Does anyone wish to comment further on amendment No. 26 to section 10?
SECTION 10.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 26:
In page 14, subsection (1), lines 37 to 40, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) shall furnish a copy of the report to the member concerned and, if the investigation followed a complaint under section 8, the person who made the complaint, and".
—(Minister of State at the Department of Finance.)
I have a comment to make.
The Minister has replied and we are now discussing amendment No. 26.
: Are we restricted from responding to the Minister's reply?
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 66 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 15, subsection (1) (a), line 39, after "circumstances" to insert "including the financial means of the complainant".
I move my amendment with reluctance because of the manner in which the committee is being treated by the Government. I do not want to blame this Minister, but we were given an assurance in the House by the Taoiseach. That has now been abrogated and we are being required to proceed to the end of Committee Stage of this Bill without knowing what we are doing. That is absurd.
The amendment was tabled because I was concerned about section 11 which appears to give the committee power to levy fines. It is not stated in that way, but I am nervous about such a power being conferred on a committee of the House. I am not clear about what appeal mechanism, if any, applies. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify, in terms of the circumstances referred to, that it would include taking into account the financial means of the complainant, which is desirable. What appears to be frivolous or vexatious to a Member of the House or to a committee of the House may not appear so to the complainant. I would like to hear the Minister's reply.
The purpose of this section is to deter malicious and unfounded complaints and to avoid the committee's occasioning excessive legal costs either for itself or for others. If someone makes unfounded complaints there is the deterrent that he may face costs, but we do not want this to result in huge charges. The capping of fees should deter recourse to costly legal representations in such cases. This section is intended to protect Members against unfounded complaints. While I appreciate the reason Deputy Rabbitte tabled this amendment to insert "including the financial means of the complainant", the section, as drafted, states that "it may order that such amount (not exceeding £1,000) as it considers appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances". We feel this phrase, "all the circumstances", covers the means of a complainant.
That is the correct way to handle this matter. I am happy with the Tanáiste's amendment. Does Deputy Rabbitte intend to increase the fine? Does he think it is an insufficient deterrent for anyone who would make an unfounded accusation against a Member of the House? Perhaps the Deputy could clarify that. I hope I am reading Deputy Rabbitte's amendment correctly.
We must look at this carefully, but it seems that the procedure under section 8 is that:
A person (other than a member) who considers that a member (other than a member who is an office holder) may have contravened section 5 or 7 may make a complaint in writing in relation to the matter to the Clerk and, subject to subsection (3), the Clerk shall refer the matter to the Committee and shall furnish a copy of the complaint to the Committee.
Under section 8 (3) the Clerk is obliged not to refer it to the committee if he believes it is frivolous or vexatious. If the Clerk takes the view that it is not frivolous or vexatious, it goes to the committee. If it goes to the committee and it decides in its wisdom that it is frivolous or vexatious, despite the fact it went through a vetting procedure and the Clerk did not think it was frivolous or vexatious, the person who made the complaint to the Clerk then faces, under section 11, a possible fine of £1,000 by way of contribution to the costs of any person who appeared before it. I am mystified as to how the Clerk could say it is not frivolous or vexatious and send it to the committee who could say it is frivolous or vexatious and ask for £1,000 for the privilege of having assessed it. This seems inconsistent. If it goes to the committee, someone has already adjudicated that it is not frivolous or vexatious. However, at a later stage one could be asked for £1,000 on the basis that the committee thought the Clerk was wrong and that it was frivolous or vexatious.
That is plausible, given recent developments. It is desirable to have protection against malicious, frivolous and unfounded allegations. It is desirable that the Bill should include provisions to prevent this occurring and that there should be sanctions to deal with it. In the past unsubstantiated allegations were made against people in the House and they led to costly investigations. There is a need for such protection, but we can also read too much into it. It is not the intention of this section to prevent people making well founded allegations. As politics evolves into the next decade, it is possible that more unsubstantiated and frivolous allegations will be made against politicians, particularly by fellow politicians.
: Where the son or a daughter of a Minister is involved it is not then collectable. In my opinion, that is unconstitutional. I sought some very high level legal advice and I was told that was the case. I am told that the advice which the Government has received is, as usual, only the advisers' opinion. In one case it was proved in the courts that such a provision was unconstitutional. I believe this is irrelevant in that I do not think that a person to whom it could refer, such as a spouse, can be brought before the hearing; the person can decline. Therefore, that part of it is unconstitutional.
Deputy Rabbitte's amendment is basically concerned about the amount of money which might be levied against somebody making an allegation which could not be substantiated. There are two sides to it — the person who is being offended against by the allegation and the person who makes it. The fine would be levied, I presume, to prevent unfounded allegations or allegations which are not substantiated.
However, the question arises whether the amount of the fine is insufficient or too large or if there should be a penalty for a person who makes an allegation. A very good argument could be made as to what we can do to prevent unfounded allegations being floated into the system. Whichever way one looks at it, one must address the question of controls
There has to be some check put on allegations and if we have to address the sum, so be it. I am quite happy with £1,000 because I know of no other formula which might deal with it. If there are better ones let them be put forward.
As I understand section 8 (4), it provides that a Member "who considers that a Member of either House (other than a Member who is an office holder) may have contravened section 5 or 7 may make a complaint in writing". If one looks to see whether office holders are covered by this one finds that section 21 (3) states that "a Member who considers that a person may have contravened Part II, III or IV at a time when he or she was an office holder may make a complaint in writing in relation to the matter to the Commission". I cannot complain under section 8 (4) about a Minister in respect of an activity done when the Minister was not an officer holder but the remedy which I am given under section 21 (3) is restricted to the time when the office holder was an officer. If I want to complain, for example, that a member of the present Government who was not an officer holder at the time took X amount of money or did X or Y or whatever, or if they want to make a complaint about me in similar circumstances should they ever arise, we seem to be cut off by these two provisions from making that kind of complaint. Nobody can complain about me because I am an office holder and then the remedy under section 21 (3) is confined to circumstances in which I did whatever it is complained that I did at a time when I was an officer holder.
I ask the Minister to look at those two provisions and see whether there is a loophole there. It worries me because it seems that people who are now office holders cannot be investigated for past complaints while they were ordinary Members.
We are on section 11, not section 21. I will deal with those points when we come to section 21. I agree with what Deputy Martin and Deputy Walsh said. The purpose of this section is to protect Members against frivolous, vexatious or totally unfounded complaints. If complaints are made by other Members they go straight to the committee without the intervention of the Clerk. I think we all get the kind of letters which tell us that we are freemasons or agents of Satan and the purpose of the Clerk intervening is to allow the Clerk to deal with such letters without troubling the committee. However, this is to provide protection for Members against complaints for which there is no basis.
I have some difficulty in dealing with the Minister if she insists on taking the Bill section by section as if the sections had no relationship to each other. The Minister knows better than any of us how the sections of the Bill are interrelated and she has spent more time working on it. She simply cannot answer serious questions which have been raised by saying that we are not on section 21 now but when we come to it she will deal with those points. Serious points have been raised.
With all due respect, we are dealing with this section and with a specific amendment in the Deputy's name. While I might have allowed some latitude to Deputy McDowell, the Minister has been quite fair in saying that she will reply when we come to the relevant section.
I think we will get to the relevant section before section 21.
Chairman, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, this select committee of the House was set up to look at legislation line by line and how it interacts as a Bill generally. I am not withdrawing from you your right to hold whatever opinion you like. I am saying that the amendments interrelate.
I tried on a previous amendment to raise the matter of a Member qua Member or a Minister qua Member. Earlier sections of the Bill which we have dealt with specifically refer to the fact that they exclude an office holder. The regimes for Members and for office holders are different.
For example, section 8 (4) states " a Member...other than a Member who is an officer holder". That phrase is repeated throughout the Bill. Section 9 states "where a complaint is referred or made to a committee under section 8, or a committee considers it appropriate to do so in the case of a Member (other than a Member who is an office holder)". It continues to exclude an officer holder. A serious point has been raised about the apparent conflict where the ability is there to look into the conduct of a Minister if a complaint is made while he or she is an office holder. A different regime applies to the rest of us — the complaint can be made against us at any time as Members of the House.
I tried to make the argument the last day, Sir, that I have had personal experience of situations where a Minister claims that he was acting as a constituency TD to make representations to further a particular cause, without commenting one way or the other on the merits of that, but denying that he is functioning as a Minister and claiming that he is functioning as a constituency TD and, therefore, as a Member. However, as the Bill seems to stand we would be denied the opportunity to process a claim against that Minister as a Member.
With all due respect, Sir, and I can appreciate if you are wearying of the process and so on——
For the Deputy's information, I have not become in any way weary of the process. I feel that there is far more pressure on the Deputy.
I am delighted, Sir. I always thought that you were an excellent choice for that post which requires patience, endurance and so on and you have my full support.
I would like to hear the Minister on that point. Similarly, she did not reply to the point which was made by Deputy McDowell concerning the role of the Clerk. The Clerk in section 8 (4) acts as a screening mechanism whereby head-bangers and others would be sorted out at that stage. The complaint would not get to the committee if the Clerk concluded that it was frivolous or vexatious. It would not proceed any further. I cannot see the point in conferring that power on the Clerk if we are leaving it to the committee to decide subsequently that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous in any event. I wish to hear the Minister's view on the apparent conflict.
With reference to Deputy Walsh's point, a person might be a social welfare recipient. I am a little nervous about the £1,000 fine anyway because I do not know what the appeal mechanism involves in terms of a decision made by the House. Is there an appeal mechanism? If so, that is most unusual. If Mr. Justice Windle imposes a £1,000 fine on any of my constituents, they theoretically have a right of appeal. I would be deeply indebted to the Minister if she made a serious attempt to deal with questions raised, rather than give monosyllabic replies to the line of the Bill we are discussing.
I am very much in favour of substantial fines or sanctions against anyone making frivolous or demonstrably unfounded allegations. Deputies and Senators attract unfounded accusations so I am in favour of substantial penalties. However, one matter concerns me regarding the position whereby someone making a complaint then circulates all the newspapers to the effect that such a complaint has been made. Are the newspapers entitled to print the complaint irrespective of whether it may come to be regarded as frivolous and never come before the committee? That can do irreparable damage to a Deputy or Senator. There is no comeback if the newspapers are entitled to publish that information.
There is much in the Bill to which perhaps we are not paying sufficient attention. Once one is accused of something, irrespective of the truth, one will be blamed. Apologies or retractions will not make up for it once the initial accusation is published. Is there an element of privilege?
I am totally in favour of the Clerk in the first instance and subsequently the committee being in a position to throw out a frivolous accusation. The committee should have the final say but if the Clerk dismisses it in the first instance, it gets less circulation. Once such matters get into circulation, even among the members of the committee, it causes damage to the accused even though the accusation is frivolous. These are important points on which I wish to hear the Minister's view, particularly as regards whether newspapers are entitled to publish the fact that a complaint has been made, which would be technically correct, even though that complaint is not subsequently sustained.
I agree that this is an extremely important part of the Bill. Is £1,000 a sufficient sanction? It is a serious matter if a person makes an allegation against a Member of the Oireachtas for whom it could mark the end of the road in either House. When a complaint is made to the Clerk of the Dáil and then brought before a committee, will the media be entitled to publish that allegation? As the Chairman is aware, there is a saying in our part of the country that there is "seldom smoke without a fire".
This is a serious element of the Bill. A person with a grudge against a Member of the Oireachtas could make a serious complaint. Is £1,000 a sufficient deterrent?
Deputy Rabbitte argued that a poor person may have a legitimate case. However, there is a perception in House across the party divide, that Members are scapegoats for the media and other people when allegations are made. No matter how a Member of the House defends himself or herself against an allegation, it could be suggested outside the House that there was something in it. That would hang over the Member and could have disastrous consequences for him or her, not just in political terms but also in commercial and private life. This is a serious point and the best way to deal with it will have to be covered in some detail.
Interesting issues have been raised. I support Deputies Nealon and Connolly on the question of whether the allegation or complaint is aired in the public domain in advance of a complaint being made formally to the Clerk or the committee. It is necessary to nail this point down. If somebody has a complaint about a Deputy or Senator, is it announced to all and sundry in advance that a complaint will be made about a certain Member?
Or does it just leak?
It could also leak. We are all becoming better a leaking information. This is a serious issue because if the complaint becomes irrelevant, the publicity will have damaged the public representative concerned. It could be electorally fatal.
A person may cynically write the formal complaint to the Clerk or committee. What protection does the Member have in that case? There should be some provision whereby a complaint should be made formally to the Clerk and then to the committee in the first instance. There should be time for the committee to consider that complaint and then, by all means, publish it if there are grounds. There are problems; I am not saying that we will come up with a foolproof system. I understand the worries Members are articulating. Deputy Connolly is right in that the real damage is in the accusation. Irrespective of how comprehensively or substantially one defends or deals with an allegation, people will not be interested because their primary interest will be in the original allegation. They will say there is no smoke without fire, but many of us know there is plenty of smoke without fire.
Unfortunately politics — I say this against my profession — is the one of the worst areas where groundless rumours develop. One of my first observations about this House was that it was a rumour factory and that certain things grip people when they come through the gates and walk the corridors. Rumours are rife, particularly at times of crisis. The only way one can protect one's sanity is to leave, to walk away and go into a book shop to try to return to normality. In that context, we must be careful how we process these complaints.
I am glad this matter has been raised. We are all aware from newspapers that pressure is being put on politicians and the Legislature as regards libel laws and defamation because they are rather strict. If we contrast that with what is happening in the UK, we can see first hand that politicians there have been fair game for the British media. In the future, the media may look for a relaxation of the laws.
Politicians know about things which are said in their constituencies which, in many cases, are groundless. A common expression in rural Ireland is that there is no smoke without fire. There are inherent dangers in this aspect of the legislation and, to a certain degree, I support what Members have said. A person's political career — in many cases it is a full time occupation — could be ruined. We must, therefore, tread warily in this area. Caution is required. If this is not handled carefully, we could be using a stick to beat ourselves as regards this aspect of the legislation.
This section is designed to compensate people for expense which they have undertaken as a result of batting down unfounded, malicious or vexatious complaints. It clearly contemplates that people will be legally represented before the committee from time to time. A question which then occurs is whether it would be possible for the complainant to say: "If Deputy McDowell is bringing in the heavy guns, I will not be mauled by counsel". Will complainants be able to bring lawyers before the committee? If they are able to do so, will we be in a position where we will effectively have a trial between sets of lawyers as to whether people did or did not accept moneys or in some way infringe section 5 or 7 by failing to declare interests?
I appreciate that since the Haughey case a person whose reputation is on the line is entitled to representation, but frequently in "you did, you do not" cases both reputations are on the line. Those involved in the beef tribunal went in the belief that they were makings allegations but felt they were in the dock. One does not have to look too far for some people who came under heavy fire for making allegations. If a person is going to be hammered by counsel and lawyers for a TD who is there to discredit them and to say their allegations are false, in circumstances where it is appropriate, can they bring barristers and solicitors to prove that the complaint is true?
Nothing could be worse than for a civilian to make a complaint and for a group of ten TDs to say there is no substance to it and to fine him or her £1,000 by way of costs. He could say: "I was never allowed to produce my evidence, they took over this complaint. I have been hammered in public and told that there was no foundation for my complaint at any time. I went to that committee with plenty of evidence and if I had been allowed to present my complaint, Deputy X would have been bounced out of the House pretty quickly. However, the committee took over the investigation and I ended being disgraced and humiliated in public because I tried to draw attention to a set of circumstances which I had evidence to show were correct."
I would like the Minister to tell us what type of procedures the committee will engage in. If there is a conflict of evidence — which is probably what this will be about — as to whether someone agreed to take a retainer in a particular matter, who will stand up for that person's interest if they take a pounding at a committee hearing where the TD is surrounded by lawyers but where the individual with the complaint is not entitled to make their case fairly and squarely?
I have been lenient in allowing Members to broaden the scope away from this section because it is a relevant question which will need clarification before the Bill is passed.
The purpose of the section is to provide protection to Members against frivolous, vexatious or unfounded complaints. We envisage that the Clerk will throw out any obvious head-banger cases, although something which may look plausible on the surface may after further investigation by the committee — the Clerk will not do a further investigation — prove to be a head-banger case or an unfounded allegation. This gives Members general protection. The reason for the inclusion of £1,000 is because we do not want this to become a lawyers' bonanza, although perhaps Deputy McDowell may wish that to happen.
Section 30 deals in detail with the type of procedures in natural justice which the committee will have to adopt in investigating complaints. The committee will obviously have to operate within the requirement of natural justice. Section 33 deals with the question of disclosure of information in relation to committee hearings. Some interesting points have been made which I will deal with at that stage. There is merit in a question which Deputy McDowell raised in relation to section 21 and I will deal with it when we reach that section.
If the Minister says that the phrase "in all the circumstances" or "having regard to all the circumstances" includes the question of financial appropriateness, I accept that. The answer to Deputy Connolly's question is that the figure may need to be greater than £1,000 in certain cases. It seems that in other cases prison is the alternative to not being able to discharge a fine of £1,000. The merit of my amendment has been borne out by this discussion. As Deputy Nealon said, serious questions arise and we ought to make haste slowly on this Bill. We will have to live with its consequences and it is difficult to foresee some of them. I am somewhat uncomfortable about a committee of the Dáil having the right, effectively, to impose fines without an appeal mechanism. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that point.
It is not a fine as such. It relates to expenses. The Members of the House will decide this matter. They are reasonable people. If somebody submits an unreasonable bill and if the committee conducts an investigation and it is quite clear, for example, that somebody with a surface plausibility is psychiatrically ill, I am sure the House will not seek fines or expenses in such circumstances. We can leave this matter to the good judgment of the committee.
Where do the costs end? What are the envisaged consequences of processing a complaint? There was an example of such a dispute in the Seanad recently. It is not difficult to envisage a long running dispute taking place. Is it envisaged that an arsenal of lawyers would be required on either side to conduct such a case over a considerable time?
Not if £1,000 is the limit.
That would pay for only half a day, Deputy McDowell.
A number of matters arise in this context which cause concern. As practising politicians we are probably more concerned about the question raised by Deputy Nealon. Reference has been made to frivolous complaints. However, it is possible to envisage circumstances where the complaint would not be of a frivolous nature and would not be made for frivolous reasons.
Under section 7 of the Bill a complaint may not be made in respect of a person who has ceased to be a Member. Presumably this also means that a complaint made when the person is a Member will lapse when the person ceases to be a Member. All Members are concerned about the public interest, how things affect our constituents and the future of the country in general. However, we are also concerned about our own future, particularly following the next election.
It is possible that a complaint might be made on the eve of an election which would not be frivolous but which would have the purpose of affecting the outcome of the election. A complaint against an incumbent TD who is a candidate in the election which alleges that the TD is in receipt of brown envelopes or kickbacks — although I do not know why anyone would pay us in view of our limited powers to do anything — would be extremely serious. Such a complaint, as Deputy Nealon said, would be leaked. It would be a very dangerous matter for a sitting TD in the course of an election campaign to read in the newspapers, to hear by word of mouth or to be accosted at public meetings with an allegation that alleged misconduct by him is being investigated by a Dáil committee.
The other aspect is that if the smear were successful and, as a result, the TD lost his or her seat, the complaint would lapse because the person would no longer be a Member of this House. The complaint would have achieved its effect in securing the defeat of the incumbent TD at the election. What remedy will be available to the former TD in a situation where the complaint lapses? This is a matter of great concern to all Members. We would be very silly indeed if we did not feel entirely assured on this matter before continuing to the next item of business.
The Minister tells us that this will be discussed at a later and more appropriate stage. However, this appears to be the appropriate stage to be given full answers to our queries. Deputy Nealon's question ought to be of concern to Members on all sides of the House. It can affect any Member particularly at such a sensitive time as a general election campaign. The betting is that if these allegations are to be made they will be made at that sensitive time.
That is right.
We will deal with Deputy Rabbitte's amendment first and discuss this further during our discussion on the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
A Deputy has asked about the time we will conclude. We did not decide a time at the start of our business. It has been suggested that we continue to 1 p.m. and from 2.30 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. with a 15 minute break at 4 p.m. Is that acceptable?
I will be obliged to leave at 5 p.m.
The original suggestion was 5.30 p.m. and 5.15. p.m. was offered as a compromise.
I do not anticipate anything dramatic occurring during the last 15 minutes.
It is obvious that we will make incredible progress between 5 p.m. and 5.15 p.m.
I can assure the Deputy that all relevant sections will not be taken between 5 p.m. and 5.15 p.m.
Is it true that when the Dáil is dissolved I cease to be a Member of it and that all allegations collapse unless they are continued at the request of a person or unless I am reelected?
I raised that question on section 7. I am not sure that I received a reply. That is why——
Deputy Currie's point was that in the course of an election one could lob a hand grenade at a politician by making a complaint. My question is whether a person is a Member of the Dáil after it has been dissolved. If he or she is not and unless the person in question avails of his right under section 8 (3), my understanding is that the complaint dies with the dissolution. That has profound implications. A major inquiry into the misbehaviour of a Member of this House could be in progress and the Government of the day might decide to time an election in order to wipe out the complaint.
Of course, it would never be raised in the course of an election campaign.
I remember far more stupid reasons for holding elections. Some such reasons are being voiced at present.
Deputy McDowell has made an interesting point. His question regarding the demise of the allegation also requires an answer. It does not invalidate the very alarming point raised by Deputy Currie and I would say that the allegation does not actually have to be made during an election campaign. If you were clever enough you could lob the grenade about three months before-hand. It would be more advantageous if you really wanted to bury somebody. It would be a nice run-in to the campaign. Deputy Rabbitte is smiling. I am not in the allegation game. I am making the point that this needs to be looked at very seriously because it could have a critical impact on somebody's electoral performance. The nature and gravity——
I think it would be helpful Chairman if we conducted the debate not necessarily in the belief that the people making the allegations are on this side of the House and the saints on that side. There have been times when Deputy Martin's party has been on the other side of the House. To present himself here as the pussycat is taking away from the legislation.
Deputy with all due respect, I think that there are no pussycats in either House of the Oireachtas. Deputy Martin, without interruption.
Deputy Currie's point has alarmed me. I can see real dangers. We should put in protections on that score. In the political world rumour is rife, even at selection conventions. It seems to be the nature of politics that it brings out the best and the worst in people, especially in advance of an election campaign when people are preparing to regain their seats or remove someone from a seat. There is a danger that a real allegation could be made to cause maximum damage. It does not have to be made by the aspiring candidate. They can get an ordinary person to make the allegation and the damage is done. If necessary they can cover the expenses afterwards. All sorts of scenarios could emerge.
We are all caught under that.
We need protection in that respect.
I am just wondering what the saint is talking about there and what is the level of hand grenade. Complaints made against Members are defined in the Bill and it would not necessarily be in a pre-election situation. The complaint is more likely to be made immediately after an election, when one of the rules specified in the Bill states: "The acceptance of financial contributions at election time..." etc. The Bill itself defines the areas in which complaints may be made against Members. It is unlikely there would be any other kinds of complaint made. They might be, but then common justice would apply and people would be entitled to defend themselves against political accusations, particularly during campaigns. We are worried about the kind of complaint that could be made, when it could be made and how we can stop such complaints if they are frivolous. It is a legitimate concern. We should consider the likely level of the complaints.
The other point raised by Deputy Nealon is important. When a complaint is made against a Member we will have to ensure that the rights of that Member, be they guilty or innocent, are protected until such time as the complaint has been investigated. Publication of such complaints should be precluded. This happens at the Committee on Procedure and Priveleges where there are complaints on a regular basis about various things concerning members and officials. The members of the Committee on Procedure and Priveleges are restricted on a confidentiality basis and are not allowed to disclose such matters when they are under investigation. I do not know whether we are unnecessarily worried in this regard. As Members of the Oireachtas we must ensure adequate protection for ourselves against frivolous complaints and also ensure that allegations are contained until properly investigated by the Committee.
This is extremely serious and very much the kernel of the Bill. We are talking in terms of an individual complaint. Consider the other scenario where there is a conspiracy, a group of people at constituency or national level conspiring against a person. It is no defence to say that the Clerk of the Dáil will not reveal the number of complaints lodged. It may be leaked to the press that an individual — a Dáil Deputy or Senator — has had a number of complaints lodged against them. Is this right? It does not matter that they are all frivolous complaints. It is no use that the individual says they are frivolous. It will be said that there is no smoke without fire. If we have twenty or thirty fires surely there is something happening.
Plenty of smoke there.
That is the danger we are exposing ourselves to and perhaps this has not been thought through sufficiently. We do not want any protection we do not deserve. Everyone wants to be totally honest and in total conformity with the principles underpinned by the Bill. There is no disagreement on that. There is disagreement on leaving ourselves open to malicious, frivolous, unfounded charges, which once they are made tend to stick. I have been involved in politics and the media all my life and I am definite on one fact — an apology is useless. Once a story is run, even if it is totally wrong, it sticks. The subsequent apology, however great or fulsome, never cleans the slate entirely because if one talks to someone a month later they will go back to the original story and confuse the issue. If a person appears as a defendant or otherwise in the courts, it is difficult for the public to determine later which side that person was on. We are in very serious waters here. The Minister should give extraordinary attention to this aspect and avoid a major defect in the Bill and a major problem for future generations of Dáil Deputies and Senators.
The issue that Deputy Nealon has raised is very important. I believe Deputy Ferris is correct in stating that there should be no publication of allegations until they are fully investigated.
Easier said than done.
There is far too much rumour and scandal-mongering about people in the public arena, irrespective of their walk of life. There are wholesale detractors out there who are demeaning politics. The vast percentage of people in public life are honest people doing their very best. At every turn, however, there are whispers and question marks: "There must be something in it for himself or he would not be at it." Such allegations are totally unfounded. Even ordinary county council or local authority members have such allegations levelled at them. It is time this practice was stamped out. The only way this can happen is when the media become responsible in their reporting of stories in national newspapers. Only a whisper is needed to start the whole thing in motion. People have a right to complain if they have a doubt about something and there should be a body to investigate complaints. Until that investigation is complete they should not be reported.
I agree with what has been said and it occurs to me that for £1,000 much damage could be done to someone aspiring to membership of this house. From that point of view we should be very careful of this. People can make written complaints and have the acknowledgement of the Clerk of the Dáil; they can then show it to a newspaperman and no law will stop a newspaper approaching a Deputy to investigate that story. The Deputy concerned is on the rack from that moment on. These complaints may be substantial. It is all very well to talk about £1,000 being a limit. Supposing it was alleged that I had taken money improperly, and failed to disclose that in the Dáil, that I failed to tell the Clerk of the Dáil about receipt of money in particular circumstances. Suppose I hotbloodedly denied this and said it was a complete set-up, that the transaction was a business one which was not registerable, and that somebody was putting a different construction on the fact that he could show that a bank draft went into my account or whatever. In those circumstances it is not enough that I could go to a committee of the Dáil and be fairly represented for £1,000, bring all my witnesses, have my lawyers there for a week, a week and a half or two weeks, dealing with the succession of witnesses brought against me in some matter, and then be told at the end of that: "Here's your £1,000. Thank you, Deputy McDowell. You are innocent. The complaint should never have been brought against you." I query whether I have been fairly vindicated in those circumstances.
Should one make provision for compensation to Deputies by the House, if they are put on trial, where their expenses in defending themselves and vindicating themselves are not met by the £1,000? What if I have to spend three weeks before a committee of this House with a succession of witnesses coming in to give evidence against me, and I have to have a barrister and a solicitor to defend me? I might be able to get it free, but few enough in this House would get it free. I wonder in those circumstances if, at the end of it all, I am vindicated, whether a little certificate saying I have the right to sue some savage who has put me through this mill for £1,000, is fair justice for somebody who has been on trial before a committee of this House for a number of weeks. Let us think about it from that point of view. It is all very well to take the populist line that the complainant should not gets hammered. What happens when a really heavy complaint comes in and a Member of this House is up against the wall, and comes out of it and proves at the end of it that he was innocent? What redress has he got in these circumstances?
In order to get the little certificate to enable one to sue for £1,000, one must prove that there were no reasonable grounds for believing the complaint. One has to win 100 per cent. If one is found innocent, but there are facts which gave reason to believe it was true, even if one's explanation is accepted as correct, then there is no entitlement to any compensation, despite the fact that a Member has been dragged before a committee of this House to defend himself on a very serious complaint. It is very easy to advocate keeping the lawyers out of this and keeping the costs down, but what would happen to a Member of this House? What if I were the subject of a complaint of this kind, and if I ended up with a two-week investigation, with solicitors and barristers and witnesses coming in and out, and a heavy investigation? It is very little vindication to be told if I succeed in the almost impossible burden of proving that there was never any basis for the complaint at all, that it was an entire invention and was vexatious that I will get a little certificate from the Clerk of the Dáil saying that I can sue whatever savage put me in the position of defending my reputation. That is very little vindication for a Member of this House. We should look to what is likely to happen.
If this system is ever used, it is not going to be just little old mad-heads sending in complaints about me and the Masonic Order or whatever. It is not going to be that kind of stuff. It is going to be something serious. Somebody is going to say that I took money on some occasion that I never revealed to the House. Sections 5 and 7 do not cover mad-cap complaints. They deal with failure to reveal to the House substantial transactions of over £3,000. Serious allegations, in other words, are going to be made against me, and then I can be brought before a committee of the House. My reputation is on the line, and I am entitled to legal representation because it could be very heavy stuff indeed. I have to defend my reputation, knock down a series of witnesses brought to testify before the committee, and what happens at the end of it? I am told that if I win 1,000 per cent, not even 100 per cent but 1,000 per cent, and show that there was no basis to it at all, I can sue the person who made the allegation against me — probably a man or woman of straw — for £1,000. That is not fair vindication.
We are setting in place a system where politicians will be on the receiving end of complaints. Deputy Nealon's point is a good one. This is going to happen on occasion, we assume, to innocent people. If we look at section 11, there is very little redress for an innocent TD if he is hammered or goes through a month before a committee of this House, or if his reputation is being dragged through the mud. Are committee meetings entirely secret? If there is legal representation, are there to be witnesses heard by committees? Are they to be entirely secret? Will the press know about these things? Even professional bodies' activities get into the press in the most extraordinary ways, and I do not have to remind this House of how one particular person's written submissions to a professional body ended up in the national press. I am deeply sceptical about creating this jurisdiction to try ourselves before a committee, and at the end of it, if proven totally innocent, one can get a voucher to sue somebody for £1,000.
The original comment I made was on Deputy Rabbitte's amendment regarding the fine of £1,000. The more the debate continues the more it would appear that substantial damage to a person's political future could be inflicted by a very small and very insignificant allegation. The media might report something substantially greater than what was actually attributed to the person. My original thinking was that £1,000 is a very small sum of money to protect Members. The question I asked was whether it was appropriate to have nothing or to have something substantial. I think £1,000 is insignificant. That should be substantially increased to protect Members, and that is the only mechanism I see to prevent what we are fearful might happen.
There is also the question of leaks to the media. The damage is not done in this House. The allegations might rightly be made here. It is what is made of the allegation outside which we have no control over. This is where the worst damage will take place. With regard to Deputy Currie's point about an election period, nobody knows what can be done. We all know what can be done in election time by the media. If there are people out there who are not controlled in any way by procedures or legislation, then the media can do what they like on it, and we are at their mercy. The question arises as to whether the media should be subject to the same procedures in this Bill as we are applying to ourselves.
At the end of it all the final arbiter is the electorate. The people at the end of the day have an absolute right to decide on these matters. Even if they get the wrong story or rumours are presented to them, how do we ensure that the public sees the correct picture? That is the problem presented to us. The final judgment is up to the electorate at the end of the day, and no matter what way they see it, we cannot but accept their judgment. In the dangers we are facing here, the fine is not sufficient and should be substantially increased.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
I promised the Members earlier this morning that I would seek clarification of amendments on Report Stage. As Chairman of the Select Committee I am responsible only for procedure in this Committee and not for procedure in the House proper. Furthermore I am unable to give advice to Members on a hypothetical question. However, for the information of Members, the general rules applying to Report Stage amendments are as follows: Members may submit an amendment for Report Stage which need not necessarily have been submitted on Committee Stage. However, in general amendments at Report Stage are in order only if, inter alia, they do not involve a charge on the Revenue or the people, and they arise out of Committee proceedings, i.e. the point of the amendment was raised at Committee Stage. Where an amendment on Report Stage is ruled out of order because it does not arise from Committee proceedings, the Member may move to recommit the Bill in respect of that amendment. However, it should be noted that a division may be called in respect of a motion for recommittal. We now resume on section 11.
With all due respect, Chairman, you have delivered yourself of a tremendous mouthful but I am sure you will allow us to tease it out a little. The freedom to recommit the Bill is always there and as you have fairly pointed out, that can very expeditiously be dealt with by calling a vote. Did I understand you to say that it is permissible to enter an amendment on Report Stage which has not been dealt with in Committee but that the point generally has to have come up on Committee Stage?
Yes, if it has come up generally on Committee Stage you are entitled to move an amendment on it on Report Stage. Points raised up to now — we are only at section 11 of this Bill — would not be appropriate to an amendment on Report Stage. There is general agreement by Members of the Committee that every possible scenario has already been raised——
Oh, no.
I am sure Deputy Currie will find further queries to raise between this section and the final section.
Deputy McDowell raised a point about the House sitting in Committee in the Dáil chamber where the traditional rules in terms of amendments to Report Stage apply. Are you saying, Chairman, that exactly the same rules apply to a Select Committee? My understanding from the setting up of the Committees, the discussions that went on at that time, the Standing Orders and all the rest is that a different situation obtains in the case of a Select Committee or a legislative Committee as distinct from the House sitting in Committee.
I looked at the Standing Orders of the Dáil and there is no doubt that the point about matters having to have been raised on Committee Stage is where the Committee is of the whole House. The implication is that where it is not of the whole House that rule does not apply.
That would more or less be what is suggested by what I have said. If it has been raised, even inter alia, it may be dealt with.
It has been very cautiously and cunningly set out in what you have said.
When I am dealing with people of your calibre I have to be more than cautious, Deputy.
Somebody somewhere else is keeping his options open.
Deputy Currie raised a point this morning concerning putting a ceiling during an election campaign, on how much a candidate may spend on a constituency. Presumably, if it is necessary when this Bill is published for an amendment to be put to the Ethics Bill, then the fact that Deputy Currie raised that during the passing of this Bill covers it.
However, I am quite sure that there are probably matters encompassed in the electoral reform Bill that did not even dawn on Deputy Currie and it is not surprising since he is not the author of that Bill. So how is one to cover oneself here in saying that it must have been referred to?
It would be a good rule for us and for the Chairman as well, perhaps particularly for the Chairman, to be wary of any ruling which would restrict the powers of this Committee. This is an important Committee. To paraphrase Parnell — who are we to say nay to the onward march of a Committee? We have to be careful about these matters.
Members of this Committee will find that at no stage have I ever tried to restrain a Member from making any contribution. We should be flexible and in many cases I probably have broken a rule of good Chairmanship which on Committee Stage is to keep people exactly on the amendment being discussed. If there is any further query on this which the Members wish to raise, we will have to talk to the Ceann Comhairle who will be the final arbiter when it comes to amendments on Report Stage.
It is important to have an indication from the Ceann Comhairle on the implications of two Bills which intermingle like these, when the Committee was assured at the beginning that it would have the text of one before it made its mind up on the other and when that assurance is by degrees whittled away as we go on with our debate and pass point after point in our deliberations. On the definition section we have already dealt with election expenses and the like. Those things carry with them implications for a Bill that we have not seen yet. I am worried about it. I do not want to drag it on any more now, but I do not know why I cannot see the heads of this Bill as soon as they are available so that I know roughly what agreeing to the exemption of election expenses meant when we agreed the text of the definition section of this Bill. I would just like to know what I am doing.
Deputy McDowell is probably aware that none of us has seen the heads of the Bill. If Members wish to seek further clarification from the Ceann Comhairle's office, I will see if we can have this. It might help to speed up the passage of the Bill if we knew what the position was.
Members of the House who are not members of legislative committees should be free to make their contributions on Report Stage. This was one of the considerations in the minds of those who devised the arrangements for the new committees. I know there is some flexibility in what you have said but other chairmen who are not as amenable as you could interpret this in a fashion which does not provide flexibility.
I am glad that you accept that I can be very soft as a chairman. There have been suggestions as to when we might sit again. Perhaps the spokespersons and convenors might resolve this prior to us adjourning at 4 p.m.
I listened with great interest to the debate this morning. Many relevant points were raised. The £1,000 relates to costs which are deemed reasonable. There seems to be an inference from the debate that if somebody made a frivolous charge or allegation against a Member that it would be likely that the fine would be greater. The cost of defending oneself from the ultimate frivolous allegation would probably be very little and thrown out summarily without any cost being incurred. It is likely that minimum or no costs would be awarded and there would be, therefore, no deterrent to somebody making a totally frivolous allegation against a Member. If somebody makes an allegation before an election — this was teased out this morning — and a Member loses a seat by 100 or 200 votes, it would be fair to say that such a Member could feel aggrieved that a mechanism which was inserted to ensure that people acted in a proper manner could be misused for other purposes.
It was suggested that allegations should not be made public until they are proven. This might work within the Oireachtas in the case of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because there is, I hope, some system of honour among Members. However, if members of the public make allegations, it would be impossible to stop them leaking the fact that they made allegations, even if they were precluded from specifying what the allegations were. The situation could be even worse if they were precluded from specifying the allegations because they could then say to the media that they could confirm that they made allegations against certain Deputies or Senators. By the time the allegations would be dealt with, the elections would be over and the damage done. If somebody makes allegations against two or three Members, for example party members standing in an election in that person's constituency, the total aggregate cost involved is £1,000, irrespective of whether the people against whom the allegations are made have to incur substantial costs in defending themselves.
This section highlights the difficulty with this Bill, that is, that in trying to make things transparent we are also setting ourselves up as pot shots for anybody who wants to have a go at us. We are leaving ourselves with very little mechanism for defence. An amendment to section 11 could be considered which would not be related to cost but which would provide for awards to be made to injured parties or charges put on people who make totally unfounded allegations. If a wild charge is made against somebody, there would be no costs in rebutting it but the damage might be done when the rebuttal is issued. There is a danger of unfounded allegations being made. The decisions in such cases are often expressed in language such as "the allegation was not proven" or "there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation". The attitude of the public to such cases is often "he did it but they could not prove it". There is a huge possibility that people could be wrongfully damaged and there should be a better mechanism than that proposed in section 11 to protect Members against this. No one is trying to protect people where there is wrongdoing but we must protect ourselves from people making unfounded allegations for political or other gain.
It might be suggested that in pointing out some of the things which might happen we are too sensitive or too fearful. It is as well to remember that these things could happen. We now have a situation where more Members of the Dáil are full time politicians. Many of us rely entirely on our Dáil salaries. Matters of this nature rightly make us fearful, especially if they would result in one losing one's seat. We are more fearful due to the fact that we have multi-Member constituencies, with all the implications of this. In such constituencies one has to face in a number of directions. We would be fearful of developments which people in single Member constituencies would not have to fear. Politics here is a blood sport. There is a far greater interest in politics among all sections of the community here than in other countries. We would be fearful of things of which people in other jurisdictions and democracies would not be fearful.
A previous speaker — I think it was Deputy Martin — said that politics brings out the best and the worst in us. I think it was de Lambert who said that political office is like a high mountain and that only eagles and reptiles reach the top. I do not necessarily agree with this but in the 16th century he showed a fair judgment of how politics was likely to develop in some democracies. We must be careful about these matters. Rumours are spread by word of mouth, certainly in the situation I envisaged earlier of an election campaign of over three weeks where a sitting TD would have little or no opportunity to rebut them. Those things could be crucial. If word of mouth is repeated in print by publication in a newspaper or magazine, that would seem to confirm that there is no smoke without fire. We know how these things happen; they do not have to be attributed. It would be a leak which could appear in the newspapers. It would not emanate from one's obvious political opponents, but from people who are one step removed. If it did not figure in a national newspaper, it could figure in a local newspaper or, as often happens, that which the editor did not allow in a national or local newspaper could appear in other magazines. I can think of one magazine which, if it is not scrambling through the dirt, is rooting through the ashes. These are some of the things which can happen. The fact that it appears in print is confirmation for many people that such a thing has happened and that the allegation is correct. We are not being over sensitive nor can we be too careful in ensuring that we deal with these matters in this legislation.
Deputy McDowell, who has experience in the legal profession and as a politician, referred to the cost to him even where his professional colleagues would offer their services free. Some of them may be soft enough in the head or in terms of humanity to defend him. However, the rest of us would not be in that position and it could cost a substantial amount of money, in excess of £1,000, which we might hope to recover. There seems to be a strong case for strengthening this provision. Perhaps we should insert £1,000 as a minimum figure, but clarify that people have the right to follow up on the expenses, costs and damages which might accrue. The Minister should consider this.
When I tabled my amendment I did not envisage the discussion we had or some of the points raised. I wonder if we have now swung to the opposite end of the spectrum, notwithstanding reasonable fears about politically or otherwise motivated charges against a Member at a vulnerable time, for example, coming up to a general election.
We are talking about an investigation which would take place following a complaint about a breach of sections 5 or and 7. If it is restricted to allegations in respect of sections 5 or 7, they could only relate to the question of a registrable interest, for example, it not being registered, or, in the case of section 7, to declaring a material interest. It should be possible to have a prima facietest as to whether there is a breach of either sections 5 or 7. Otherwise, we are throwing out a part of the Bill which could be seen to be important in terms of ruling out the right of any person outside the House to bring forward any complaint. Perhaps there is an argument for requiring a Member of the House to sponsor the complaint. This might not be too difficult in certain circumstances, but it could be in other circumstances. It would have certain democratic implications if one was to say that no one other than a Member of the House could bring to the attention of the Clerk of the Dáil a matter which was encompassed by either sections 5 or 7.
There may have been some wilder flights of fancy about the type of allegations which might be made. They could not all be encompassed in this section which is confined to the matters contained in sections 5 and 7. I am unhappy that it is confined to a Member of the House. I repeat this argument throughout the Bill and I hope the Minister will say we have a separate regime for office holders. I agree with Deputy Currie that it is extraordinary that ordinary Members of the House could be subjected to this when it is difficult to see what influence they have to dispense in the matter. The legislation, the order or the regulation is sponsored by the Executive who would usually have the votes to command the ability to put it through the House. I am at a loss, as Deputy Currie says, to understand why we as Members are subjected to this regime, while Ministers, who are Members, are not subjected to it. I repeat the argument that a Minister could — and I am sure none of our existing Ministers would — argue that he or she was functioning in his or her capacity as an ordinary Dáil Deputy. I am unhappy about this.
It should be possible to insert in the Bill a prima facie test. There is a provision which requires the Clerk of the Dáil to throw it out, if he considers a complaint to be frivolous or vexatious. It seems to relate significantly to a matter of fact. That might be easier said than done in an era when various types of artificial constructs are being resorted to in terms of one’s interests. However, I would have thought that a prima facietest would meet the situation.
Deputy Rabbitte mentioned the possibility that flights of fancy may have occurred this morning and that some people may have dealt with things which are unlikely to occur in reality. I agree with him to a point. The mad hatter complaint is unlikely in most cases to relate to a specific breach or an alleged breach of sections 5 and 7 because one is dealing with people who are prima facie insane. If they can couch their complaint or focus it on a breach of sections 5 or 7, they will show a glimmering of sanity even in their malice or lunacy.
Paragraph 1 (9) of the Second Schedule which relates to registrable interests states: "any other interest of the person concerned during the appropriate period aforesaid which could have materially influenced the person in the performance of his or her functions as a member". For example, if I and five friends are interested in opening a golf club, a hotel or a food factory and we agree to undertake a substantial project or to buy a pub in the middle of Dublin and to renovate it and if there is then a proposal, for example, to rezone Dublin city centre for tax purposes I have to declare that interest immediately because I am part of a consortium. Even if it is only a verbal agreement to create an investment of this kind, I have an interest in a proposal which I am obliged to reveal to the public in those circumstances. That is a gross intrusion on my privacy but if that is to be acceptable then fair enough.
However, what is really worrisome is that if afterwards it is alleged that I had an interest in, for example, promoting a hotel within a designated zone or buying a parcel of land in Mountjoy Square or in the Liberties and that I and a group of other people had come to a verbal agreement that I was to receive 20 per cent of the business — on a purely bona fide basis and nothing to do with my being a TD — and that I failed to register that interest, that will be the subject of a huge row and a scandal if it later emerges.
I am giving that as an indication that people think that we are dealing with fairly straightforward issues. We are not. Some Members of this House, and some members of this committee, have engaged in promotions of land developments and so on in their time. If they verbally agreed while sitting around a table to a project and it later transpires that legislation along the same lines could favour them, their heads will be on the chopping block if they fail to disclose that interest in the course of the debate in question or, if it is an interest which is registrable in the ordinary course, to the Clerk of the Dáil.
This is not some academic exercise. It will some day be used against someone because, as has been said in this committee, if there is ammunition or snowballs to be thrown in politics they will be thrown. If evidence comes to one side of the House at any stage over the next number of decades that a Member on the other side of the House has breached this provision, somebody will be asked to make the complaint. It will not normally be a Member but a Mr. Joe or Mrs. Josephine Soap who will be dragged out for the purpose to send in their little complaint to the Ceann Comhairle; to lob up the ball like a bishop at an all-Ireland final to see what they make of it and what damage can be done. That is the nature of politics.
A committee is supposed to investigate the complaint. Unless the committee finds that it was completely unsustainable as a complaint no costs can be awarded. Therefore, as Deputy Ó Cuív said, the obverse of that is that the more serious a complaint is and the more substance it has, the less likely it is that one will get any compensation for defending oneself even if one is totally innocent. The more plausible the complaint, the more rational the grounds for making it — although it is untrue — the heavier the grounds for suspicion and the less likely it is that one will be compensated.
Section 11 (1) (b) which I did not look at sufficiently carefully this morning — but this Bill is a treasure trove of stuff — means that if one makes a complaint against four or five Deputies in a party, they can get £250 or £200 each for the privilege because the maximum of £1,000 is confined to the single complaint.
In some instances four or five Deputies could be a whole party.
Exactly. Thank you very much.
They are down to eight Deputies.
One is effectively talking about an entirely nominal amount of money which could be awarded in respect of a very serious allegation. The Bill contemplates people bringing in lawyers to defend themselves against these serious allegations but leaves them without any remedy of any kind where they win and prove their innocence. If five of them were at the receiving end of the allegation they are left with the right to go to a solicitor and ask him to sue the person who owes one the £200 and recover it in the District Court. If the person still refuses to pay, one is then entitled to apply to the court to have them committed to prison for failure to pay one £200.
That would make one popular in one's constituency.
The mind boggles as to what kind of remedy it is that one is entitled to have people jailed in the last analysis for failing to pay one moneys which they will contest the whole way through the court system on any spurious excuse and then just simply ignore the award of the court.
The Minister should face up to the fact that if she is contemplating serious complaints being made against Members of either House of the Oireachtas and situations in which they may have to bring in lawyers to defend their integrity against such complaints. To say that they may receive as little as £200 or as much as £1,000 by way of compensation for spending two or three weeks with their reputation on the line is an insult. It is very damaging to them and it will encourage people to make cheap allegations against others and to avoid the consequences.
Presumably, the original motivation for putting in the limitation of £1,000 was to try to encourage people to feel confident that in making complaints they would not be crucified. However, having looked at it all I believe that it has the exact opposite effect. It is Members of this House short changing themselves and exposing their throats to others.
As Deputy Ó Cuív said, the unlikely always happens. I always remember a pal of mine saying to me when the Eight Amendment was passed that a case like the X case would take place. I remember laughing at the proposition at the time but it did happen.
I guarantee that if we put this committee in place, some day there will be a substantial complaint against some Member of this House based on the proposition that that Member had an undisclosed interest. It will be in the interest of some of his or her opponents some day to make that case. Some Member of this House is going to have to spend weeks before a committee of his or her peers defending himself or herself.
In those circumstances, they are going to be told at the end of it either that the committee has listened to the complaint and they agree with the Member but it was reasonable to make the complaint so they have no costs awarded to them, or that the committee has listened to the complaint and it has taken weeks to establish that it was entirely without foundation and they are giving the Member £1,000 towards their costs.
In either of those two events justice will not have been done to the Member in question and a great deal of injustice will have been done to them because they will be sitting before a committee of this House defending their future, name, reputation and livelihood, in some cases. They will get nothing for it except this entirely ridiculous pat on the back that they can have £1,000 from the person who made the groundless allegation against them if they can persuade a solicitor to act for them in the District Court against that person and if that person, having an award against them, has the good grace to pay up. Otherwise, they can apply to a District Justice to send the person to jail. That is not justice but the opposite. It is very unfair.
I also ask the Minister to deal with whether she envisages that complainants will be entitled to bring lawyers to the committee meetings, bearing in mind that they may complain that they walked into an ambush of senior counsel, junior counsel and ten fellow Members of the Oireachtas and got spat out and rejected in circumstances where they were just a lay witness with nobody to assist them in pressing home their complaint. How is it envisaged that people making complaints will be given justice in these circumstances as well?
I have looked at section 11 carefully and I am enthralled by some of the scenarios put forward. However, they are not the great flights of fancy which we might have thought they were originally. I certainly agree with Deputy McDowell in relation to the costs. If somebody wins an action the costs awarded should reflect the fact that the person has been fully vindicated following the full and detailed investigation of a complaint. Subsection (1) (b) limits costs to £1,000 and this is a source of concern. When a complaint is made people must put forward the best defence to meet all the allegations and this may involve substantial legal costs.
I assure Deputy Currie that some of us take on cases and do not receive the figures quoted. Nevertheless, £1,000 could be gobbled up quickly in costs and the Minister should examine this issue as subsection (1) (b) means that the costs might be minimal if a number of people are involved. This section will not impede complaints.
I understand Deputy Rabbitte's point that a complaint, however nebulous, will raise the adage that there is no smoke without fire and this is a problem. Even though one might ultimately be cleared, people will say that there must have been some reason for making the complaint. This is the worrying feature. Will the Minister examine this point?
Previous speakers indicated reasons some people might make complaints. The Clerk of the Dáil is given an onerous responsibility in trying to establish prima facie evidence that the complaint is bona fide and there is some substance to it. How will he carry out that obligation? Will he evaluate the nature of the complaint and will all the evidence be available to him? Will he have witness statements or something of that nature? This will be a difficult task. The clerk will act as a filter for complaints and refer them further if they are not groundless. There should be greater detail as to how the clerk will deal with the complaint and ensure that onlyprima facie cases will see the light of day.
There should not be any curtailment as set out in section 11 (1) (a) and (1) (b) on a person who has been put through the turmoil of going before the committee on the basis that the Clerk of the Dáil decided that there is a prima facie case to be answered. If somebody has to engage full legal representation — as is his right as established over the past 24 years — and is ultimately cleared, he is entitled to full costs. This could hang over a person for up to four weeks or longer, and this is the worrying feature.
It could hang over one for a lifetime.
Ultimately, it could hang over one for a lifetime, because once a complaint is made, people will form their own views. The minimum that should be afforded to people is the cost of engaging full representation to vindicate their names.
We have had an interesting summary. We are fortunate to have barristers on both sides of the House to alert ordinary Members to the costs of legal representation.
This committee cannot award costs to anybody but it can provide in legislation that one can pursue a complainant for costs, regardless of whether they are £1,000 or £5,000. Has the Minister any ideas in this regard? It brings us back to Deputy Rabbitte's amendment. He was worried about a social welfare recipient who wanted to make a complaint but was unable to afford Deputy McDowell's fees for representing him or representing Deputy Rabbitte against his social welfare recipient. We should be honest with ourselves. The committee cannot award costs. We can set down a norm and we can give people a licence to get it, as Deputy McDowell said. Under common law the aggrieved person can get costs or put the social welfare recipient in jail. Perhaps the Minister would inform the committee.
With regard to breach of privilege under sections 5 and 7, we know about the level of complaints and how they can be made. We are talking about protecting the rights of Members of the House against frivolous complaints in that context. Perhaps the Minister would try to bring together the thoughts of all sides of the House on this matter and we could then proceed to the next section.
With all due respect, Deputy, I am in the hands of the committee. As long as Members wish to contribute, I will allow them to do so. The Minister would prefer this also, so that the Bill is properly teased out, rather than having others tease it out in another place at far greater expense to the nation.
I have much sympathy with the point of view put forward by Deputies Nealon, Ferris, Boylan and Martin, among others, on people using a phoney charge as a means to blacken somebody's name. There are complex legal issues involved but I will look again at it, particularly in the context of section 33 which deals with disclosure of complaints.
I listened with much interest to the debate about the £1,000 limit and its effectiveness in deterring spurious allegations and providing adequate redress. Deputy Rabbitte put forward the point that we do not want a figure which is so large that it deters somebody with a genuine complaint who may feel he will be hammered with costs, if a Deputy employs three SC and two junior counsel at £2,000 a day. This would deter a member of the public with a genuine complaint and we do not want that to happen.
I listened with interest to what was said about the £1,000 limit and whether it is a reasonable deterrent. The purpose of this section is to deter people from making groundless allegations. I am happy to look again at the £1,000 figure and I have no hang up about it. I will come back to it on Report Stage.
What about the rights of a complainant to be legally represented before the committee? I asked that question about four times and no reply has been forthcoming.
It would be easier to judge the quantum if both had arsenals of lawyers to make the case for them. How will this be processed? Will it be like the unfair dismissals tribunal?
Section 11 (1) (a) states: "in respect of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by any person before it". If a charge is made against me about an alleged business interest and someone is called before the committee, is that person's expenses included in the £1,000?
Another relevant point is that £1,000 may be awarded at the discretion of the committee, which does not have to award the maximum figure. If we allow a person on social welfare to make a complaint we can allow an upper limit to be awarded against him. Since the case would not be pursued in the normal way through the courts, part of the procedure would be to examine the means of the complainant and an assortment of arrangements would be made consistent with his means. There is an inherent protection for a person of limited means, otherwise the rich would be favoured because they can afford to pay. It would be wrong not to recognise that this protection is built into the mechanisms here.
However, my experience of collecting small debts years ago was that if someone owed me £300, by the time I got to committal proceedings the amount of costs awarded would not cover the £300. It was not worth chasing people for small sums of money because my legal expenses would be greater than the amount of money owed. There is a mechanism to protect people of limited means but there is no mechanism to protect those against whom the complaints are made.
Points were made about section 7 being unlimited. It states: "material interest in the subject matter of the proceedings". Subsection (3) refers to groups of people and so on. If one is a member of a GAA club — we are all members of various groupings — although one might not believe one has a material interest in it and might not have a beneficial interest in it, one might have a job proving that. It is wide open for people to make allegations.
If one is a trustee of a GAA club, does one have to disclose that? Sometimes it might be a liability. Does the trustee of a rugby club or, in my case a GAA club have to disclose that in his return?
If the pitch is worth more than £10,000.
The pitch would be worth more than £10,000. I did not know that and I would have overlooked it. I am a trustee for such a long time that I only know if they want me to go to the bank. We are getting into a complex area.
If the pitch became a tax designated zone the Deputy would be in trouble.
I understand that, but it would be very unlikely, as Deputy Rabbitte knows. If an allegation is made against a Member of the Oireachtas, who will pay his or her legal expenses? I do not see where that is covered. Will some of the £1,000 cover part of my expenses, for example, if a charge or an allegation is made against me?
If I had overlooked declaring that interest in the GAA club a case could have been taken against me and I would not be cleared because people would say I knew about it and did not disclose it. The Chairman, who is involved with GAA clubs, knows we just have our heads above water.
I, and Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, should be concerned about grudge complaints left open to various interpretations made against Members. How can they defend themselves? If this happened three weeks before an election, it could be, as a speaker said earlier, the end of the road for the Member.
I asked five or ten times if someone coming before the committee is entitled to legal representation?
Even free legal aid.
This is relevant, because if Joe or Josephine Soap makes a complaint, comes before a committee of ten Members of this House to take on a Member on a serious matter and finds they are up against a team of lawyers for that Member and a group of his or her colleagues as judges and the case is thrown out with a statement that it was a vexatious complaint, what sense of justice will those people have? They will say: " I was not allowed to present my evidence. I could not even bring witnesses or sustain my complaint. I got bounced out by a group of ten TDs standing up for themselves". We must be honest about this. It is unlikely to happen to someone who is isolated in the House, but it may happen to a Government backbencher and the Government would have a majority on the committee. In those circumstances the complainant will say: "I got no justice. I went before a committee of the Dáil. I arrived in a room and I was not entitled to bring all the evidence to support my complaint but there was a group of lawyers there representing the TD. I was told thank you and good night after two hours".
And the TD was a member of the committee.
All his pals were. It is an extraordinary situation and we are entitled to know if complainants will be entitled to be represented.
Section 30 deals with the powers of the committee and the commission and the area of the conduct of investigations. I would prefer to deal with these interesting questions at that stage.
That is not enough because we are dealing with the power to award costs in one direction only. A complainant may come before a committee with a complicated case and evidence to back up the complaint, but if he loses, costs are awarded against him. However, if the TD loses after, for example, a three week tussle, the complainant receives no assistance whatsoever for having to wade through blood to sustain the allegation. With respect, it is not enough simply to say that this is dealt with under section 30. I do not see how it arises under section 30.
Members want to know if there is any financial redress for Members in respect of expenses incurred in defending themselves. The answer to that is either "yes" or "no".
Am I the only person who gets the distinct feeling that we are discussing this Bill at length just to ensure that lawyers will make far more money out of it either through dealing with complaints before the committee or in a constitutional objection to the legislation? As I listen to the ongoing debate I get that distinct impression — it is as if the lawyers are not making enough money already.
I agree entirely with the Deputy's sentiments.
What is the Minister going to do about them? Is she secretly doing the Bar exams?
The nub of this matter — which is very serious and which concerns all of us — is that if an allegation is made against a Member of this House he or she has an enormous task to clear his or her name. It could have serious consequences for the individual concerned. He or she is a Member of the Oireachtas and might be involved in other business matters where his or her integrity might also be called into question. This is very serious and I have not been enlightened yet about how we will get around it. I do not want to see any Member of this House vulnerable to charges which might be made simply because the Member concerned might have been unable to assist the complainant. The complainant might also take the view that in making the allegation it will be up to the Member concerned to prove the allegation right or wrong. That is a serious consideration. It puts the Member through the mill. It is a terrible problem.
The Minister says that she will deal with these matters when we reach section 30. However, we will have decided this point before then. I want to know what I am doing now rather than discover the Minister's opinion during discussion of section 30. I have read section 30. It says nothing about people being afforded legal representation.
Let us suppose a complaint is made that I received a significant amount of money — which I ought to have declared — from a third party in my constituency; perhaps the person was my close friend or my supporter or my business associate. That person will be brought before the committee and cross-examined. That person's reputation will be as seriously impugned as mine. It can be alleged that the person corrupted me by secretly giving me cash in brown paper bags to do X or Y. That person will be represented before the committee also and he or she will require legal representation to deal with the allegations made against him or her. It might be a member of my family who might be obliged to defend against such a charge. The procedure could be lengthy and complex.
I do not accept that section 11 provides justice in such circumstances. Furthermore, there is nothing in section 30 regarding the rights of such people being represented. Those people must defend themselves. They are being accused, effectively, of corrupting a Member of the House. It is easy to make such allegations; it is sometimes very difficult to disprove them. These people are entitled to more than a share of a maximum of £1,000 after a three week or month long investigation.
I might be able to enlighten Deputy McDowell. About 22 years ago a third party was brought before a committee. Subsequently the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional and that the person could not be brought before the committee.
The Supreme Court ruled that the person was entitled to be legally represented and not to be treated solely as an accused or a witness. In those circumstances, the question arises of that person's entitlement to be represented and to be awarded costs if they are wrongly accused of malpractice.
I query the constitutionality of this provision in its present form. It says to somebody that he or she can share with a number of other wrongly accused people the ultimate redress of sharing a pot of £1,000 when the case against them falls apart. Senator Norris established the right to legal representation in relation to proceedings before this House. The Minister could be more expansive. She should say whether we are establishing in section 11 a maximum of £1,000 costs to be divided among the parties and witnesses against whom false allegations are made and, secondly, whether people who are dragged before a committee as witnesses or the complainant — who can be badly discredited if the complaint collapses in circumstances where the complainant has not been entitled to make his or her own case — are entitled to be legally represented.
The Minister either has or has not worked out her position on this. If she has not worked out her position on these fundamental issues I would be slightly worried about the quality of thinking that has gone into this Bill. I have grave doubts about the constitutionality of this provision if nobody has decided whether people are entitled to be legally represented before these committees as witnesses or complainants.
I would prefer to deal with these issues under section 30 where they are addressed. Deputy McDowell might not have read section 30 in great detail at this stage. Section 30 (3) provides that the reasonable expenses of witnesses directed to attend before a committee or commission shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
Do witnesses' expenses cover legal representation?
That is covered there.
Is the Minister sure of that?
The procedure of the committee or the commission, under subsection (6), shall be subject to the provisions of this Act, "such as shall be determined by the Committee or the Commission". It is the responsibility of the committee or the commission. Subsection (6) (c) refers to the question of legal representatives. I will be happy to tease out these issues when we discuss section 30. However, we are discussing section 11 and I will deal with the issues raised under that section.
I think we should clarify one point. Deputies are raising questions with regard to payments and that is what the section deals with. Therefore they are entitled to raise the question, even though it may be fully dealt with later in section 30. They are well entitled to raise the question of what expenses can legally be paid. I feel they are correct in doing this and that is the reason I have allowed them to do so. Our job here is to examine a Bill to its fullest and to make sure that the legislation passed by this House is not found to be defective in another place in the State. I will be endeavouring, as Chairperson of this committee, ensure that every point of view is given a full airing at all times and I will be impartial in dealing with both Minister and Members.
I am not making a party political point but let us take the famous Haughey case. Suppose he had been told that he could go before the Public Accounts Committee and receive £1,000 pounds for doing so. The Supreme Court would have said that was no protection at all. Nor is it correct to say that the costs of representation are not expenses of a witness. I cannot accept that.
I understand the Minister has given a commitment that she is prepared to look at the figure of £1,000 on Report Stage to see if our worries about someone being adequately represented are justified and whether they could protect their own interests on the basis of a frivolous case being made against them. The other point made by Deputy McDowell concerns whether the person making the complaint is entitled to legal representation also. If so, section 30 might cover them as witnesses or as legal representatives which means that the committee could determine reasonable cost due to the person making the complaint. Perhaps we have, in essence, a kind of compromise. We are looking the figure of £1000 to see if it is sufficient to do justice to the Members of the House.
We have also confirmed from past precedents that people do have rights to representation, even before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If this is correct and we pursue it, even taking a cursory look at section 30 which we should not do, it does seem in order that the person making the complaint is entitled to representation. Maybe we can reach agreement between ourselves if we put our minds to it. I think it appropriate that the Minister look at the figure of £1,000 and see if it is sufficient to ensure adequate representation. It is in the basic interest of Members of the House to make sure we can protect ourselves in the event of a complaint being made, particularly if that complaint is a frivolous one. We should be able to defend ourselves properly. The next question which arises is whether or not the person making the complaint is entitled to similar or equal representation. Apparently they are.
I do not think they are. I cannot see it.
I want to clarify the normally understood difference between expenses of witnesses and legal representatives. Is the Minister saying that when we come to section 30 she is prepared to clarify subsection (30) in a manner which makes it clear that legal representation is included? As it stands, expenses of witnesses — as referred to by Deputy Ó Cuív — include their travel and accommodation costs. These are the reasonable expenses of the witness attending the committee. Legal representation is not covered. In section 36 (c), there is reference to a complainant being able to present a case to the committee or commission either directly or, apparently, through another person. It is not made clear that this other person is a legal representative. Perhaps the Minister could clarify for us.
I am not a lawyer but the way the debate on this Bill is leading us I think we are setting up a mini-court system outside the court process. The courts deal with difficulties when we have disputes or problems. We are setting up a committee to deal with procedure concerning politicians, the nature of their work or business and the problems or accusations which might arise from that work. We are trying to construct a formula that will deal with the legal process arising from those deliberations. In a lay person's opinion the best place to deal with this would be in the courts where there are already procedures laid down. We should take the structures already in existence in the court area and apply them to the workings of the committee. Are we engaged in creating another tier of semi-legal process in which we will have neither the courts or the political process but a complicated mixture of both where people are unsure of their standing? I feel the public will see us becoming too involved in the legalities of matters. In the case of the Beef Tribunal the cost involved was so great that the issue was compared against that cost.
I believe the purpose of this committee is to clarify whether there has been a breach of the regulations laid down in the Bill. If that is revealed, the outcome will involve a different process. If you try to deal with everything under the auspices of the committee a situation will arise where neither the court or the political committee will provide a proper forum for such matters. Will the Minister define clearly if the purpose of this committee is to reveal information? If it is the duty of the courts to deal with the consequences of the committee's findings so be it, but if we cross over and mix the two we are entering a difficult area.
Does the Minister wish to make any further comment?
I do not think that we are intending to set up courts here. The points made in relation to tribunal costs are well made and understood by the public. Under section 30 witnesses will receive their expenses and people against whom complaints are made will be entitled to legal representation. The committee itself will determine its own procedures. The procedures drawn up here are modelled on the Garda Complaints Act, 1986 which is working well and does not involve excessive legal costs.
Do I take it then that a Member is entitled to legal expenses? Does it mean senior and junior counsel? They are £1,000 a day men, I believe. We want to know our position. I am a layman and I would like guidance on that. What kind of legal expenses are we talking about? If the unfortunate Member of the Oireachtas has to clear himself he will want expert legal representation. Proper representation is required to defend and clear a person's good name because one's future is at stake. I would not like any Member across the political divide to have his reputation tainted by someone with an axe to grind.
It is another licence for the legal profession to print money, after the Beef Tribunal and the others.
There are other sections further on that seem to cover the point I am making. Deputy McDowell might look at section 25 on page 31, to help overcome this. That section obviously deals with the award of costs by the commission.
I am not a Minister yet. I am only concerned with the committee. I am a poor pleb.
And the Member obviously wants to be a richer pleb, so we will have to make sure....
If we believe what we hear, the Member is on the way up.
Let us consider what is likely to come before this committee some day. There is going to be an allegation that a large builder in County Dublin gave five TDs in Dublin substantial benefits, cash or otherwise, to influence some significant decision made in relation to Dublin. That is the kind of allegation that will be made some day.
A casino or something.
Yes, something like that. Five TDs will be on the receiving end. Their affairs will be investigated by the committee. Somebody will be crusading on behalf of the complainant, providing information these people have to deal with. The builder in question, of course, will be the person who is primarily in the dock. He will come in under the rule in re Haughey and say: “I want complete representation here. I want to defend myself and vindicate myself before this committee. If one is to make determinations which involve suspending Members or docking them pay, on the basis that they are supposed to have received under the counter payments from me, I want to vindicate myself completely.” This is the type of thing this committee is going to deal with. If not, all the rhetoric about how this Bill is going to clean up politics is so much eyewash. If a complaint of that kind comes up and after three weeks’ deliberation the builder and the TDs are exonerated completely, and the witnesses for the complainant are found by the committee to have been lying through their teeth, or simply to have failed in coming up with the evidence or whatever, what is to happen to all those people? Are they to share in £1,000, and walk off, after the mother and father of a legal fight, in which their reputations have been on the chopping board for three weeks?
There is no point in codding ourselves. We are dealing with serious stuff here, and if we are not dealing with serious stuff, there is no point in having this Bill. We are dealing with potentially lethal allegations against Members of this House, complaints that will be made of a heavy kind. We are dealing with a committee of this House which is going to listen to serious allegations made against Members. In those circumstances the question will arise whether section 11 is any way adequate to deal with it. If one wants to do justice to complainants and not frighten them off, then fair enough. Maybe the answer then is to compensate Members for the cost of vindicating themselves, if they do vindicate themselves, out of the funds of this House. I do not believe that anybody should be in the position of being told, after three weeks, that they have to share because they are one of five TDs involved in an allegation and they can have £200 to vindicate their good name. That is absurd. I do not think it is fanciful that the builder will come in and demand as of right his legal representation under the Haughey rule. If that happens, the complainant is going to say: "It is a farce if all the TDs have counsel and I come in there by myself and cannot cross-examine them except by myself."
We have to realise what is likely to happen here. I am not enthusiastic about this. I am not planning a lawyers' paradise. I am saying what will happen if an allegation of that kind does arise. There will be a mini-tribunal consisting of the committee of this House. It will have to do justice on the lines of the Haughey decision. It will have to grant legal representation to all the TDs and to any witnesses or third parties who are impugned in the process. The Minister is saying to us, effectively, that only if it is found that there was no foundation at all can any award of cost be given to the people involved, and if there is an award they can all share out £1,000. It is like Paddy Crosbie and "The School Around The Corner" and the bag of sweets. It will be an insult to them at the end of the process.
Can the Member estimate the cost of a father and mother of a legal fight?
If one caps the award and have now got the five dividing the £1,000, they have to court to get it.
That is right.
They might have to go two more steps, examination and committal, and by that stage they have no money left. If one wants to appeal against a planning decision, one must lodge £100 as an indication of good faith. It must be cash on the table and there is no court cost incurred in trying to recover it. The Minister said that this was modelled on the Garda complaints procedure, but there is one big difference. A garda cannot lose his position because of innuendo. If he is totally exonerated, he cannot lose his job because of that.
We all know that the biggest danger in politics is that innuendo is enough to lose one's job. The stakes are much higher here and the mechanisms of defence have to be much greater than would be involved in Garda complaints. It is serious legislation. I hope that this can be looked at again to see if there is some way of balancing the right of the public to make their point and, on the other hand, protecting Members against unwarranted charges under this legislation.
It seems that section 11 is weighted very heavily against Members. There is a terrible onus on a Member. Any crank can come along and make a spurious complaint. There is then the perception, outside this House, that there is a doubt about all of us. I regret having to say that. When I came in here a long time ago, there was no doubt about us then. Now I regret that there seems to be a perception that many Members of both Houses are on the make. I want to say clearly that I saw Members leave here without a penny and they were unable to take up the positions they formerly held.
Anybody thinking of entering national politics who has a good job would want to think very carefully. I say that with a lot of experience of the whole system over the years. They would want to think carefully, because they might be no length here when somebody might throw something at them. We saw in the eighties elections within a year, nine months, ten months, eighteen months, whatever the case may be. I saw very hardworking Members of both Houses fail to get re-elected, though they were very honourable people and, in my opinion, were doing a very good job in their constituencies. That shows how hazardous an occupation it can be. This section is going to make it more hazardous, because it is going to put a terrible onus on the Member to disprove an allegation. Then it is proved that he or she was not involved in any of that at all, but there is a cloud hanging over that Member because there was a perception that he or she was guilty. People will say there is seldom smoke without fire. They will say that the Member was guilty, but he was able to cover it up. They will say that he had the money and the legal people to back it up and he wriggled out of it. They will say that he or she answered a lot of the questions and said nothing. They will go into the pubs and say that he got away with it. They will say that he knew how to do it, that he came out of the school of communications. They will say that he learned how to keep the head down, keep talking and when the interviewer starts talking to talk back to block them off.
Where do we go with all of that? The person involved is nailed down. This creates a major problem. I know, Chairman, you have allowed a lot of extra time on this. I am grateful to you for allowing it because in my opinion this section is the nub of the Bill in regard to Members' standing.
Unfortunately these cranks operate in every part of the country. They can throw a Garryowen in. How do we defend it? The perception in some quarters outside is that we are cleared, but in other quarters the perception is that we talked around it and got out of it and that we were able to do that by manipulation. If the press are at a committee meeting where this is being discussed, they can put a spin on it the next day and it creates another problem as well. I say that with all due respect to all the journalists here, past and present.
Where do we stand in all of this? In the years I have been here all the Members I have known have performed their duties extremely well. I did not know of anyone who was a party to any shabby practice. I would not like a different impression to be created in the debate on this Bill.
Deputy, we agreed to adjourn at 4 o'clock; it is now about four minutes past 4 o'clock. Is it possible that we might agree to section 11 and move on to section 12 when we come back? The Minister has given commitments that she will review the situation with regard to the amount.
I am totally opposed to section 11. The more I think about section 11 the more opposed to it I am. There is nothing in it that recommends itself to me and I am against it.
If I were to support section 11 I would have grave difficulties about my judgment in the future.
Sitting suspended at 4.05 p.m. and resumed at 4.20 p.m.
Some members of the committee will recall the Locke's Distillery case. This distillery borders my constituency. The founder of my party, Eamon de Valera, was accused of receiving a gold watch. This resulted in a major tribunal of inquiry. We know the result. There was a cloud hanging over that man for years because of that matter. The press were not as hard on politicians in that era than they are today. In 1994 that gold watch would be valued at about £1,200.
For what amount would the Deputy insure it?
That was a small matter at the time but a major public inquiry took place at enormous expense and we all know the outcome. It was stated earlier that all types of allegations can be made against Members of both Houses and they would have grave problems in defending themselves. I am concerned about future as well as present Members and how they will fare in such circumstances. I am a farmer. People, if they were bad enough, could say that I transferred cattle from one land to another without a test being done, which would be illegal. If I had not done this, I would have to make enormous efforts to defend myself. Some may say that I was involved in such an activity or that there was a doubt about it. I am concerned about this issue. The debate has centred on the possibility of allegations and counter allegations being made against Members of the Oireachtas. This is why everybody who spoke is concerned about the matter. The Locke's Distillery case happened a long time ago but was a cause of great debate and concern at the time.
Would it test the Minister's patience to ask her to make a philosophical statement about how she arrived at this mechanism? After listening to the debate on this, I am in a quandary and find it very difficult to make up my mind on it. Very serious points have been made today. We are setting up, in effect, our own jurisdiction here, which by the very nature of politics invites complaints. As sure as we are politicians in different parties, the process here will be invoked. Is there an alternative or is this the only reasonable mechanism? Did the Minister take into account the considerations in the in reHaughey case in terms of its implications for legal representation, duration, cost, expense, etc.? The other side to the argument, which has taken up a good deal of time today, is that a well founded complaint may be made, perhaps not in the lifetime of this or the next Government or for the remainder of this century, but at some stage in the future. Members of the House are not saying this should not be properly investigated if we pass this Bill. Second Stage speeches do not deal with such detail. I would like to know how the Minister arrived at this mechanism.
It seems that the major opportunities to exert influence in a partisan fashion in our political system are often legal. For example, the urban designation scheme is legal. One could begin a debate by saying it is a good idea but one only has to look at what it has done in Tallaght, which is in my constituency. Deputy Connolly could mention Tullamore, County Offaly. Its potential for corruption is the most grave potential open to us as Members of this House. We have now officially vested in a Minister the right to choose between Deputy Connolly's site and my site as to which shall have the enormous benefit of the tax advantage which comes with this. This scheme is legal and yet it is an obvious area for someone to exercise influence on behalf of a friend, a fellow business associate, or a party supporter.
There is a serious side to what we are trying to do. We do not address the fact that this hoves up like an elephant in the middle of politics and we walk around it and say it is fantastic and it has a lot of merit. However, we are trawling here for what could be a crazy, minor, irrelevant allegation which could damage the political reputation of any Member of the House. We are setting in train some type of juggernaut which could run for a long time.
On material interests, the potential to use company law to conceal a material interest in something which comes before the House, is almost endless. I do not know if anyone saw the programme on Channel 4 recently about the Cayman Islands. It taught me a few things about bringing things to the Cayman Islands in terms of dealing with the Exchequer.
Obviously the Deputy does not represent Ballsbridge.
An allegation about an undeclared material interest could take weeks of probing if one was to apply natural justice and observe the Haughey case parameters. Is that what we envisaged? How much thought has gone into this? It would help us to reach a conclusion on this section if the Minister would explain the thinking behind this and decide if this is the only mechanism open to us. If it is, I am prepared to look at it because important issues have been raised. The alternative is to introduce a new Standing Order in the Dáil and to require a register of interests where we all must declare our interests in the House. That seems to be as far as this Bill goes. If there are real rogues in either House they are unlikely to be foolish, and they would not have become accomplished rogues in the first place if they were naive enough to be caught by the terms of this Bill. However, Members of the House, who do not fall into that category, could, unwittingly, be tripped up as a result of the complex and intricate web woven and which none of us fully understand.
I fully understand this issue. I know Deputy Rabbitte did not mean it in this way, but I understand the complexity of the matter and how a Member of the House could be put in a difficult situation. I am under no illusion about it.
The committee must be vested with sufficient power to deal with what will come before it. This committee should be able to establish whether there is a case to answer regarding an allegation against a person and if there is a case, it could be referred to the courts. If there is no case, that should be the end of the matter and a written statement should be provided to this effect. I am not an expert in this area, but an ordinary person representing ordinary people. We would like to know how to find the truth in allegations. The most effective and the only one we know which works reasonably well, is the courts.
So far, we have not been able to find answers to the questions asked. The best way to look at this section — perhaps the Minister would look at this — is for the committee to establish if an allegation is sufficiently strong to be answered in the courts. If this is the case, then the quickest way to deal with the matter would be to refer it to the courts. This would enable the matter to be dealt with speedily without too much expense by a system already in existence, without attaching it to an apparatus which would be ineffective because it was not designed to deal with legal but political matters.
My view is the same as that of local authority members. Elected local authority members must sign a register of all their interests, including land, companies, directorships, etc. I am not a lawyer, but this is flawed from a constitutional point of view.
Question put and agreed to.