Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 14 Sep 1994

SECTION 9.

Mr. Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 14, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "(other than a member who is an office holder)".

I have made and lost this argument already in respect of section 8, but I am not convinced. I still believe that it is a common practice in politics that a Minister or office holder continues to prosecute his or her duties as a TD and sometimes could conveniently do so. The regime of inquiry that applies to any other Member of the House ought to apply to that office holder. It is not clear that it is a Minister qua Minister that is always being investigated. The terms of the complaint should determine whether it is appropriate to this section of the Bill or to the section dealing with office holders. To be consistent this amendment has to be moved but I accept that I have lost the argument on it. I do not know if the Minister wishes to tell us what is in her note in respect of this amendment.

Chairman

Does the Minister wish to comment?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

No. There is nothing new in my note.

Mr. M. McDowell

The suggestion that a committee of the House can investigate behaviour by me in my capacity as a TD but cannot investigate alleged misbehaviour in my capacity as a Minister is offensive to me because I am accountable and responsible to the Dáil in both capacities. I will not reopen the debate which I obviously missed while attending the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The beef tribunal would not have been necessary if people had been accountable to this body in a real way. Ministers or high public office holders in the public service would never do many of the things we have heard about in recent weeks, if they could be investigated by committees of the Dáil and made answerable to them, and if files in respect of controversial matters could be opened by committees of the Dáil. Such things would not occur if these people genuinely believed there was a possibility of discovery and complaint, and if they thought there was some competent body whose duty it was to propose sanctions against them for misbehaviour.

Mr. E. Ryan

If a Minister is called for examination, perhaps on spurious grounds how can one stop newspaper headlines such as: "Minister under investigation" which embarrass the Government? This question has been debated for some time. The privileges of the House have been abused, certainly since I came into the House, in that false accusations have been made about Members.

Unfortunately, this power will probably be abused also. However, if some serious matter arose concerning a Minister there may be a case for having it. A group of people could seriously destabilise any Government. I would not condone or cover up wrongdoing by any member of the Government. However, there has to be some system to prevent committees or Members of the Opposition calling in Ministers and putting them under investigation for no real reason.

Mr. Rabbitte

I do not know if that is what is envisaged in this section. I heard Deputy Ryan make that argument about a week ago and I have no doubt that he is serious when he says that privilege has been traduced in this House during his time here. The only case that I know of was considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Listening to the contribution Deputy Ryan made on the day in question he certainly did not deduce any evidence nor quote chapter and verse about the general claim he was making.

In any event I am not sure that it is pertinent to this amendment and this section. In my experience, a Minister does not always function qua Minister. I do not know if Deputy Ryan is questioning that. I do not want to be too specific about a recent case I know of where the Minister’s defence of his action was that he was acting as a constituency TD. Nobody here could say that he is not entitled to do that.

Chairman

Except yourself.

Mr. Rabbitte

He then ought to be subject to the same system of inquiry as the rest of us. If the nature of the complaint clearly falls into the area that it is a complaint against the conduct or discharge of his functions as an office holder, it should apply to the subsequent section of the Bill dealing with office holders. The nature of the complaint ought to determine it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 have already been discussed with amendment No. 22.

Mr. Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 14, lines 15 to 30, to delete subsection (3).

The Minister ought to tell us her reasoning here. My point is similar to the point I raised in amendment No. 22. This amendment seeks to excise subsection (3) and the Minister has been very sparing with her explanations of why she wants to do certain things. It seems that the Minister has finally got a Bill on paper and, come hell or high water, she will pilot it through comma by comma, line by line. It is an unusual approach to legislation and the least the Opposition is entitled to know is why is she opposing this amendment, if she is. I would like to hear her arguments rather than go on explaining the intrinsic merits of my amendment.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I understood that Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 25 were grouped to be dealt with together.

Chairman

That is right.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

In those circumstances further elaboration is not called for.

Mr. Rabbitte

May I respectfully say that I disagree with that. Yes, the amendments were grouped but they have to be voted on sequentially.

Chairman

That is right.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is not my deliberate intention to weary the Minister or anything like that but if she feels that she has answered it already she ought to be capable of repeating the answer for those of us who are slow to absorb it.

Amendment put.

Chairman

As there are less than the full complement of Members present — the full complement is now only 30 due to the defection of former Deputy Cox — under Standing Orders we are obliged to wait eight minutes or until a full membership is present before proceeding with the division.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 16.

Tá
Connaughton, Paul.	Finucane, Michael.
Currie, Austin	McDowell, Michael.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Nealon, Ted.
Doyle, Avril.	Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
Dukes, Alan.	Rabbitte, Pat.

Níl
Ahern, Michael.	Killeen, Tony.
Broughan, Tommy.	Martin, Michael.
Connolly, Ger.	Nolan, M.J.
Ellis, John.	Ó Cúiv, Eamon.
Fitzgerald, Eithne.	O'Keeffe, Batt.
Hilliard, Colm.	Ryan, Eoin.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Upton, Pat.
Kenny, Seán.	Walsh, Eamonn.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 25 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. M. McDowell

We have just had an example of many people not being present for a vote. No explanation is asked of them why they were not here and they do not have to make a declaration of interest.

Mr. Connolly

I cannot hear the Deputy.

Mr. M. McDowell

We have just had an example of a division. If this was a matter on which Members could have had an interest — it was not in fact — the people who were not here were those who swung the vote. Let us remember the points raised earlier with regard to who actually decides whether a Bill goes through this Parliament. It is frequently the case that the people who do not turn up to vote decide a matter and, therefore, they should be equally accountable as those who do turn up to vote and who have the decency to express their views. That is all that I am saying.

Mr. M. Ahern

On the point which Deputy McDowell raised, the Members who are missing from the House have legitimate reasons for not being present.

Mr. M. McDowell

I am not suggesting otherwise.

Dr. Upton

It is worth keeping in mind that people stood for Parliament on the basis that they would not take their seats if they were elected.

Mr. M. McDowell

A declaration of no interest.

Mr. Rabbitte

I do not know if that means the junior partner in the partnership Government anticipates a situation in the next general election where we may be joined by a number of such people.

Mr. Hilliard

That could happen.

Mr. Rabbitte

However, we are talking here about people who would have the ability to wield influence and those who abstain wield influence whereas those of us who turn up to vote must declare our position.

Mr. Connolly

The position over the years in regard to Bills is that spokespersons and those who have been asked by the various parties to represent them do so. The other Members of my party who were not here to take part in the vote will be taking on other issues on behalf of my party. I would not like a perception to go out of here that the members of my party are not actively monitoring this Bill. Since the debate commenced here, my party has played a major role in it.

Mr. M. McDowell

I am not making that point.

Mr. Connolly

Well, that is the perception.

Mr. M. McDowell

No, quite the reverse.

Mr. Hilliard

Other people might think differently.

Mr. M. McDowell

I am making the point to Deputy Connolly and any other Deputy that those who did not turn up today had just as much an influence on the outcome of that division as those who did. We cannot have a system whereby only those who turn up to speak and vote have to explain themselves. Those who disappeared for the afternoon, for whatever good reason — and I have no doubt that all of them have a very good reason to be away — had just as material an effect on the vote as those who turned up to vote. That is the only point which I am making and I am making it without recrimination. I am not in a position to criticise anybody else for not turning up the odd time. I am just making the point that when I do not turn up I have as much of an influence on the outcome as when I do.

Question put and agreed to.