Mary Harney
Question:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, there are to amend the law in relation to Cabinet confidentiality. [8956/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Cabinet Confidentiality.
In a written reply to Parliamentary Question No. 33 from Deputy Callely on 11 March I indicated that the Government is committed to initiating a constitutional amendment on Cabinet confidentiality. Work is proceeding on its drafting, having regard to the constitutional, legal and administrative issues I outlined in the House in reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 3 and 4 on 15 October 1996. The Bill will be published as soon as it is available.
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the text for the referendum was considered, and if it is any nearer to being agreed? If it is agreed when, if ever, will the referendum be held?
I hope the referendum will be held this year. The work on it is fairly advanced. The text has been largely agreed. There are one or two issues we need to look at in the drafting of the Bill but it is substantially agreed at this stage. Work is moving forward well.
With respect, I think the Taoiseach is fudging the issue. Can he give us an exact date for the referendum? Will it be held in tandem with a general election? Does the Taoiseach have a particular date in mind for that?
I cannot give the Deputy an exact date for holding the referendum until the legislation is completed. It is a matter of some importance that care should be taken in drafting constitutional amendments, as the Deputy will agree, with the experience the House has had of ill drafted constitutional amendments in the past. Considerable care and attention is being taken in regard to this amendment but work on it is proceeding well and I am happy with that progress. I hope we will be able to move forward quite soon on the issue. The holding of this consultation with the people, in conjunction with any other consultation that might take place at any time during the year, is not excluded.
Will legislation be introduced on this matter in the next fortnight? In all the Taoiseach's replies on this issue over the past 12 months, he has hidden behind expert advice, legal opinion, committees, etc., and we are still talking about it. For the past nine months the Taoiseach has been saying that one or two matters remain to be cleared up. He made this matter a priority in the programme for Government two and a quarter years ago. We are now at the end of the life of this Government and the issue has not been moved forward.
On the contrary, I have moved the issue forward. This issue became a problem because Cabinet confidentiality was pleaded by a Government, of which the Deputy was a member, when it did not want to give certain information to a tribunal investigating an important matter and on which very substantial amounts of public funds were being spent to get the truth. The Deputy's party did not want to co-operate adequately and pleaded the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality as a basis for denying certain information to that tribunal. I am putting that matter right now by introducing a constitutional amendment.
Was that not the law at the time?
As the Deputy will know from other cases, the people who pleaded that defence did so knowingly. It was the Cabinet of the day that refused to give the information on the basis of that defence.
The Taoiseach comes into this House time and time again and talks about legal advice and Cabinet confidentiality.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Let us hear the answer.
The Deputy in question did not have to plead that particular——
Did the Taoiseach not use that recently in the BTSB case?
A requirement for a constitutional amendment was identified as a result of the proceedings in that case and we are now dealing with that matter in an expeditious way. We will bring forward the relevant legislation quickly.
I put it to the Taoiseach that Cabinet confidentiality was a key element of the programme for Government. Is it not the case now that this Government will leave office without completing that key element, namely, Cabinet confidentiality about which the Taoiseach spoke so eloquently in the early part of his tenure of office?
The answer to the question is in the negative.
I deeply resent the suggestion by the Taoiseach that an individual at the tribunal hid behind Cabinet confidentiality. I was the person in the witness box who was asked the question which led directly to the test case being taken on Cabinet confidentiality. When I was asked the question I indicated that I was prepared to answer it, a fact acknowledged by the chairman of the tribunal. It was the intervention of the Attorney General's representative at the tribunal which prevented me answering the question. I then turned to the chairman and he again acknowledged the fact that I was prepared to answer the question put to me, but the Attorney General's representative prevented me from doing so. I had nothing to hide at that tribunal and I am proud of my role on that occasion. I am more proud of my role than that of the Tánaiste who forced the tribunal on us and got his brother to represent him in the tribunal. He has not yet submitted his £1 million claim for expenses but he will as soon as the general election is over.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
A question, Deputy.
The Taoiseach should tell the truth and not try to damage reputations by innuendo. The Tánaiste refused to answer questions and substantiate allegations he made, and the Minister of State who made allegations in this House could not stand over those when he appeared before the tribunal. The Taoiseach should ask the Tánaiste the reason his brother has not submitted his claim for expenses. Is it because he does not want the people to know he is about to get £1 million in expenses?
On a point of order, is it in order for the Chair to allow a Deputy to repeatedly attack an identifiable person outside the House who is not connected in any way with this House——
The Taoiseach attacked me in this House.
I did not.
The Taoiseach referred to hiding behind Cabinet confidentiality.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It is a long standing tradition in this House that persons outside the House are not named directly or by innuendo.
Did Deputy Burke breach that tradition?
I do not regret saying to the Taoiseach, this House and the public that the tribunal was held on the basis of allegations made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, when in Opposition. They did not substantiate those allegations at the tribunal.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
This is Question Time. We cannot make speeches.
The brother of the Tánaiste was appointed as his legal adviser and a bill of almost £1 million has not yet been submitted to the people but it will be submitted as soon as the election is over. I stand over that statement.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Deputy Burke should not refer to people outside the House in the way it is being done. That is a long standing tradition in this House which should be adhered to.
I want to make three comments in response to Deputy Burke. First, it is wrong of Deputy Burke to avail of the privilege of this House to say something for which he cannot be sued about an individual outside this House.
It is true. He will repeat it outside the House too.
Second, having studied the report of the beef tribunal, I fully accept the bona fides of Deputy Burke in this matter, both in the way he conducted himself in the witness box and in his conduct as a Minister. I have never made any suggestion to the contrary.
The Taoiseach did make such a suggestion in his initial reply.
I did not.
The record will show that.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Please, Deputy Burke.
On a point of order——
I made no criticism of Deputy Burke. The Attorney General, however——
On a point of order, is it not a fact that the Taoiseach said earlier that a member of my party used the tribunal to find a way around answering questions? The Taoiseach should withdraw the remark.
I want to make it clear that I was not referring to Deputy Burke.
I was the person named in the court case.
The Taoiseach said this party hid behind it.
The Attorney General, who entered the plea of Cabinet confidentiality in order that Deputy Burke would not answer the question, was acting on the instructions of a Government of which the Deputy's party was the largest component. That is a fact.
Was it the law at the time?
The Minister came in here with a scripted speech and named individual citizens, and the Chair did not interrupt or object.