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.