Nobody should be excluded from appearing before a committee of this House. I am delighted the Taoiseach said that the Director of Public Prosecutions should appear before a committee of the House; so should the Attorney General and every other person who is employed and paid by the State. In the last 30 years and particularly in the last ten years we have established quangos and bodies of various types that are given specific directions by Government to carry out certain policies. They are given independence to do so and that is a good thing.

However, in this House we continually fail to make a proper distinction between independence and accountability. Anybody in charge of a State or semi-State organisation or a quango that is expending large sums of taxpayers' money and is in a position to abuse his or her power — usually his where these bodies are concerned — should be accountable and we, as representatives of the people, should have the power to bring them before the House and question them as to how they are discharging their functions. It is either that, or the Minister who appoints these bodies should be made responsible for their actions so that we can avoid the situation in which a question about roads or roads policy to the Minister for the Environment is diverted to the National Roads Authority or a question on a health matter is referred to a health board. We are doing ourselves an injustice by excluding such people. Under the Bill most of them can be brought before the House but the Attorney General is specifically excluded. He should not be and I hope that before Committee Stage the Minister and the Government will have second thoughts in that regard. There is no reason the Attorney General should not appear before a committee of the House.

Section 4 refers to the terms of reference of a committee. It states: "A committee may not direct a person to give evidence, or produce or send a document, to it or attend before it to give evidence, or produce a document, to it which is outside its terms of reference."

I can see this provision being tied up for years in various courts. Who will decide what is outside the terms of reference of the committee? If the chairman decides that a document or a person or a matter being inquired into is outside the terms of reference of the committee and a Member says that it is not, who will be the arbiter? The Member will have to vindicate his right somewhere else, in the High Court or the Supreme Court. There should be clarification of this provision and, if necessary, it should be amended to provide a clear line of decision about such matters.

My other major problem with the Bill relates to section 5 which outlines the matters outside the scope of the Bill. I have no difficulty, as others appear to have, in excluding discussions at Cabinet and with maintaining Cabinet confidentiality. I have no difficulty with the Supreme Court ruling in that regard. Having sat at the Cabinet table in my capacity as Chief Whip, having listened to those discussions and seen the interaction, I believe the one way to cripple Government decision making processes and the cut and thrust of discussion around the table in which everybody gives their opinion until a decision is finally made — and to finish real Government — is to introduce provisions whereby discussions at Cabinet table can become non-confidential. It would be madness of the highest order and I am as much, if not more, committed to accountability as those who preach it every day.

Fifteen Ministers would have to go to the Cabinet table with a prepared script of what they planned to say. They would have to carefully file everything they say at such meetings so that two, three or four years hence they could refer back to what they said. I have no problem with Government decisions or Government papers or memoranda. However, I have a problem with abolishing the confidentiality of discussions. The Minister and Chief Whip, Deputy Higgins, is here. He attends Cabinet meetings and I guarantee him that in four weeks time he would not be able to give an accurate recollection of what happened at the Cabinet table this week. It would be subject to all sorts of interpretations. One can only go by the Government's decisions and that is the end of the matter. The way the decision was reached around the Cabinet table is not relevant. We should cop ourselves on before such madness gets out of hand. Every party has been in Government during the past seven or eight years and I would be amazed if any Member who has been in Government would agree that Cabinet discussions should be subject to such scrutiny.

Regarding section 5, I am concerned about provisions relating to court actions. The Minister should clarify the position regarding matters outside the scope of the Bill such as issues which are the subject of proceedings before the courts. All Members are familiar with the infamous gagging writs issued to prevent matters being discussed or raised in the House. That position has changed because to all intents and purposes we have abolished the sub judice rule, but under this legislation it is proposed to revert to the position where a person may issue a write preventing a matter being subjected to an investigation by the House. That must be addressed and the Minister should clarify the position. If that provision is retained in the Bill, it will make the Bill useless in many respects.

The famous phrase "the security of the State" is mentioned many times in the Bill. With due respect to the officials in the Department of Justice, they have a wide interpretation of what is meant by that phrase. It literally means anything, including signs on the wall directing people where to go in the Department of Justice which could be an official secret. I do not favour the inclusion of that phrase in legislation. As its interpretation is so wide-ranging, it should not be included in a Bill. Any person could plead they were acting in the interests of the security in the State. If an investigation is required into some matter in the Department of Justice, the phrase "the security of the State" would appear in every letter relating to that inquiry. That phrase must be properly defined.

Section 9 requires clarification. I may be interpreting the section incorrectly, but it appears that if a clerical officer or staff officer of a Department is summoned to appear before a committee the Secretary of the Department must be informed and he or she, the official's employer, may appear before the committee in the official's place. I do not disagree with the notification procedure, but it appears that an official can be replaced by a superior. I hope that is not the case and I seek clarification of section 9(1)(a).

I welcome the Bill and the spirit in which it was introduced by the Minister. As he said, this is revolutionary legislation about which many of us have been talking for some time. Some of my colleagues who are chairmen of committees have advocated that without the power of compellability and subsequent protection of witnesses' rights some committee work will be stymied due to lack of co-operation. Other members of my party who are chairmen of committees will identify some of the difficulties they encountered, particularly in regard to those responsible for the spending of public money who have refused to attend and supply information to a committee. I am sure my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, will have more to say on that topic.

The Minister touched on some of the points raised by Deputy Dempsey who was involved in the drafting of the Bill. The Minister said the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, who will be responsible for steering the Bill through the Oireachtas, will consider suggestions that might improve it or remove anomalies. The Bill is undergoing political analysis and I expect it will be the subject of an excellent debate in the House.

As chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs I have received nothing but co-operation from all concerned particularly Government members, who were requested to appear before us. It has always been said that Ministers implemented Cabinet decisions and followed decisions by the EU or directives from the European Commission with little accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Following such decisions there is public analysis to determine if such decisions were good, bad or indifferent and how they affected the lives of our people. Many of the decisions, particularly those taken at meetings of the European Council of Ministers are very relevant to Irish people, whether the business, social or agricultural sector. Decisions arrived at during Council of Ministers meetings are of relevance to this House and, on the basis of accountability, to the people who elect us. People elect us to represent them at all levels.

The Government set up new committees, particularly the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and gave them new terms of reference empowering them to compel officials, Ministers, holders of high office and journalists to appear before them. This Bill will confer additional power on committees to compel witnesses to appear. The committee of which I am chairman has interviewed ten Ministers and Ministers of State. They, and their officials, briefed the committee on the position they adopted in Europe.

The committee chaired by Deputy Mitchell was briefed by the Minister of State on the Reflection Group which is preparing the Government's position on the Intergovernmental Conference. That Minister of State made himself available to the committee in the afternoon following a meeting he attended in Brussels that morning. That should clarify the position in case the public are under any misapprehension that a culture of secrecy still exists or that the Government is guilty of not being transparent and open as its members said they want to be. This facility has been and is available to my committee. With respect to those who criticise committees, the members of all political parties who are members of the committee are satisfied with the responses that have been forthcoming from Ministers in the public arena. Subject to media and television coverage, Ministers have come forward and given their views as well as written documentation. There has been no effort to cover up any decision arrived at before the committee was set up.

An EU directive which had a direct bearing on cargo and baggage handling at Dublin Airport created confusion, unhappiness, discontent and much unnecessary fear in the minds of the trade union movement representing those workers. They sought an opportunity to put before the committee their concerns in a thorough and forthcoming manner. We immediately requested the relevant Minister, Deputy Lowry, to come before the committee and explain if the trade union's concern was well founded, to explain to the public what was decided by the Community and the Commission.

On the occasion of the Minister's attendance at the committee the Opposition tried to use his presence for other, ulterior motives but failed because we specifically asked him to come before the committee to give evidence on a specific subject for which he was accountable to the committee, the trade unions and the people. That was a most useful procedure. When the Minister was responding we invited the trade unions to come and listen to what he was saying. Arising from that, further meetings took place between the Minister and Commissioner Kinnock who had overall responsibility. We discovered that the decision had not been made but the decision in principle had been made by the Minister's predecessor, which confused all the political pundits. This is a useful power. There is no doubt that the House and the Minister are prepared to listen to reasonable amendments in this regard.

I see nothing wrong with precluding Cabinet confidentiality from public discussion because, as Deputy Dempsey said, it might undermine the workings of Government and the Executive. Likewise the Attorney General, in his special role as a constitutional lawyer and as an adviser to the Government, should not be subject to critical analysis by a committee. Recently the Attorney General attended the Committee of Public Accounts for the purpose of giving evidence and to speak on areas which were the responsibility of that committee vis-à-vis spending and value for money in the adminstration of that office. That is appropriate. I have no doubt that if somebody is refused permission to come forward on the basis of the preclusions in the Bill a written authority for that refusal will be forthcoming. Everybody would then, understand the reason was serious and probably involved Cabinet confidentiality or the security of the State.

As an elected Member, everything I say or do is subject to critical analysis, examination, media publicity and so on. On a daily basis some people in the media act as if they have a special privileged position because the terms of their arrangements were agreed on the understanding that information would not be divulged to anybody. If those in the media were paid the same as Members I have no doubt they would make use of such information on a daily basis. Not only do these people vote themselves wage and salary increases but they will not tell anybody about it because it is secret. Of course, we do not vote ourselves anything — we do not have that power. If we did have that power, perhaps we would pay ourselves properly.

Everything we do, from the day we are elected, is subject to critical analysis. On the first day I became a member of a county council or an urban council I had to sign the register of interests of members vis-à-vis ownership of property that might be involved in planning or any other decision I could have influenced. I did not have any problem with that or in signing the register of interests following the passage of the Ethics in Public Office Act. This created problems for many people simply because there was some area of their lives which they did not want to make public, particularly as it related to their holding an elected office as a Dáil Deputy or Senator. I do not have any problem with these requests because I offer myself to the public in the knowledge that whether I am a Member, a chairman of a committee or a member of a county council I am in the public arena and paid from the public purse. Likewise I have no problem in registering with the data protection commissioner information such as social security numbers, PRSI numbers, tax numbers or any information in connection with my constituents, who come to me in their wisdom. The fact that I retain some of that information in my data base requires me to register. I do not have a problem with that and I do it because it is my public duty. Likewise, under the new Freedom of Information Bill, which is being prepared, why should people not have information if it is in their interest?

I am in discussion with various colleagues in the COSAC group of European committees on how to break down the communication gap between Government, parliament and the people. If we do not keep the people informed of what we are doing they will lose interest, particularly in European affairs. They are only interested in Europe as it affects their daily lives and it affects many in a positive way.

I worry because from time to time, following the Intergovernmental Conference, it will be necessary to hold further referenda to try to come to grips with changes which will be necessary following the introduction of the Maas-stricht Treaty. Inevitably, fundamental changes will take place, following the Maastricht Treaty, which will require referenda. If we are not able to communicate to the public the significance and the reason for referenda, it is possible that some could be lost, with tremendous implications for this country.

The recent successful challenge to the rights of Government to spend money to advise the public in a particular way raises the question of the Government being able to communicate a message in the interests of the common good. In the event of the message not being transmitted in a forthright manner, we could run the risk of losing a referendum in the future. That is a serious consequence of the recent decision but it makes us who work on committees responsible in every way possible.

Some of the newer members of the European Union, particularly the Scandinavians have set up various named committees, from grand to European committees, all with the same function. They have taken to themselves many new powers which some of the older committees, such as the UK, the German and the French committees do not have.

The Danish Committee, for example, can virtually veto its Government Ministers. Before decisions are made in the Council of Ministers they must come before the committee, account for what they are doing and obtain the approval of the committee before casting a vote in a particular way. That is a powerful weapon for a committee. It may be cumbersome, if one is in the final throes of reaching an agreement, but it places an obligation on Ministers to report back to the committee every Friday, explain their actions and receive its imprimatur before signing any agreement.

Our committees do not have that power, and have not sought it, but they can advise Minister in the knowledge that cross-party views are expressed at committee meetings. Ministers are beginning to appreciate the fact that they are not going to Europe simply as Ministers of the Executive but in consultation with all other representatives in this Parliament. When Ministers and officials respond positively to requests to appear before committees, it is an indication that the committee system, of which people have been critical, is working reasonably well.

Committees are obliged to report to a plenary session of the Dáil on the work they have completed, the work on hand, attendances at meetings and their voting records. A full debate on that information takes place, thereby completing the cycle of transparency and accountability. In that way, the Ministers who have come before us, and others we may request to attend, will be accountable to this House also.

It is important also that the Bill confers on witnesses before committees the same privilege afforded to witnesses before the High Court. That is appropriate because people must be assured that what they say will not be subject subsequently to a legal challenge. They will be giving their evidence and answering questions based on what they regard as a legitimate interpretation of events.

The Bill represents a great step forward. It is an issue we have been talking about in my party for quite some time. It is appropriate that it has come before the Dáil. I realise the Bill may be amended for the purposes of improving it but its supreme principle is that Parliament, through its elected representatives, must have the power to ensure that everybody in the public services is accountable to it.

I welcome the Bill, the principle of which is to strengthen the committees of the House and make them more meaningful. I have enjoyed participating in various committees of the House since I first became a Member in 1989. At that time there was ongoing controversy about the need for a tribunal to investigate the beef industry, an issue I will return to later.

Members will have an opportunity for a more detailed debate on Committee Stage. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Finance indicated the Bill was not perfect and that he remains open to any reasonable suggestions to improve it.

We have all heard about compellability and the testing of it in 1970. When I first came into this House there was much controversy and ambiguity surrounding the then Taoiseach and his Government with regard to answering questions on the beef industry. A number of Members of the then Opposition were calling for the establishment of a tribunal. We can only learn from that experience, particularly in terms of the costs involved to the State. I table questions periodically on the costs of the tribunal which, when everything is calculated and the Taxing Master has paid all the outstanding bills, will probably amount to £70 million. I understand the current figure is approximately £30 million.

I have sat on a number of committees and had the privilege of being the convenor to the first Select Committee on Legislation and Security. Despite the fact that we must work in accordance with regulations governing committees and that some of the new standing committees are still in their infancy, the committees in general have achieved a great deal, particularly the committee of inquiry which investigated the events of December 1994. That committee achieved what it set out to do by completing its inquiry and reporting to the Dáil accordingly. Few difficulties arose in relation to the witnesses called to appear before the committee of inquiry, with the exception of a Minister of State in this Government who indicated initially that he would attend but then indicated in a flippant manner that baby meal times had to be adhered to. The same individual had made quite outlandish statements in the House about evidence available to him. It subsequently emerged he did not have any such evidence. When one examines the record of the Government on accountability and transparency, one discovers it is questionable. While not wanting to tar everybody with the same brush, that has been the case of a number of colleagues of the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins. When in Opposition Members have availed of an opportunity to climb on the bandwagon at a particularly delicate or sensitive time on a national issue, but when the acid test is applied they are not prepared to stand over their wild allegations. If this Bill prevents the recurrence of such practice, I wholeheartedly welcome it.

On the matter of compellability and privileges of witnesses, questions to be put to them, documentation and so on, there is need for much greater clarity. Section 5 sets out the areas which are outside the scope of compellability in all circumstances and goes on to list them, while another section specifies the categories of witnesses that cannot be compelled to give evidence before a committee of the House. I should like the Minister to give a clearer definition of those witnesses named by the Minister for Finance, such as the President, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the officials of their offices, members of the Judiciary, the Attorney General, members of his or her staff and so on and spheres within which the Taoiseach has what might be described as a veto. I should like to know why this was deemed necessary and the considerations in arriving at that decision.

This would appear to be a Bill which will create conditions for accountability and transparency in the case of witnesses appearing before House committees. I welcome these provisions and the fact that each committee will provide annual reports. When the Dáil is not in session, the public assume we are all on holiday, whereas the contrary is the case. Perhaps when these committees are working, when investigations are in train which receive the necessary media coverage, highlighting their deliberations, the true message will reach the electorate. Last Christmas, when I normally try to get a break with my wife and family. I had to attend the inquiry that lasted right up to budget day. The public generally would have thought most Members were free of their parliamentary duties. It is a pity there is need for House committees to engage in investigations and inquiries and require press coverage to highlight the fact that they are in session and engaging in that task. In recent years these committees, with full and frank exchanges between Members, Ministers and their officials, provided with the requisite secretarial assistance and facilities, have done excellent work and allowed Members discard the straitjacket normally imposed on them within this Chamber. The more we can highlight their good work the better.

This Bill affords committees the powers to take whatever action is deemed to be necessary for their purposes at any given time.

Deputy Ferris referred to the burning question of Government expenditure of £500,000 on advocating a "yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum on divorce. It is galling to read a letter circulated by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, on his position in regard to such expenditure. I cannot recall its full contents but——

We all have seen it from time to time. Deputy Callely need not worry about it. Deputy Callely knew better than the High Court; he is advocating we should sack the High Court.

——it clearly indicated that the then Leader of the Opposition would object to such expenditure which, to paraphrase him, would coerce somebody to vote in a certain way and would not represent a fair presentation of the arguments advanced on both sides.

Since the circulating of that letter, which many constituents brought to my attention, the need to address fairness has arisen. Let us be quite clear on this issue — perhaps Deputy Dukes would welcome a clear understanding of it. When I tabled a question to the Taoiseach, he decided he would not answer it. Is that what he regards as "accountability"? He arranged for its transfer. I continued to endeavour to elicit some evidence of accountability on his part. When he sat in this very seat, he gave a clear indication of his intention some four or five weeks prior to his assuming his present high office. Since then, it would appear that his partners in Government have persuaded him to change his stance or course of action. One does not know because he has refused to answer my question.

I followed a number of avenues open to me to try to get clarification of the issue of the fairness of the Government spending £500,000 on the referendum campaign. Of late there have been developments in the campaign on the proposed amendment of the Constitution but these are of no benefit; the Minister for Finance put his foot in it and had to withdraw statements, and the Minister for Social Welfare blatantly and boldly exploited his office in an attack on the Catholic bishops and, unlike his colleague, the Minister for Finance, has not apologised. This is regrettable and I hope the Minister for Social Welfare will see the light and make the necessary apology as quickly as possible. There is no doubt that the debate is becoming heated. People on either side of the argument are boiling, and some are spilling over as we have seen in the case of the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare.

Let me return to the burning question of the provision of information and documentation to ensure that the general public, who are a sophisticated electorate, will make an informed and fair decision freely without being bewildered or browbeaten. It is important, particularly in the light of the recent High Court ruling, that we stand back and allow the people to make an informed decision, particularly in referenda which are the utmost in democracy. This has only been achieved on this occasion because people outside this House, at their own expense, brought a case before the courts when Ministers failed to give a fair response to Deputies in the House.

Committees will have the power to make investigations, compel witnesses to appear, and to adjudicate on matters they are dealing with. Will the general public be able to bring matters of concern to them to the attention of a committee without the expense of having to go through the legal system? The Minister should give the public access to and indicate how they can avail of the system. It might be by writing to the chairman of the committee and asking him or her to place a particular matter on the agenda for consideration by the committee. Alternatively, it might be better to put in place a procedure not involving the chairman of the committee, because the membership of most committees is heavily biased so that the Government would always be in a position to decide that a committee should not entertain a particular request.

The policy agreement between the three parties in Government — Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left —A Government of Renewal referred to the “need for fundamental reform of the Oireachtas to make it more responsive to the needs of a modern democratic society”.

In pursuit of this aim, one of the proposals on Oireachtas reform was to complete and publish this Bill and following its enactment, to form a committee of investigation.

Last March, the Government brought forward a number of measures promised in our programme to enhance the Oireachtas committees. These measures needed, however, to be complemented by those included in the Bill now published.

Credit is due to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, the Minister of State, Deputy Avril Doyle, their officials and the Office of the Attorney General for their steadfast commitment and efforts in producing this Bill. It has not been easy. It is a relatively short Bill that has attracted much attention. It needed to be very carefully put together and necessitated many hours of work by all involved. Opposition Deputies have castigated this Government on its legislative record. I am happy we were able to bring forward Bills such as this and I have no doubt our performance will prove itself in the end.

The enactment of this Bill will result in a fundamental reform of these Houses and make the spectacle of another beef tribunal less likely in the future. Democracy and the taxpayer will be the net beneficiaries.

The purpose of this Bill is to give bite to Oireachtas committees which have the power to call for persons, papers and records. The power to call witnesses and evidence, both written and oral, while bestowing privilege as enjoyed by a High Court witness will give effective powers to committees to do a much more complete investigation of the myriad of areas for which they have responsibility. Unfortunately, to make these investigations thorough, compellability is also essential. We have all seen how the work and the concept of the committee system has been thwarted by reluctance and evasiveness. This will not be tolerated any longer.

The only point on which I could agree with Deputy Callely related to the competence of committees and the manner in which they are generally deemed to be working effectively. Deputy Martin mentioned that the committees had not taken on one of the key functions for which they were set up, which is to examine legislative proposals. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the proposal in the document A Government of Renewal“to give power to the committees to discuss the draft proposals for legislative changes and new legislation for recommendation to Ministers”. Deputy Martin did not seem to be aware that that is being done at present. I would draw his attention to the fact that the orders of reference of the four legislative committees and the Joint Committees on European Affairs and Foreign Affairs have been amended to provide that they and Ministers of State may, where practicable, discuss with the committees general proposals for legislation relevant to their areas. This option has not been utilised to date although the Minister for the Environment submitted to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs a list of suggested reforms to electoral law.

In regard to Private Members' Bills, the terms of reference of the four legislation committees and the Joint Committees on European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, the Irish Language. Women's Affairs, Sustainable Development, the Family and Small Business and Services, empower the committees to draft and discuss proposals for legislative changes for recommendation to Ministers. The power already there might well be utilised given that we have already amended the various orders to enable the committees and Ministers to participate in a very valuable exercise.

I take on board the point made by Deputy Callely that the committees are not given the recognition they deserve. We have tried to ensure, where possible, that the public is made aware that even though the House is not sitting in plenary session it is sitting in committee fulfilling a vital role and examining legislation in detail. I exhort the media, particularly the print media, to devote the necessary resources to cover the valuable work done by committees in which there is now a much more meaningful participation by Members in regard to the detailed provisions of legislation. We not only have a better input but also a better output in terms of comprehensive legislation whose provisions are teased out thoroughly in a depoliticised atmosphere.

The Bill creates offences in the areas of contempt, perjury and the non-disclosure of evidence and stipulates penalties of fines not exceeding £1,500 for summary conviction or not exceeding £20,000 on conviction on indictment. These penalties will make the relevant committees more effective and will ensure they are taken seriously by everyone. The compellability aspect has, of course, been the focal point for the Opposition in the preparation and production of the Bill. It is now clear that, apart from attending the Committee of Public Accounts and his obligation to answer questions in regard to the general administration of his office, the Attorney General will not be compelled to attend a committee. Like me, many others believe this is only correct given that the Attorney General is in a unique position under the Constitution, as is the President. No one could seriously argue otherwise and it would be totally inappropriate to compel the Attorney General to attend a committee in any capacity other than that provided for in the Bill.

The Opposition has stated that the Bill has already been flagged by the Government for amendment on Committee Stage regarding the Director of Public Prosecutions. We make no apology for availing of this opportunity to display our stated policy of transparency. The amendment referred to by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance will not impinge on the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, which gives the Director of Public Prosecutions his independence in the performance of his functions. He will not be compelled to discuss or comply with any specific criteria relating to particular cases and he will only be required to give evidence regarding general policy on administration in his office to a committee to be designated. I imagine the emphasis will most likely be on the areas, persons and circumstances where the Bill does not apply. These are valid exceptions but, as the Minister for Finance said, the Government is open to suggestions and will accept amendments if the arguments are good and sound.

The Bill will give powers to the committees entitled to avail of its provisions. Following its enactment the Government intends to bring forward proposals to establish a committee of investigation which will examine matters of serious public concern. Proposals on this committee will form part of the wideranging package of further Oireachtas reform measures which the Government is actively considering and will be published very shortly. Obviously I cannot elaborate on our proposals in regard to the committee of investigation but I am confident that the House will welcome this innovative reform when it is introduced. Last night Deputy O'Donnell said she will propose reform of the committees generally. I look forward to receiving these proposals which will be taken into account by the Government in its consideration of Oireachtas reform measures.

Having regard to this Bill, the proposed committee of investigation and the proposed package of reforms. I am sure it is recognised that we are a Government of reform. We do not just talk about reform. Rather we regularly produce solid innovative and tangible measures which will make this House and the Seanad more responsive to the needs of a modern democratic society.

I am glad this Bill has been brought before the House as it constitutes a useful, targeted and selective extension of the powers of certain committees in circumstances where a degree of selectiveness is justified. Some of its provisions may well be contentious from a legal point of view — I will refer later to certain issues which will have to be discussed in detail on Committee Stage — and it will certainly be contentious in the House. We have already seen some indications of this and it may not be a bad thing because some Members, particularly the Members of Opposition parties, seem to want to go further than provided for in the Bill and to deal with some of its measures in a rather unselective basis. This would not be correct.

It is correct that this Bill is somewhat selective in terms of the powers it gives to committees and the committees to which it gives those powers. It is essential for us to remember the functions of this House and of the Oireachtas generally and the role of committees in the performance of those functions. As I see it, the function of the committees — I am glad we have expanded the committee system — is to assist the Oireachtas in its duties as a Legislature, in ensuring accountability on the part of the Government in supervising expenditure on the basis of the sums voted in the House, in assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of legislation and in considering the manner in which that legislation is applied. However, this House is not and cannot be — and we should not try to make it so — an alternative to the court system, a new form of court. That is not our function under the Constitution and to the extent arguments for expanding the scope of the Bill are based on the idea that this House should have functions of judgment, they are ill founded, wrong and dangerous in the context of a constitutional system which clearly and correctly reposes on the principle of the separation of powers.

It is possible that in the course of their deliberations, with or without the provisions of the Bill, committees may come across matters which should properly be the subject of judicial attention. If that is the case then the judicial function should be handed over to the proper authorities, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts. If any Members have it as part of their ambition for committees, to turn them into courts then they are absolutely wrong and we should be very careful about doing that.

We have to resist the temptation to broaden the activities of committees beyond the proper functions of this House and we should rein in our natural inclinations. I can understand those inclinations and would love to extend the powers of compellability to compel Mr. William Binchy to come in here and justify the stance he took in public on radio this morning when he said he approves of two highly objectionable posters which are downright lies, to the extent that they helped to raise an issue. What he was saying — this is a most extraordinary statement by a lawyer and a person so-called campaigning on the side of justice and equity — is that the end justifies the means and any lie is good enough in order to raise an issue. I would like to have powers to compel that person to come in and explain that in circumstances where he cannot wriggle and dodge out of the way he tried to wriggle out of that very damaging admission this morning but of course, we shall contain ourselves. We will not be able to compel him but with God's help and all the rest, we will not have to do it after Friday because the issue will be put beyond doubt.

It is very important that members of committees and those of us who have ambition for further developing the roles of committees should look very carefully at the terms of reference that would apply to any investigation or any inquiry that committees would make under this Bill. We should look back on recent history and learn lessons from it. A great many people profess themselves to be disappointed by the findings of the beef tribunal which sat for years with the expenditure of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. Nowhere in the findings of the tribunal did it appear to be possible to attach criminal blame to persons many would have blamed for certain things. I was not all surprised. I invite Members to look again at the terms of reference of the tribunal which were proposed by a previous Taoiseach, who is now outside the political sphere. It was standing out a mile for anybody who cared to examine the terms of reference closely that they were written in such a way that it would be impossible for the tribunal to arrive at the kind of conclusions which people in this House suspected might be justified. I do not think that was an accident. The terms of reference were designed with that end in mind and the House, the media and the general public bought them hook, line and sinker without having looked at them with sufficient care and attention. It is essential when committees are undertaking the kinds of examination allowed for in this Bill, that they should be very careful to ensure that the terms of reference are drafted properly. From my experience of membership of committees but not, I am happy to say, from my experience of the committee I chair in most cases where there are arguments in a committee as to whether a matter can be properly dealt with by the committee the arguments arise from the fact that members of the committee have not read the terms of reference. We could save ourselves some time if we all read the terms of reference and if we find something wrong with them we should have the argument about it here in the Chamber when it comes to modifying the terms of reference of committees. I think the Minister for Finance had something like this in mind when he said in his Second Stage speech:

This Bill gives committees strong coercive powers, backed up by serious penalties — but there is a price to be paid for using them. That price is the sacrifice of the free ranging, often spontaneous and sometimes idiosyncratic questioning to which Deputies often productively resort. That price may even be the replacement of the traditional chairpersons of committees by new chairpersons more disposed to restrict members to pre-ordained lines of inquiry.

I can understand what the Minister was getting at but to speak of the free ranging often spontaneous and sometimes idiosyncratic questioning to which Deputies often productively resort, seems to me to be a gross excess of charity on the part of the Minister. To characterise what Deputy Callely said a few minutes ago as free ranging and spontaneous is gilding the lily more than a little.

It was spontaneous all right.

I wonder what the Minister really meant when he said that. I think he meant something he said on another date when he said forensic care will be needed in using the powers in this committee. That is a much more accurate representation of what the Minister set out to say. I wonder what he meant when he said the price to be paid for those powers may even be the replacement of the traditional chairperson of committees by new chairpersons more disposed to restrict members to pre-ordained lines of inquiry. I know that the acting chairperson would be very disposed to restricting Members to pre-ordained lines of inquiry and I thank you for the little liberty I have been allowed so far. Does the Minister actually mean that chairpersons will have to take a more "forensic" approach to the way they deal with the members of their committees. I am not sure if that is what he means but I hope he does not mean that we will see a wholesale purge of the old fashioned traditional chairpersons and a whole bunch of new sharp toothed people coming in, who are more disposed to restrict Members to pre-ordained lines of inquiry. I think what the Minister was saying is that committees will have to use these powers in a focused way because the powers are there for very clear and focused reasons.

The Minister also showed another line of thought that we could dwell on. Later on in his speech he said:

I expect that the strengthened role of the committees involved will restrict the need for future tribunals. Evasiveness in answering parliamentary questions becomes a less attractive option when the possibility exists of frustrated Deputies or their colleagues looking behind the answer to the documentary and other information on which it was based.

I am tired of frustrated Deputies on the bench opposite giving vent to their complaints about how their questions are not being answered. They were happy enough to sit on this side of the House in previous times and listen to questions not being answered. They should be reminded from time to time of the need for a certain amount of forensic skill and care — as the Minister for Finance describes it — in framing their questions. I sat in this House a number of weeks ago and I saw Deputy Harney getting apopletic with righteous indignation. She asked the Taoiseach a question, to which he answered "yes". That was a perfectly reasonable answer to the question but she wanted more than "yes". The science and art of framing parliamentary questions has been lost and most of the annoyance on the opposite side of the House has more to do with that than with any unpreparedness of the Government to answer questions. The same thing could happen in committees. I hope that when the committees start using the powers given here, the discipline will be applied to the use of the power. It is only if we use the powers in their proper way that we will get full value from them.

I have a question about the inclusiveness of the list of committees to which the Minister for Finance referred in his first statement on the publication of the Bill. He listed the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I have the honour to be the chairman and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. In his speech introducing the Second Stage he omitted both of those committees. I have been told one of the possible reasons for that omission is that those committees while they have powers to send for persons, may have information denied them on the grounds that the supply of the information would create difficulties in the State's relations with other countries. That matter should be clarified. Those two committees should be given the powers provided for in the Bill. I ask the Minister of State to introduce an appropriate amendment on Committee Stage to deal with that matter.

I am pleased at the way section 3 is drafted. It clearly states that the Bill respects the constitutional separation of powers that has served us well. If committees are tempted to take on additional powers, there will be noisy and sometimes venomous scenes in the House because they will be totally unjustified in doing so. As I stated earlier, it would be improper to try to constitute the House into an alternative court.

A Government of Renewal referred to a committee of investigation.

I will deal with that shortly.

Will that ever come to fruition?

The Deputy should have patience. I am pleased the Minister proposes to introduce a committee of investigation in the near future. However, Members opposite should bear in mind that whether it is introduced under this Bill or a Bill providing for such a committee, we will run into unnecessary and unproductive trouble if we try to constitute this House into a court. That would be unjust and undemocratic.

Section 4, which provides that a committee may not direct a person to give evidence or produce or send a document which is not relevant to the committee's terms of reference, is contentious. While it is a sensible provision, it will be the subject of many arguments on Committee Stage, some of which will be brought to the House and others to the committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is important that we avoid that.

Section 5 sets out the areas that are outside the scope of compellability in all circumstances, including matters respecting the security of the State. Will the Minister of State define those matters? If the section remains as drafted there will be a temptation to define "matters" as those that are not crucial to the security of the State. Other provisions deal adequately with information used in the pursuit of crime investigations and so on. I want a transparent definition of those matters.

The Bill provides that "the source of any information contained in a statement by a Member of the Oireachtas made in the Oireachtas or at a meeting of an Oireachtas committee" is also outside the scope of compellability. It is as broad as it is long, a two edged sword. Members of the Oireachtas who invoke that provision will be sniped at in the newspapers for refusing to divulge sources and for being coy about the meaning of information. They will be sniped at in all righteousness and solemnity by people who invoke this right every day.

Section 6 will also be contentious. It includes a reference, for example, to information, the disclosure of which might be prejudicial to the State in its international relations. I am sure all Members would agree that must be carefully defined. Will the Minister of State explain section 9 which provides that where a direction is given by a committee to a person in his or her capacity as an employee, that person's employer may decide to send another person to the committee. Why is that provision so broad? With those qualifications and admonitions, I welcome the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution on the Bill. I am sure no Member is in a better position than I to make a contribution on this matter, particularly having regard to the events of last year, the inquiry into the fall of a Government and the contributions and unsubstantiated allegations made about events at that time. I am sure all Members looked forward to the introduction of this Bill and, while I welcome it in principle, I am disappointed at its failure to address issues of major concern to the public. There was a great deal of talk last year about transparency and openness, but we all know what has happened in that regard since the change of Government. One has only to reflect on the ongoing saga about a certain Minister and the efforts to get information that is not forthcoming. Legitimate attempts from this side of the House to get information have fallen on deaf ears. The transparency and openness about which we heard a great deal have not been brought about. The goalposts have been moved and the public know that.

Last week the Attorney General appeared before a meeting of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. I frequently corresponded with him last year to get information about certain matters. At that time a witness appeared before the committee who, because of constraints, could not give certain information. The Attorney General's advice was sought on the matter. Following further communication with him, information was made available which all Members believed would have helped the committee to get vital information while not affecting the restrictions on the Attorney General. We subsequently learned he acted in a professional capacity for the witness who appeared before the committee. When he appeared before the committee last week I asked him what action his office is taking to ensure there is not a conflict of interest in the future, but I did not get a satisfactory reply. The chairman had decided the committee's agenda one hour prior to the meeting and I was informed that because the matter was dealt with last year and was not on the agenda it could not be discussed. That is the transparency and openness we are witnessing. We looked forward to the Attorney General appearing before the committee to clarify matters but questions fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that in drafting the legislation the Minister did not provide for transparency and openness in all matters.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share