I think section 2, subsection (1) is the source of the anxiety which I have in regard to this Bill and which I have expressed. I should like to ask the Minister why it is thought necessary to introduce subsection (1) in this particular Bill. Is the position in regard to the members of the committee not already adequately provided for?
Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Bill, 1970: Committee and Final Stages.
Bill considered in Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
There is a great deal of legal opinion to the effect that the matter dealt with under subsection (1) is already provided for. Nevertheless, I understand that members of the committee have some apprehension in this regard. I could put it this way, that subsection (1) is bringing this matter beyond any doubt in so far as such a doubt exists. I am myself inclined to the view that there is no doubt.
My difficulty here, which was completely misunderstood by Senator Ó Maoláin, is that this subsection does not put the privileges of members of all committees beyond doubt. It only puts beyond doubt the privileges of the members of one committee in regard to any one matter. A reasonable anxiety to express in regard to this Bill is that if it is thought necessary to introduce this subsection in order to assert that the members of the Committee of Public Accounts are privileged on this particular occasion, this, in itself, may weaken the preexisting position of other committees, in respect of which such legislation has not been introduced.
The problem is that, normally, when we attempt to put something which we feel to be the position beyond doubt by legislation, we put it beyond doubt in regard to all instances. Here we say that what we intend doing is to pass legislation to put it beyond doubt in one instance. To my mind there may be a danger here of creating the doubt in the remaining instances.
In relation to this subsection, although I would like to make it clear that I have not studied the position, I am inclined to agree with the view the Minister expressed that so far as the members of a committee are concerned they have the protection of privilege and the immunities which are being reinforced by subsection (1) of section 2. When a request is made by a committee which is required by the Dáil to perform a particular function which is assigned to it by the Dáil, if there is doubt in the minds of members of that committee it is reasonable that those doubts should be set at rest. Even if it means being ultra-cautious, it is right to bring in this section in order to allay those doubts.
I appreciate that one reason why there would be doubts in the minds of members of the committee is that it is intended to hold this inquiry in public. The ordinary situation which obtains in the Committee of Public Accounts, consequently, might not obtain. For that reason I am a bit unhappy about the position of the publishers. I hope the Minister's view, which I think is similar to my own, is the correct one. I do not want to hold up things, but I would feel more comfortable about this section if it finished by saying that these various things wherever published should be privileged and that the privilege shall extend to the publishers.
The way the section goes at the moment, subsection (1) makes it clear that particular immunities are given to the members. Subsection (2) goes on to refer to the documents of the committee, certainly to all official reports and publications of the committee, and thirdly to utterances of the members, advisers, officials, and agents of the committee. All of those things are going to be privileged wherever published. The implication there is that the privilege is extending to the members, its officials, its records, its agents. Does it also extend to the publishers of those things?
I deplore the fact that the Members of the Opposition, whose Whips have agreed to this Bill, should now bring this thing up. They should rest assured in this respect that the Government side can withdraw this Bill if they do not want it. They are the people who asked for this and they are the people who are all trying, with their usual tactics, to read more into the Bill than is in it. They should rest assured that we on this side are trying to do what we can in this respect. We would ask them for full co-operation in this Bill, otherwise, as the Minister says, it will be withdrawn.
Possibly the point I am making is a bit too serious for Senator Gallanagh but I think the Minister will appreciate it. If the Minister tells me that he is happy that publishers are covered, I am not going to press the point any further. I realise that what the Minister says is quite right, he is not urging this Bill; he is simply acting, so to speak, as agent for the committee in doing it. I am calling attention, in a perfectly serious way, to people who cannot speak for themselves here—the publishers of information or evidence or whatever you like to call it, given at an inquiry held in public.
I simply wish to inquire in a perfectly civil way from the Minister as to whether their position is covered. I would be extremely disappointed if the Minister did not give a civil answer to that.
I can assure the Senator that I am as serious as he is, and there is nothing blatant in my politics.
I think I have already replied to this question from Senator O'Higgins. I have given my view of the situation which, I think, accords with his. The only thing I can add to it is that the section is based on Article 15 (12) of the Constitution which uses the same wording:
All Official Reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof and utterances made in either House, wherever published, shall be privileged.
I think that puts it beyond doubt.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.