We are commencing with amendment No. 77. I note if amendment No. 77 is negatived amendments Nos. 78 and 79 cannot be moved.
Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunity of Witnesses) Bill, 1995: Report Stage (Resumed).
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 12, to delete lines 22 to 33.
This amendment seeks to delete section 16 which, in effect restricts the ability of a civil servant when giving evidence to express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government. This is a section with which we had severe difficulty on Committee Stage. Basically, civil servants who might come before committees are muzzled as to whether in their opinion a policy outlined by Government was a good one. We had fairly detailed discussion on this item.
Are other amendments being taken with amendment No. 77?
Yes, I suggested we take amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79 together.
I understood the Minister to say she was tabling amendments to this section. Is that correct?
Yes, amendments Nos. 80 and 81.
Why are we not taking them together? My proposal is to delete this section because civil servants should be like other people coming before committees. I said previously, and I fully accept, there may be civil servants who have, for one reason or another, a gripe with a Department over a pension; for example, a former civil servant. However, I understand this section refers to an actual civil servant or a member of the Permanent Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána. Maybe one of those people would have a gripe with their employers, in effect the State, and might be called before a committee of this House to discuss an issue which could involve whether they could express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the Attorney General or the objectives of such policy. If there was a rare occasion where a civil servant was vexatious that would be quickly found out by the committee and the chairman.
Overall, it would be preferable if civil servants had the right to give such evidence, particularly as they might need to defend themselves where their own circumstances might be put into difficulty. We saw this to a certain extent in the beef tribunal when a Deputy was asked a question and was willing to answer it but was disallowed from doing so because of Cabinet confidentiality. Similarly, a civil servant before a committee might wish to offer an opinion on the merits of a policy because he or she might believe it necessary to protect and vindicate his or her rights.
The Government's proposal in this section relates to one of the core elements of the Bill to which we objected when it was introduced. The Government claimed it would change the institutions of the State and make them more accountable, but in this Bill, with some exceptions, it has continued a policy that is less open, transparent and accountable. The objective of the Bill as drafted was to put restrictions on committees.It was amended slightly on Committee Stage but the idea behind the legislation from the Government's point of view was that committees should be restricted from asking questions of the various elements of the State apparatus. That is why I propose the deletion of those lines.
Perhaps the Minister of State would outline what the Government proposes in its amendment to the section. It appears to be convoluted. It would be the view of all Members of the House, if it were possible to have a free vote on the matter, that a civil servant or a member of the Defence Forces or a garda who might come before a committee should be entitled, within certain restrictions that might be imposed by members of the committee or its chairperson, to express an opinion on a Government policy.
I accept the Deputy's first point. I am not sure why we cannot discuss amendments Nos. 77 to 83, inclusive, together since they relate to the same topic. However, I am bound by the rules of the House. I will deal with some of the Deputy's points when we discuss the next group of amendments.
I have a different understanding of the objective of the Bill. However, we can expect political interludes of electioneering in the next couple of weeks. The objective of the Bill is to allow Members of the House, through committees of the Houses, to address matters of major public concern and that is what it will achieve. It has been discussed extensively in the Select Committee on Finance and General Affaris whose members represent all sides of the House. The objective is clear and let us not play politics with it. The Bill will be an extremely important tool in the armoury of Members to investigate matters of major public concern. It does not deserve to become a political football just because 1997 is an election year.
With regard to amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79, while I accepted the points made on Committee Stage that the extent to which the prohibition on civil servants commenting on the merits of Government policy should be specified, I also indicated that the Government had decided that the central point of the section should remain. While Government amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 specify when and how the prohibition is to be applied, the prohibition will remain and therefore I cannot agree with the Deputy's amendment.
Amendment No. 78 would prevent a public servant from being compelled to comment on the merits of Government policy when giving evidence to a committee. However, it would allow public servants to make such comments if they chose voluntarily to do so. As this could undermine the traditional neutrality and political objectivity of public servants, I oppose the amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 79, Deputy Michael McDowell said on Committee Stage that it could be reasonably argued that the subsection could prevent a substantial document, such as a report on an area of Government activity, being provided to a committee simply because it contained a few sentences in which policy was questioned.If one were to take a malign view of public servants, he said, it could be alleged that such comments could be included in a document simply to ensure that it could not be made available to a committee. Amendment No. 79 would limit the exemption from compellability to only those portions of such documents which contained expressions of opinions of public servants on the merits of Government policy.
Government amendments Nos. 81 and 82 provide for documents containing comments by civil servants on the merits of Government policy to be provided to committees, once those parts of the documents which contain the comments have been removed. The Secretary of the relevant Department shall be responsible for the removal of such portions from the documents. These amendments are in response to the points made by Deputy McDowell on Committee Stage and provide for the principle of his amendment. There is, therefore, no need for a separate amendment and I cannot agree to it. I am incorporating the thrust of the Opposition's request on Committee Stage in my amendments.
I do not accept the Minister of State's view of the legislation. There are a number of areas in the Bill where there are restrictions on committees. The Bill does not serve the Members of the House or members of committees and its exceptions and restrictions serve to lessen the ability of committees to inquire.
From the day the Bill was published the Government set out to make it difficult for committees to make inquiries, although there was some loosening of its provisions on Committee Stage. The question of whether civil servants should be allowed to express an opinion on the merits of Government policy is an historical issue and has been a source of much concern over the years, particularly outside the Oireachtas. It has also been a matter of concern for Civil Service and public service unions that, in some instances, their members have been constrained from defending themselves. The Government's inclusion of this section restricts members of the Civil Service, the Garda Síochána and the Army from not only assisting committees but also in defending themselves on occasions where, perhaps, their silence on the merit of a policy would in effect point the finger at them.
The amendment should be put to the House.
The question is: "That the words down to and including `a' where it secondly occurs in line 29 stand".
Question put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 12, line 29, before "document" to insert "specified".
This section provides that a witness who is a civil servant or a member of the Permanent Defence Force or the Garda Síochána shall not give evidence to or produce a document for a committee which questions or expresses an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government, a Minister or the Attorney General. The amendment provides that only specified documents shall be available to investigating committees. The intention is to limit the documents exempt from compellability to those which are individually specified.
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 81. Amendment No. 82 is related. I suggest that we discuss them together.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 12, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
(2) (a) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where
(i) a specified person is directed by a committee to produce or send a specified document to it or to attend before it to produce a specified document to it, and
(ii) the appropriate person is satisfied that a part, but not the whole, of the document consists of questioning by a specified person of, or the expression by a specified person of an opinion on, the merits of such a policy, or such objectives, as aforesaid,
the appropriate person shall direct the specified person in writing to produce or, as may be appropriate, send to the committee a copy, prepared under the supervision of the appropriate person, of so much of the document as does not consist of the part aforesaid and the specified person shall comply with the direction.
(b) A document prepared pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be signed by the appropriate person concerned and shall contain a statement to the effect that it is prepared pursuant to this subsection and is a copy of so much of the specified document to which the direction concerned relates as does not consist of the part in which the merits of such a policy, or such objectives, as aforesaid are questioned, or an opinion thereon is expressed, by a specified person.
(c) A document that is produced or sent to a committee pursuant to a direction of the committee and purports to be a document prepared pursuant to this subsection and to comply with paragraph (b) shall be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to be a copy of so much of the specified document to which the direction relates as does not consist of the part in which the merits of such a policy, or such objectives, as aforesaid are questioned, or an opinion thereon is expressed, by a specified person."
This amendment provides that an appropriate person can direct a public service witness called before a committee to provide the committee with a document which contains Civil Service comments on the merits of Government policy when the portion of the document containing such comments has been excised. The appropriate person shall sign any such document stating that he or she has directed production of the document less any portion containing comments by civil servants on the merits of Government policy.
The purpose of this and the following amendment is to prevent a situation, as pointed out by Deputy McDowell on Committee Stage, where an entire report would be withheld from investigation on the basis that a few sentences contain civil servants' views on the merits of Government policy. To ensure consistency across Departments, secretaries of Departments are being given responsibility for deciding which portions of documents should be removed and, therefore, exempt from compellability.
Amendment No. 82 specifies that the appropriate person for the purpose of determining what portions of documents containing comments by civil servants on the merits of Government policy should be deleted is the relevant Secretary for civil servants, the Secretary of the Department of Defence for members of the Defence Forces and the Secretary of the Department of Justice for members of the Garda Síochána.
I do not see this as a major move. The Government is proposing that a Secretary of a Department will judge which portions of documents to be given to a committee should be removed. The committee which investigated the events surrounding the fall of the last Government in 1994 tried time and again to get the Attorney General to come before it to discuss the Brendan Smyth extradition file but he refused. On his instructions, we were not shown a portion of the file. If memory serves me correctly, it was agreed that counsel for the committee would look at the file to see, whether in his opinion, members of the committee should see it. This defied logic. It transpired, ultimately, that its contents were not earth shattering but we wished to investigate the sequence of events which led to the seven months' delay in those extradition proceedings.
While I accept secretaries of Departments will appear before committees to explain why documents were excised, I foresee difficulties in that civil servants will remain faceless — perhaps the position will change under the SMI. We will be caught in a maelstrom. It might be better, therefore, not to include this section in the Bill. It is so convoluted as to be unworkable. It is a matter of regret that no one outside the House seems to be worried about what we are doing here to make this a better Bill. What is being done will be to the detriment of the House in that Members' duty under the Constitution and rights, as elected representatives, to hold the Government, in particular the permanent government, accountable for actions carried out in the name of the people are being restricted.
While the Minister of State is addressing a particular issue raised on Committee Stage, this section provides further confirmation that the permanent government, assisted by the rainbow coalition which promised openness, transparency and accountability, will not be held accountable. Committees will not have the power to compel witnesses to answer questions to get to the core issues. Such a system is in place in America. This amendment does not take that route. For that reason, I will oppose it.
The Deputy referred to the efforts made to gain access to the Brendan Smyth file in the Attorney General's office. In previous discussions I made clear my position and that of the Government. I underlined the fact that individual cases handled by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions should not and would not be subject to discussion by committees under this legislation. If Members stopped and thought about it they would not want individual cases to be debated by committees. The legal system is well established and independent and there is also the issue of natural justice. The Deputy gave as an example the Brendan Smyth file and the efforts made to gain access to it. As the matter was dealt with by the Attorney General it perhaps was not the best example to underline the case he made.
It was the best example.
We have dealt with the position of the Attorney General and the DPP in the context of the legislation.
He only comes before the Committee of Public Accounts on the matter of statistics.
With respect, the Deputy was talking to Deputy O'Malley and did not hear my response to his last remarks.
We discussed the Government's view on earlier stages and passed the sections dealing with the Attorney General and the DPP. I understand the Deputy's views which he clearly expressed at the time. However, the example given by him is one of the reasons the line adopted by the Government in relation to the Attorney General and the DPP is very sound. We do not want a committee of the House to discuss named individual cases being dealt with by the Attorney General or the DPP. This is not the role of the House, it is the role of the legal system. If a committee was to discuss such cases serious questions would arise about natural justice and due process.
On the example given by the Deputy, fact will always be compellable before this House. What we are talking about is the preclusion of general comment on Government policy by civil servants giving evidence before a committee. Fact can be stated at any time. Deputy Ahern said that Secretaries of Departments would act as judges in deciding what information should be excised from a document before it is brought before a committee. I am confident this is the correct role for secretaries or secretaries general, as they are called under the Public Service Management (No. 2) Bill, who are unlikely to certify anything improperly as they will be liable to questioning by existing or future Ministers of any political hue.
I do not agree with the Minister's comments about the Brendan Smyth case as it was a unique case. One of the core issues in that case was the extradition file, which we were not allowed to see. We were treated like little boys and girls at the committee in that our counsel was allowed to see the file but we were not. This is the way it will continue to be at committees.If it is found that a secretary or secretary general excised information from a document produced at a committee he will be called before the committee to explain the reasons for this decision. This will give rise to more delays in terms of the committee's deliberations. I am opposed to these amendments as they will take away from Members of the House the power to decide what should be heard and give it to someone outside the House.
I am at a disadvantage as I did not hear all the earlier debate on this matter. I apologise for this but it was beyond my control.
While these amendments have been tabled in response to the points made by Deputy McDowell on Committee Stage they are unsatisfactory as they will allow the Secretary of a Department to excise sections of a file as he sees fit.
He can only excise it if it relates to comment on Government policy. It is quite specific.
In 35 minutes time the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will make a personal explanation to the House and apologise for the seriously wrong information given to me on 26 March in reply to a parliamentary question. Deputy Ahern and the Minister referred to the problems which arose in relation to the Brendan Smyth file. Given one's experience, one could equally validly refer to the difficulties which have arisen in respect of export refund files in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry where a serious cover-up has gone on over a long period. Not only was this House given untrue information but the Secretary of the Department gave untrue information to the Committee of Public Accounts on these matters on more than one occasion. This issue will be partly cleared up by the statement by the Tánaiste but I will invite the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to make a personal statement on the matter.
These problems cannot be solved by allowing the secretary of a Department to excise information from a file. I am very concerned that after the enactment of the Bill a Department could be even more obstructive than it is at present.
No.
I say this as it will have statutory grounds for refusing to give information whereas up to now it did not have such grounds and merely did it as part of a cover-up to assist who I call "the usual beneficiary" and to refuse to recover the substantial amounts of money improperly paid to him at the expense of the Exchequer and European Union funds.
I acknowledge that the Minister has made a gesture in meeting the concerns expressed by Deputy McDowell and others but more is needed. These amendments are unsatisfactory. I agree with Deputy Ahern that no committee of the House will ever be able to properly investigate any matter because the procedure will be long-winded and there will be constant references back to the courts and other authorities such as the Secretaries of Departments. The new procedure envisaged is hopelessly complex, will bog down any meaningful inquiry and is a bonanza for those who want to constantly resort to the courts. There is a certain type of person whose activities could and should be investigated from time to time and who is rich enough to have constant resort to the courts and will insist on having it.
If this was Committee Stage I would ask the Minister to look at the matter before Report Stage. We will not have a further opportunity to debate the Bill, unless it is amended in the Seanad. If a general election is called the Bill cannot be referred back to the Dáil and will not be passed. I am not sure if it can come back to the Dáil after the general election.
It starts again.
I would not like to have to start again on this Bill, certainly not on the basis on which it now stands. We should start again with a properly drafted Bill that is far less complex and gives clear powers to committees of the House rather than have all these out clauses, which these two amendments represent.
I noted carefully the comments of the last two contributors and I would like to clarify some points. Deputy O'Malley said Departments will have statutory grounds to refuse to give information, which is even worse than the current position, and that it strengthens the secretary's hand in terms of refusing to give information.I disagree with that. Secretaries of Departments, under this section, will not have the power to excise material from files. They will have the power to prevent sections in papers or documents being presented before a committee if those sections contain comment on Government policy. They cannot do away with those sections completely; I want to make that quite clear. This is important. Public servants are subordinate to their relevant Minister and it is the function of Ministers to decide policy. Elected Members can criticise that policy. Civil servants must be, and must be seen to be, politically neutral and this amendment precludes them from commenting in public on Government policy. One of the major tenets of our public service for decades has been that civil servants were politically neutral in public comment on any Government's performance or policy. None of us would want to see that change. To ensure that aspect is preserved we are excluding comments on Government policy from being brought before the House in documents that may have been the subject of discovery, or even voluntarily produced.
They may be very interesting comments. We might like to hear them. They may be pertinent.
Civil servants are subordinate to Ministers and to the Government of the day. It is not the role of a civil or public servant to comment on the merits of Government policy. Their role is quite specific — to implement the policy of the Government of the day. Our public and civil servants have managed to do that, whatever the political complexion of the Government in power. They have moved from one Government to another and served them and the people extremely well. Deputies will agree there have been very few occasions where accusations were made of public or civil servants behaving politically.Their private views on Government policy are sometimes well known but it is not their function nor are they employed to comment publicly on Government policy, and that is as it should continue to be.
As I stated before Deputy O'Malley came into the Chamber, these amendments are in response to the points raised by Deputy McDowell. They will ensure a one line comment on the merit of Government policy in a 60 page document does not prevent the entire document being brought before a committee. Secretaries General will be allowed to excise the one line which refers to Government policy so that the remainder of the document can be put before the committee in question.
We have gone a long way towards resolving a problem correctly pointed out by the Opposition on Committee Stage. The amendment will also ensure that a mischievous one line comment on Government policy — people quickly get to know how to use techniques in these Houses — will not prevent a document being brought before a committee in the future. We are addressing the problem highlighted by Deputy McDowell by allowing the Secretary General to excise from the document being produced before the committee the line referring to Government policy. The Secretary General cannot literally excise it from the material on file, unless he or she is behaving with massive impropriety. We cannot legislate for that, we can only assume our public servants will continue as they have to date and behave with propriety.
I do not intend to comment on what Deputy O'Malley said about the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the beef tribunal. I note his comments. It is not my position to comment on that today. Others will probably resolve that matter on another occasion.
The general experience has been that our public servants behave with propriety at all times. We cannot assume otherwise when we are producing legislation. Secretaries of Departments in particular, the most senior public or civil servants, have a very responsible position. The Government does not have any difficulty with the function being given to Department secretaries to excise from documents being produced to the committee any comment on Government policy. All facts on documents are compellable, even those stated by public servants. The Government is of the view that public servants should not comment on Government policy in the first place and should not be discussed at these committees. It has never been the place of public servants, and I hope it never will be, to comment on Government policy. If we allow that, the apolitical nature of our public service will be gone with the stroke of a pen and the passing of legislation. That is not the intention. I hope Deputies understand the intent of this amendment. We are responding to a legitimate point raised on Committee Stage and the power being given to Secretaries of Departments in relation to it is quite narrow.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 12, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(3) In this section——
`appropriate person'——
(i) in relation to a specified person who is a civil servant, means the principal officer of the Department of State or other branch or office of the public service in which the specified person is employed,
(ii) in relation to a specified person who is a member of the Defence Forces, means the Secretary of the Department of Defence, and
(iii) in relation to a specified person who is a member of the Garda Síochána, means the Secretary of the Department of Justice; `specified document' means a document that is the subject of a direction for the purposes of particular proceedings of a committee and that was created before the commencement of those proceedings; `specified person' means a person who is a civil servant or a member of the Permanent Defence Force or the Garda Síochána."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 12, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs.”
On Committee Stage I agreed with points made by Deputy McDowell and others that the Director of Consumer Affairs could not do his job effectively if he was prevented from commenting on the way Government policy impacts on consumers.I undertook to introduce an amendment on Report Stage in this regard. In fulfilling that undertaking, this amendment exempts the director from the prohibition on civil servants commenting on the merits of Government policy.
I am glad this amendment has been made, again in response to a suggestion by Deputy McDowell. If the Minister accepts this principle in relation to the Director of Consumer Affairs, should she not also accept the principle in relation to any other body or office holder who has to inquire into matters on behalf of the public, for example, the Ombudsman?
He is not a civil servant. We have checked that out.
Is the Ombudsman covered by this Bill?
No. I will respond to that.
There must be other offices of a similar nature. The one that comes most readily to mind is the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I believe he is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. I am not sure that the Ombudsman will be unaffected by this Bill. Another office that strikes me as being in the public domain, but partly independent of the Government, is the office of the Governor of the Central Bank. Has the question of the Central Bank been taken into account in relation to this Bill? There could be instances in which the evidence of the Governor of the Central Bank would be extremely important.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I do not want to call the Minister. We are on Report Stage. If I call her, I may not call her again, unless she wants to avail of the two minutes now.
I agree with Deputy O'Malley. The reason I opposed the last two amendments is because of my general view, in regard to section 16 as it was put into the Bill originally, that the whole rationale behind this secrecy is wrong, even though the Minister was inclined to put in an amendment. I refer the Minister to amendment No. 81 where it is left to a secretary to decide whether a comment on a policy is a comment on its merits. This whole area is fraught with difficulty.Why is the Minister excluding the Director of Consumer Affairs but not the Director of Public Prosecutions — I accept that he is dealt with separately, but there are other categories? Could somebody from the Revenue Commissioners be called before the committee, and would there be a difficulty in that case regarding the ability of the committee to get him or her to comment on matters of policy? What about the appeals commissioners?Under this legislation the staff under the Comptroller and Auditor General are regarded as civil servants. Might there not be difficulty in asking any of them before a committee because they might also be exempted from this legislation and prevented from commenting? The Comptroller and Auditor General would, in effect, be able to excise comments from a document in relation to policy. While I welcome the exclusion of the Director of Consumer Affairs, I question why others are not included. Like Deputy O'Malley, I am suspicious of the fact that we were not given an exhaustive list of those who might or might not be involved in this legislation. We can think of only a few while we debate in the House. The Comptroller and Auditor General is not a civil servant, but his staff are civil servants. This, again, is a problem.
In response to Deputies O'Malley and Ahern, I want to clarify the effect of this amendment. This amendment exempts the Director of Consumer Affairs from the prohibition in the previous sections on civil servants commenting on the merits — I emphasise merits — of Government policy. All civil servants can comment on Government policy, but not on its merits.They may not express their personal view as to whether it is good, bad or otherwise.
How can one comment on Government policy without commenting on its merits?
There is a difference, and it is done. Deputy O'Malley mentioned the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman is not a civil servant so he does not need to be exempted under this amendment from the prohibition on civil servants from commenting on the merits of Government policy. Effectively, he is compellable as is anyone else, if the committee feels it wants to call him. He can actually comment on Government policy because, if he is not a civil servant, he cannot be exempted. Similarly, the Governor of the Central Bank is not a civil servant, but could be compelled under this legislation to attend a committee if the committee found there was a need to compel him to do so, and this amendment would not apply to him. Similarly, the Data Protection Commissioner is not a civil servant. Neither is the Comptroller and Auditor General who is dealt with under separate legislation, but his staff are civil servants. The Revenue Commissioners, being civil servants, also come under this, as do appeals commissioners who are public servants. This amendment, which exempts the Director of Consumer Affairs, is mentioned specifically because he is a civil servant, but he should be able to comment on the merits of Government policy as it impacts on the customers of public services generally. I hope I have made clear the distinction between the different categories.
What about the Revenue Commissioners?
The Revenue Commissioners are civil servants.
Is it appropriate that they should come under this?
Yes. They are employed by Ministers to operate Government policy. It is not their position to comment on the merit of Government policy. I feel strongly about that.
Deputy O'Malley rose.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I may not call the Deputy again.
I just have a brief question.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I may not call the Deputy again.
Why does subsection (3) apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We are dealing with Report Stage of the Bill. There is a facility to recommit to Committee Stage. If we want to do that we can and will.
It has been dealt with.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It is time now for me to put the question.
Subsection (3) has been inserted by amendment No. 82.
Where is that going as regards the Director of Consumer Affairs?
It is in section 16.
This is to insert subsection (4) Subsection (4) states that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Let us not make a farce of the Report Stage.
I am not making a farce of it. I am trying to clarify something.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It is my function to ensure that Standing Orders are adhered to. I want to facilitate the Deputy, and he is entitled to be facilitated, but if we want to move on we will recommit, if that is the Deputy's proposal. Is that agreed?
No.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I have no option at this stage, the Minister having concluded, but to put the question.
May I intervene?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
No, the Deputy may not intervene.
At the start it was accepted that some leeway would be allowed. It is only a technical problem.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Deputy should adhere, and assist the Chair to adhere, to the Standing Orders relating to Report Stage which are quite explicit.
I do not see why the Minister will not allow the recommittal so that we can make a valid point, a point I identified but was not going to mention. However, the fact is that the Minister is, in effect, making this subsection (4) applicable only to subsections (1) and (2) and not to subsection (3).
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Does the Minister agree to recommit Committee Stage for the purpose of clarifying this?
The whole Bill?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
No. This is just to recommit this amendment temporarily to Committee Stage debate so that I may call the Minister if she wishes to intervene again.
Is this just on this section, so that we take the rest of the business today?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
On this amendment merely.
I will agree to that.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 83.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 12, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs.”
Does the Minister understand the point we are making?
I do not, because I have not had a chance to check the Bill in regard to the point made by Deputy O'Malley. I have a not stating that amendment No. 81 inserts subsection (2), amendment No. 82 inserts subsection (3) and amendment No. 83 inserts subsection (4) of section 16.
Since subsections (1) and (2) are declared not to apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs, why should subsection (3) apply to him? Surely this amendment should read, subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs, otherwise a court will in the future be faced with the dilemma of trying to find out why part of the section applies to the Director of Consumer Affairs and what part does not. It will have to deduce what the mind of the Dáil was on the matter and it will be very wise if it can do so because I do not think the Dáil knows its mind.
Subsection (3) deals with the application of subsection (2) and since subsection (2) does not apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs, subsection (3) is irrelevant to him or her. Deputies are a little pedantic on this matter. Technically we could include the extra subsection, but it refers only to the application of a subsection that does not apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs. We are getting into an argument about something very trivial.
The Minister should provide that subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs. It is simply a technical point.
I accept it is a technical point, but it would not affect the role of the Director of Consumer Affairs.
Ideally the amendment should read that this section does not apply to the Director of Consumer Affairs. That is the way the draftsman would draft it.
I accept that.
Amendment to amendment No. 83 agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, reported.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 12, lines 35 and 36, to delete ", and, subject to subsection (2), to any statute or rule of law prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information".
Subsection (1) provides that committees' powers of compellability do not interfere with judicial control of court business. The text debated on Committee Stage included a requirement that such compellability powers had to have due regard to existing law prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information apart from the requirement on civil servants not to disclose information in sections 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1963. The amendment removes that requirement and fulfils an undertaking I gave in response to points made by Deputies McDowell, Ahern and others on Committee Stage that restriction of compellability powers would be limited only by the requirement not to interfere with judicial control of court business.
I thank the Minister for the amendment. There was much discussion of this matter on Committee Stage. Where does the Freedom of Information Act stand in relation to this section? Is that Act taken into account in this legislation or does it change the ability of committees under this legislation?
This amendment arises from suggestions made by Deputy McDowell on Committee Stage. I am not sure we need the entire subsection. What does section 65 of the Court Officers Act, 1926, provide? These words should be omitted, otherwise there will be an unnecessary further restriction on disclosure of information.I welcome the amendment which is necessary for the reasons stated by Deputy McDowell in Committee.
The Freedom of Information Act will not change the ability of committees under this legislation. Section 65 of the Court Officers Act, 1926, deals with the judicial control of court business.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We now come to amendment No. 85. Amendment No. 87 is related, amendment No. 86 is an alternative to No. 85 and amendment No. 88 is an alternative to No. 87. It is suggested, therefore, that amendments Nos. 85 to 88, inclusive, be taken together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 12, line 42, to delete "£1,500" and substitute "£3,000 or a term of imprisonment of not less than 1 year or both such fine and term of imprisonment".
There is very little difference between our views and those of the Minister on this matter. I would ask the Minister, rather than propose her amendments, to accept those of the Opposition because they provide for increased fines. Unfortunately, in amendment No. 88 the Minister has reduced the maximum term of imprisonment. To accept the Opposition amendments would emphasise the toughness with which we as Oireachtas Members wish those who commit an offence under this Bill to be dealt with by the law.
Debate adjourned.