The Taoiseach, when he was speaking on the Second Reading in the other House, spoke about the desirability but not the necessity of agreement between the main parties of the House as to the form which any Act takes. While I agree with the original section 3, it would have been well not to have deleted it just because there was not agreement on it. In so far as we have got an attenuated measure, it seems to me to be welcome.
There are some other points which I would like to make. Everyone who has spoken agreed that the whole procedure of Parliament has to be adapted and revised in such a way that we do competently the work which is to be done by people who are out side the Executive, which is what we all are. My own difficulties were shown in recent legislation. When section 162 of the Corporation Tax Bill was being debated I found there was absolutely no argument I could make on any single point that would have made the slightest difference because of the time at which this Bill reached us and the timescale with regard to the signing of it by the President. On that occasion — I do not try to do the dramatic thing of picking up my papers—I said I was going out for a smoke. In fact, I went out for a drink and I did not reappear. I did not reappear because it become quite clear that there was no point in reappearing. That could have been avoided if a Joint Committee of both Houses had been operating, and it could have been operating on this Bill from the date of its publication on 27th November, 1975. The committee system—and, indeed, it will have to be changed again in some way—has got to be adopted.
When the Companies Act, 1963, was enacted — I was not a Member of the House at the time—the officials participated directly in the discussion with the Committee which was given consideration of that Bill. They were reported under the name of their Minister. That did not matter a hoot. I am sure the Minister was delighted. When you read the full report of that Committee—of which, if I am correct, the Attorney General was a member —you found the reasons articulately expressed why the Executive, that is to say, the people who had really done the job of drafting the Bill, were proposing this particular section in the form in which they did.
When we had the Corporation Tax Bill discussed by the Committee of the other House recently they went into camera whenever those who were advising the Government were speaking. That means that when you read the report you get very little expression of the reasons. From the point of view of outsiders—and there are many who could not face into legislation as daunting as the Corporation Tax Bill—an entry into it through a reading of the sections of it is the worst possible way of getting into it. The best possible assistance they could get on it would be to get a report of the proceedings in which the minds of the advisers are expressed on the records. The people could read about them and thereafter understand the meaning of the sections.
I have another problem in regard to these Committees. Any of us who are on the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities are really feeling thoroughly ashamed of our inability to attend very many of these meetings because they clash with the meetings of this House, or you get insufficient notice of them and it is just not possible to be there. There must be a much greater spread of the workload among people. There are certain Committees that do not seem to meet as often as that one, and it must be greatly expanded if it is going to do its job properly.
Could I just advert to—and I noticed it was contemplated by the Taoiseach when he made his Second Reading speech — the absolute necessity to amend the Act under which inquiries are established by resolution of these two Houses, which is, I think, an Act of 1920. That seems to be one of the matters that the parties ought together to be discussing. It is as important for those who are at present in Opposition as it is for those in Government that there should be a proper system of tribunal inquiries where there are serious matters to be inquired into and where judges are appointed to conduct them.
Another point which is close to the measure before the House is to direct the Attorney General's attention, through the Chair, to the extraordinary provisions of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. The privileges can protect members of the European Parliament, for example, as an assembly, against legal action. They are contained in articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol. Article 9 of the European Assembly Protocol reads:
Members of the Assembly shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
Article 10 provides:
During the sessions of the Assembly, its members shall enjoy (a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament; (b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
This matter was considered by the European Court of Justice in Case No. 101 in 1963. I do not know whether Senator Yeats is aware of the extraordinarily abandoned way he uses language wherever he is speaking or in whatever he is writing, because it would appear that the result of that decision of the court was that the immunities enjoyed by members were limited only to the performance of their duties during the full extent of the session of the European Parliament. It means that if you want to serve a writ on a chap, you have about 24 hours to do it. It only stops, it would appear, when one session ends and before the starting of the next session. Then you can catch him for what he said, wrote or did prior to that, wherever it may be. A particular case related to Luxembourg people who were not even talking in their Parliament. They were held to be in the course of the performance of their business by writing in a magazine and full protection and immunity was granted. I thought I would mention that to the House and draw the attention of the Attorney General to it. I do not think this is such a matter as cannot be amended and does, I think, and Senator Yeats probably agrees, require amendment.