This meeting has been convened for the purpose of considering the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005. I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his officials. Members have indicated to me that they would like to break for the Order of Business in the Dáil. We can adjourn at that stage, reconvene and continue perhaps until 6 p.m. at which time we can see how we are progressing with the Bill.
Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "or 6" and substitute "or (6)".
This is a drafting amendment to correct an error in the text which, as it stands, refers to section 6; it should read subsection (6).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2, 78, 81, 88 and 94 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
" "divisional report", in relation to a tribunal, means a report prepared pursuant to section 22(2)(d);”.
This is a technical amendment to insert a definition of "divisional report" in section 2. The change is advised by the parliamentary counsel in view of the proposed changes to section 22 which concern divisions of tribunals. Amendments Nos. 78, 81, 88 and 94 which provide for a reference to divisional reports, where appropriate, are drafting amendments to ensure consistency in the text.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (1), to delete line 16 to 18.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are technical amendments. Amendment No. 3 deletes the definition of "functions" in section 2. This definition was already covered in the Interpretation Act 2005 and is not, therefore, necessary.
Amendment No. 4 deletes the definition in subsection 2(3). It is not necessary in view of a similar provision of the Interpretation Act 2005.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, line 41 and in page 7, lines 1 to 11, to delete subsection (3).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 is out of order, as it seeks to insert a new section which would affirm certain powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas, either individually or severally, to appoint a committee to inquire into specific matters. There is nothing in the Title or the text of the Bill which relates to the establishment or terms of reference of Oireachtas committees. The amendment is, therefore, not relevant to the provisions of this Bill and must be judged to be out of order on that basis.
I do not wish to begin on a contentious note or to delay the committee unduly. I greatly regret that interpretation and your ruling, Chairman. I merely sought to make plain that the Houses of the Oireachtas, other than by means of a tribunal of inquiry, can decide to inquire into a matter of public interest by way of committee. This happens to be very topical today, although my amendment was submitted some time ago. I cannot see how a belt and braces measure intended for the avoidance of doubt is ruled out of order.
It seems to me that since the DIRT inquiry there is an unhealthy nexus, or convergence of belief, between the Law Library and the administrative government that we should not have any more DIRT style inquiries. They are too uncomfortable. The Law Library thinks such inquiries should be left to barristers at €2,500 per day and "Sir Humphrey" thinks it would be better not to let parliamentarians loose to inquire into matters that might inconvenience him and his colleagues. It is regrettable that my amendment has been ruled out of order in a week when two senior counsels were paid €1 million too much because of a clerical error. If one receives €20 too much per week in social welfare payment one either pays it back or ends up in chokey, as the Minister, who is a former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, will know. Apparently, those rules do not apply to professional people.
Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to say why I thought the amendment was necessary. In many instances, we could do our business much more efficiently, speedily and cheaply by way of inquiry by parliamentary committee. This Bill should make plain that it is not an incursion on that right.
I have some sympathy with your point of view, Deputy Rabbitte. Unfortunately, my advice is that this legislation is not the appropriate place to deal with this matter.
I do not wish to create difficulties for you, Chairman. I worry that not including the proposed section in the Bill can be used in the future as a reason not to proceed with an inquiry by committee.
My silence may be interpreted as not supporting Deputy Rabbitte's proposal. I was informed that his amendment is not relevant to the Bill and could not be accepted for that reason. However, what Deputy Rabbitte is saying is similar to the views of most members of the Oireachtas. Wherever possible we should use Oireachtas committees to investigate matters of public concern. As somebody who has been in the House for 22 years, I have slaved on several committees, not least the committee that considered the Brendan Smith issue, in which we were to a large extent hamstrung by the legal issues that prevented Oireachtas committees from investigating matters and making judgments or adverse comments or decisions. We should try as much as possible, as an Oireachtas, to stretch the limit, accepting that there are circumstances in which tribunals of inquiry — and the courts — must take possession of the issues, particularly in view of the fact that we are not designated under the Constitution or legislation thereunder to investigate matters in which we can make adverse judgments against people. However, this amendment is being ruled out of order as being not relevant to this Bill.
I agree with the Minister. Where adverse findings can be made, as could have happened in the Abbeylara case, I accept it is not appropriate to have an inquiry by committee. However, there are a great many matters that might productively be inquired into by committee, and a great deal more cheaply than allowing the people the Minister used to brief to do it for us.
Deputy Flanagan, do you wish to make a comment?
The Chairman has allowed a certain latitude on a matter that is not in order, so I do not know where I fit into all this. I had intended to make a comment in support of Deputy Rabbitte and requesting that the Minister consider section 3(1) in the context of the current wording. Both "urgent" and "significant" are words that could well be misleading or inappropriate. I wonder whether the Chairman will allow me to elaborate on that now that the amendment has been ruled out of order. I can wait and deal with it during the discussion on the section.
Perhaps the Deputy can deal with it on the section. I do not want to constrain anybody on this issue because it is important.
I want to refer to the Commissions of Investigations Act 2004 and the wording therein, which is somewhat different to the wording here. This is a point worth making.
All right. We will take it on the section.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 15 and 16, to delete "the Government may by order" and substitute the following:
"the Government or a Minister of the Government may on the authority of both Houses of the Oireachtas by order".
This amendment seeks to delete the phrase indicated and insert an alternative wording which would allow the Government or a Minister of the Government, on the authority of both Houses of the Oireachtas, by order, to take the same power. This amendment is important because it brings the wording in section 3 into alignment with the wording of Article 28.4.3° of the Constitution, which confers a greater degree of primacy on the Houses of the Oireachtas than the Government when it comes to the establishment of tribunals. I find it an interesting betrayal of the official mind set. It bears out the argument we have just had — namely, that tribunals of inquiry are now being taken over by the Government as well. Tribunals of inquiry, under the 1921 Act, are an instrument of the Houses of the Oireachtas, but the Government is now arrogating that to itself. It betrays a certain mindset. I would not want Sir Humphrey and the Bar library to make common cause. I am delighted they have an obstreperous Minister who will challenge the consensus behind closed doors, from time to time. I propose this part be amended to bring it into alignment with the Constitution, to acknowledge the primacy of the Houses in the matter of the establishment of tribunals and to make plain that a Minister, acting on behalf of the Government, can take these steps.
The amendment is unnecessary, as the reality is that the Government moves the order establishing a tribunal, not the relevant Minister, as suggested in the amendment. Section 3(3)(c) requires the order to specify the Minister responsible and no such order can be made without the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I note the point the Deputy makes on the supremacy of the Oireachtas but previous legislation saw the Government propose and the Oireachtas dispose; that is how it has been. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 refers to the issue raised by Deputy Flanagan; it refers to matters of urgent public importance. We refer to matters of urgent and significant public importance in section 3(1) which, more or less, replicates the provision in the 1921 Act. I do not see the need to move away from the time honoured modus operandi of setting up tribunals; the Government proposes an order and the Oireachtas decides on it. The Deputy often makes the point that all of the recent tribunals of inquiry were set up by the Oireachtas, not the Government. That argument defeats the amendment.
I do not agree; this section could not be more plain. It states the Government may, by order, establish a tribunal to inquire into any matter considered by it to be a matter of urgent and significant public importance. There is no acknowledgement of the constitutional role of the Oireachtas. I am not sure of the Minister's point when he says the Government, not a Minister, moves the order establishing a tribunal. The Government has established many tribunals of inquiry through the proposal of a Minister who takes authority, but the ultimate establishment is through the Oireachtas. I do not understand the objection to aligning the section of the Bill with the constitutional acknowledgement of the primacy of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It seems the Government is arrogating this power to itself. It is envisaged in section 3(1) that only the Government can establish a tribunal of inquiry but I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments.
This seems to be a departure in that the Minister suggests the Government, with the consent of the Oireachtas, would establish tribunals in appropriate circumstances. I would have thought the primary body in the establishment of tribunals was not the Government but the Oireachtas.
I want to return to my earlier point because the Minister referred to it. I suggest the word "importance" is misleading and inappropriate. The Oireachtas, or failing Deputy Rabbitte's line, the Government with the assent of the Oireachtas should be willing to establish tribunals of inquiry in appropriate circumstances where there are matters of public interest or concern. This would be in line with the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 which provides for matters of public interest and concern that may not be regarded as important but, nevertheless, are of sufficient public interest to warrant a tribunal.
I am not sure if the Government, the Oireachtas, or the Government with the approval of the Oireachtas, should set out a potential hierarchy of importance. It matters if concerned citizens believe there is an issue of public interest to warrant the establishment of an inquiry and not because the Government feels it is important.
Similarly, I have a problem with the use of the word "urgent", where the Government decides what is of urgent and significant public importance. The word "urgent" is potentially misleading and inappropriate. Certain matters of an historical nature may be uncovered at a later date which may justify the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry by the Houses of the Oireachtas. A Minister, however, could under this provision reasonably argue with the term "urgent", that it is not important because it happened in the past. It is misleading to rely on the word "urgent". It could delimit the work of a tribunal of inquiry. I would prefer if these words were omitted entirely from the legislation and only "the public interest" would be required.
I can go no further than the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's 2005 report on public inquires, including tribunals of inquiry. It examined the issue of the Oireachtas's role in establishing tribunals and stated:
The Commission recommends that the tribunals of inquiry legislation be amended to confer the power to establish tribunals of inquiry on the Executive, and that this power should only be exercised on foot of a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Appended to the report was the Commission's draft tribunals of inquiry Bill 2005. Section 3(1) and (2) more or less replicates what is suggested in the Government's Bill.
3. — (1) The Government may, by order, establish a tribunal to...
(2) An order may be made under this section only if...
—(b) a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House.
On the specific point on the terms "urgent" and "public importance", the Law Reform Commission's draft Bill states, "The Government may, by order, establish a tribunal to — inquire into any matter considered by the Government to be a definite matter of urgent public importance, and make any reports required under this Act in relation to its inquiry." The provision continues that such an order can only be made subject to being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and approved by them. The only difference in the Law Reform Commission's Bill and the Government's is the inclusion of the word "significant".
The Minister will accept that in the 2004 Commissions of Investigation Act the word "urgent" is not used and the reliance is on "significant public concern". Why the departure from this formula?
There has been significant judicial commentary as to what is urgent and what is not. The Supreme Court gave its considered view on the most recent tribunal which it says was, in some senses, the antithesis of urgent public importance. If a tribunal is established, it is important that it is in matters of significance and public concern which need to be dealt with urgently.
If the Minister is indicating reluctance to have easy resort to the establishment of tribunals of inquiry under the 1921 Act, I fully concur with him. That is not the object of any of the amendments. As I made clear initially, inquiry by parliamentary committee is my preference in the case of matters related to the expenditure of public money or many other areas one could envisage. The DIRT inquiry showed that inquiry by parliamentary committee can do the business more cheaply, more efficiently and as effectively as any tribunal of inquiry. The Minister, however, is taking over the instrument of public inquiry.
I have not read the Law Reform Commission report since this Bill was first mooted. As the Minister will be aware, it was first mooted against a background of the travails of the former Taoiseach and confers the power to shut down a tribunal. At the time, scepticism was expressed in the media that an ulterior motive may have been at work. While I have not read the Law Reform Commission report for some time, I do not agree that the tribunal of inquiry instrument should be taken over by the Executive. At the same time, there should not be easy resort to this instrument because it is expensive.
All one has to do is consider the number of recent occasions on which the House has been compelled to amend the 1921 Act. We had to do it following the Whiddy Island dispute and after the McCracken tribunal where obstruction was able to go unpunished if witnesses did not want to co-operate and Joe Soap, the ordinary taxpayer, ended up paying the cost of the obstruction. We also had an amendment introducing a facility to change the terms of reference when a tribunal is under way. We also had to introduce legislation to amend the Act to allow more than one member to sit on a tribunal. There have, therefore, been several amendments to the Act.
I am not arguing for easy resort to the instrument but against the Government taking over the instrument. A procedure is envisaged in the Constitution for resort to this type of inquiry. Amendment No. 9, which I tabled, raises a new difficulty about the Government alone assuming this responsibility and ignoring the primacy of the Houses of the Oireachtas. If the Minister has his way, it will be an unfortunate outcome and not one that was intended.
I am interested in the use of the word "urgent". Deputy Flanagan is correct that while events which took place 20 or even 30 years ago are no longer urgent for the Government, they are still urgent in the minds of those affected. The inclusion of the word "urgent" could rule out the establishment of tribunals into many historical events which may be necessary. These events may no longer be urgent but they are of significant public importance.
It is strange that this change in wording is proposed. One would presume that it is a small matter to bring the wording into line with its most recent use, which is the Commission of Investigations Act 2004. When producing new legislation Ministers often use the opportunity to update the wording and meaning of existing legislation. I will be interested in discovering how the Minister intends to respond to the Law Reform Commission in respect of a later part of this section. He is relying on the commission with regard to one half of the section but, when one teases out matters in full, it is obvious that he is not adhering to all of its recommendations. He cannot have it both ways.
The amendment is logical in nature and does not take away from the Minister's stated intention. Its acceptance would make for a better Bill.
What we are doing is no different from what has been the practice since the formation of the State under the legislation under which tribunals of inquiry have been established. This matter was examined in recent times by the Law Reform Commission which considered the specific issue of the establishment of tribunals of inquiry. The commission issued a consultation paper and engaged in a discussion with regard to the origins of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921 and the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. In addition, it examined practices in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It then went on to make the recommendation to which I referred, namely:
In light of the fact that tribunals of inquiry are established to inquire into definite matters of urgent public concern, the Commission considers that the Oireachtas should have a role in the establishment process. The Commission has concluded that it would be appropriate that legislation on tribunals of inquiry expressly provide that the Government has the power to establish tribunals of inquiry, a point which has definitively been decided in the courts.
The case references for this recommendation are listed in the consultation paper as Goodman International v. Hamilton of 1992 and Haughey v. Moriarty of 1999. In effect, the commission has stated the Government has the power to establish tribunals of inquiry. The recommendation further states, ”The Commission also recommends that this power should only be exercised on foot of a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, as is the case under the recently enacted Commissions of Investigation Act 2004”.
We are using the terminology employed in previous legislation and in the recommended Bill of 2005 which the Law Reform Commission appended to its report and in which the word "urgent" is used. The only addition we have made is to use the phrase "significant public importance". If we were changing established practice, I might have some sympathy for the arguments made by Deputy Rabbitte in his amendment. However, we are not doing so. We are continuing the long-standing procedure of establishing tribunals of inquiry. The latter was considered as recently as 2005 by the commission. As matters stand, the Government proposes and the Oireachtas disposes; that is how it should be. Thereafter, line Ministers are responsible for the administration costs, etc., relating to tribunals.
I am sorry I did not bring my copy of the Constitution with me. As a member of this committee, one should not go anywhere without one's copy of the Constitution. Article 28.4.3o spells out the traditional position, from which the Minister, in the wording used in the Bill, is departing. The Bill is out of alignment with the traditional position and the Oireachtas is being relegated to a subordinate role. The Minister referred to the Law Reform Commission report which states the Oireachtas should have a role. However, the only role it is being given is not as is envisaged in the section of the Constitution to which I refer, but that the draft will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution may be passed. It is a relegation of the position of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is an attempt by the Government to get control of an instrument that has been irritating for it, dating back to the time before Goodman. The Goodman case brought down a Government and who knows what might happen to subsequent ones? It is about Government taking control of it. It is unreasonable for the Minister not to accept the amendment, and not to involve the Oireachtas as was originally envisaged.
That is not the case and the Deputy is misinterpreting the situation. The Government is not departing from what has been the position in regard to previous legislative instruments for setting up tribunals of inquiry. This is not based on what is in the Constitution but on what is in the legislation. Obviously the Law Reform Commission would have had to take account of the Constitution. The Oireachtas is entitled to set up committees to make limited investigations into certain circumstances, as we know over the years because of the case re Haughey, which prevents the Oireachtas from making findings that a court or a tribunal set up under legislation is entitled to make. What we are saying in section 3(1), as is the case up to now, is that the Government may by order establish a tribunal to inquire into a matter considered by the Government to be a matter of urgent and significant importance and then this order setting up the tribunal "shall not be made", unless it is disposed of in effect or agreed to by the Oireachtas. That is the time honoured way of setting up tribunals of inquiry and I do not see any valid reason that should be changed, particularly in view of the fact that this is what the Law Reform Commission recommended only a few years ago.
I entirely fail to see in discussing this section what the case, in re: Haughey has to do with it. That is an entirely different issue relating to the right to defend one's good name and to bring along an expensive armoury of lawyers to enable one to do it. That is not at issue in the section we are discussing. Let us suppose the Dáil had a majority of Deputies under the whip system who thought a public inquiry ought to be established into a matter of urgent public importance, the Government could ignore it. It is up to the Government to decide whether it is urgent. Let us take the present Government where the leader of the Green Party can scarcely sleep at night because of his worry about the wastage on electronic voting machines. Let us suppose he voted with Fine Gael and the Labour Party that there should be an inquiry into how we wasted €60 million of taxpayer's money, the Government could easily block it and it would have no regard to the position of the Oireachtas. What we are doing is one more step in the erosion of the position of Parliament vis-à-vis,the Executive. I think it is wrong.
I disagree. What we are doing is not eroding the power of the Oireachtas. The power of the Oireachtas will be the same on passing this legislation as it was in relation to the establishment of inquiries before this Bill was passed. We are not changing its power in any way. We are not going as far as Deputy Rabbitte is suggesting, which would give the Oireachtas supremacy in the establishment of a tribunal. He is trying to turn things around. I cannot accept that. Since the formation of the State all tribunals have been set up at the instigation of the Government but with the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That was the case when Deputy Rabbitte's party was in government and I suspect that if he is ever back in government it will be exactly the same.
There is a difference. Heretofore, at its opening and after every subsequent vacation, a tribunal is referred to as a tribunal of inquiry as established by the Houses of the Oireachtas. That will no longer be the case.
It will be exactly the case.
It will not. Tribunals will be established by order of the Government.
It will be exactly the case. That is how existing tribunals are set up. We are not proposing anything different here. The order establishing a tribunal does not take effect until it is passed by the Oireachtas. It is a draft order proposed by Government until then. Paragraph 3(2)(b) states:
An order under subsection (1) establishing a tribunal shall not be made unless a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House.
Approving the draft Government order.
It is then a tribunal set up under the resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That will not change. The Deputies are trying to twist things now.
We are not twisting it. I am not conferring supremacy on one, as opposed to the other, that did not exist heretofore. In the matter of the establishment of a tribunal, primacy rests with the Houses of the Oireachtas under the existing Constitution. It is the Government, in this draft, that is changing that. I am not trying to twist or turn anything. That is how it has been and how it should remain.
Deputy Rabbitte says that is how it has been. That is not so. In its report, the Law Reform Commission said it considers that the Oireachtas should have a role in the establishment process. The report states that the appropriate legislation provides that the Government has the power to establish tribunals of inquiry, a point that has already been decided upon by the courts. Deputy Rabbitte is trying to turn around what the courts have already decided.
The Minister has made the supposition that I might be in government again. I cannot imagine why that is on the top of his head. Could I, while not in government, amend the draft order if I wanted to?
The Government would have to get the consent of the Oireachtas.
No. Can an Opposition Member amend the draft order when the Government brings it before the House?
An Opposition Member can propose an amendment to a resolution of the House.
An amendment to the resolution or to the order?
Setting up the establishment.
I am asking whether an Opposition Member can amend the order.
Subsection 3(1) states that "the Government may by order establish a tribunal". Subsection 3(2) states that an order establishing a tribunal shall not be made unless a resolution approving the draft has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. An Opposition Member can propose an amendment to the resolution.
To the resolution but not to the order.
Exactly, but it is only a draft order. That is how it is referred to in the legislation. It does not take effect until it is approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It has no standing.
There is no mechanism to address amendments to the order.
The tribunal cannot be established until it gets approval by resolution of the Oireachtas.
One cannot amend the draft order.
One could try to amend the resolution——
The resolution is a different thing.
——approving the draft.
The Minister is a bright enough man to understand what I am asking. Can I — can the Opposition — amend the draft order? The Minister has a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning. He approves the draft order, he lays it in the Library, and he comes into the House.
The Opposition can do so by proposing an amendment to the resolution.
The resolution will say that this House shall approve the draft order. So——
It would append the draft order. Again, I suggest that Deputy Rabbitte's intelligence might be able to devise an amendment to the resolution that would attempt to amend the draft order.
I think that is a "No", Chairman.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Where consideration falls to be given to the establishment of a tribunal to inquire into loss of life which was alleged to be caused or contributed to by acts or omissions on the part of the State or its agents, in deciding on whether to establish a tribunal and in determining any issue regarding the matter to be inquired into, the terms of reference of the tribunal or its membership, and arrangements in respect of the tribunal generally, the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Government and the responsible Minister shall have due regard to the views and interests of the next of kin of the deceased person.".
This amendment would insert a new subsection. It is a fairly long amendment which was pressed on me by the organisation British Irish Rights Watch. The purpose is to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposes requirements to inquire into a loss of life caused by the State and to involve the next of kin of the deceased. The penultimate and final lines of the new subsection state: "the Government and the responsible Minister shall have due regard to the views and interests of the next of kin of the deceased person." It seems a reasonable request from this organisation that where there is loss of life and where a tribunal is established to inquire into that loss of life because it is alleged to have been caused or contributed to by acts or omission on behalf of the State, regard should be had to the views of the next of kin.
The fundamental reason for the establishment of an inquiry is as set out in the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 — to inquire into a matter of "urgent public importance" — in considering whether to propose the establishment of an inquiry on that basis and for the Oireachtas to approve a draft of the order establishing the inquiry. Particular circumstances will be required to be taken into account. The draft order of the Government establishing the tribunal must state the reasons for so doing. It may be assumed that any Government establishing a tribunal will take into account all the circumstances of the case. It does not seem necessary to require the Government or the Oireachtas, in deciding whether to establish a tribunal, to specifically take into account the views and interests of the next of kin of the deceased. Quite apart from the practical and procedural difficulties that would be involved for the Oireachtas in establishing those views, the real issue is whether the matter, being urgent, is one of significant public importance. It is better to leave that as the principal reason for the inquiry, and no other.
I can understand what the Deputy is saying about taking into account the views of the next of kin of the deceased person. Obviously they would be taken into account, but to make that prescriptive would cause significant difficulty in that, particularly from the point of view of the Oireachtas, there would be practical difficulties establishing such views. If we were to put that in legislation specifically it would perhaps, to a certain extent, make the bureaucracy of setting up the inquiry more difficult than if it were not included. It would be preferable to leave as the core reason for the setting up of the tribunal that it is a significant matter of urgent public importance.
The Minister may be right, I do not know. Why is this the express wish of the European Convention on Human Rights if it is considered that it would be overly bureaucratic or difficult to implement in practice if the obligation to take into account the views of the next of kin was included in the Act?
From a practical point of view, how would the Houses of the Oireachtas have due regard to the views and interests of the next of kin of a deceased person? The next of kin may have different views so it might be necessary to set up a formal committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas to formulate a view when there are differences of opinion with the next of kin on how to deal with this matter. Putting it prescriptively in legislation would make the establishment of an urgent inquiry difficult. While I accept that the establishment of an inquiry by the Oireachtas, after a Government proposal to that end, when there has been loss of life should take into account the views of next of kin as much as possible, putting it in statutory form would make the process more difficult from a bureaucratic and practical point of view.
The Minister may be right and I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8, 19, 27 and 29 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (2)(b), line 25, after “House” to insert the following:
"by a majority of two-thirds of the members of each House.".
I beg the committee's indulgence because, while I have moved amendment No. 8 and will address the consequential amendments Nos. 19, 27 and 29, I will not press amendment No. 8 and will press amendments Nos. 19, 27 and 29.
I proposed these amendments in view of what the Minister said about the change in legislation that favours the Executive over the Legislature. Any amendment the Houses might make to the terms of reference of a tribunal should require more than an order of Government, particularly amendments relating to the ending of a tribunal or moves by the Government to close a tribunal because it does not wish its business to advance further. The Minister did not accept Deputy Rabbitte's earlier amendment so we have already ceded the power of the Oireachtas to the Government.
I will withdraw amendment No. 8, which deals with the creation of a tribunal, but amendments relating to the terms of reference of a tribunal, its timeframe, its conduct and, particularly, the termination of its work should require more than the heavy hand of the Government. Such changes should require more than the support of a majority of the Members of each House and should reflect differing views. To achieve this, I propose that such changes require the support of two thirds of the Members of each House. This would mean the Government could not close a tribunal for its own reasons, such as embarrassment.
I can see what the Deputy is trying to engineer. He first put down an amendment stating the resolution for establishing a tribunal had to be passed by two thirds of the Oireachtas. He then revised it, leaving it at a simple majority, half plus one. However, for a tribunal to be shut down, he proposes through amendment No. 8, that it would require a two thirds majority. He wants to have it every way.
I do not want to have it every way.
The Deputy put down an amendment stating the resolution to establish a tribunal required a two thirds majority of the Oireachtas. He then resiled from this and withdrew the amendment, allowing for a simple majority, half plus one. However, for the shutting down of a tribunal he demands it should require a two thirds majority.
The way the Oireachtas does business, it is on rare occasions that we have a two thirds majority. Legislation is normally passed by a simple majority. I do not see any logic in moving away from that. Deputy Flanagan is actually proposing to make it more difficult to establish tribunals of inquiry. I would have thought an Opposition Member would have wanted to leave it a bit easier to establish tribunals. He has, however, resiled from that position. I do not see the logic in making fish of one and flesh of another.
The Minister still wishes to preserve the position allowing the heavy hand of government to shut down a tribunal without notice if it is in the Government's interest. Earlier, having taken the power and authority away from the Oireachtas by dint of his refusal to accept an earlier amendment, the Oireachtas is now merely a rubber stamp in the hands of the Government.
I do not want the message to go out that we have in some way reduced the powers for the establishment of tribunals of inquiry. Deputy Flanagan is misleading on this. We have not reduced the ability of the Oireachtas to pass resolutions to establish tribunals of inquiry. I ask the Deputy not to mislead people in this regard.
Despite all the public opprobrium towards the ongoing tribunals of inquiry, the Government has not taken a heavy hand to them.
However, the Government reserves that power.
Privately, in the corridors of the Houses, people from the Deputy's party, and others, have told us the sooner we shut down the tribunals, the better.
That is not true.
It is. Deputy Flanagan should not be playing politics with this.
This is the old conjecture and it is the Minister who is playing politics saying that people have approached him privately and said, "Good man Dermot, go ahead and close the tribunals down".
They have and the Deputy knows that.
No Member of my party has done so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) A resolution pursuant to subsection (2)(b) may approve the draft with modifications specified in the resolution, and if so approved, the draft order shall have effect subject to those modifications.”.
This brings us back to the substantive argument about whether the Minister is changing the traditional position of inquiries. Of course, he is. That is why I asked him whether I could amend these provisions. He gave me the ambiguous reply because I cannot amend them.
The mechanism of approval of the order is by resolution rather than by a substantive motion. That means the draft order cannot be amended by the Houses of the Oireachtas. No amount of prevarication or ambiguity from the Minister can change that. It is simply presented to the Dáil on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the Minister knows that. It is not by way of substantive motion. This is a most unsatisfactory mechanism and removes the ownership of the Oireachtas over the tribunal, making it a creature of Government.
At least amendment No. 9 will allow the resolution of the Houses to include modifications on the draft order. It is imperative that we allow the Oireachtas, in the spirit of the Constitution, to include modifications on the draft order presented by the Government. As the Minister has not accepted amendment No. 6 which would have asserted the traditional position and acknowledge the primacy of the Oireachtas in this narrow constitutional area, will he allow the Oireachtas to approve a tribunal by substantive motion and make modifications if it is so minded?
To get rid of any perception, as suggested by the Deputies opposite, that we are changing existing practice regarding the establishment of tribunals of inquiry, I must repeat we are not. We are implementing recommendations that were confirmed recently by the Law Reform Commission.
Without Deputy Rabbitte's amendment, it would be quite possible to amend a resolution concerning a tribunal of inquiry on the floor of the House under Standing Orders. I accept the spirit of Deputy Rabbitte's amendment that seeks to copper-fasten that provision in the legislation. I will request the Parliamentary Counsel to examine the amendment to see if we can facilitate it. I will come back to it on Report Stage.
I can accept amendment No. 10 which improves the drafting of the legislation.
Regarding amendment No. 10, it is right that the membership of a tribunal should be put before the Oireachtas and it can be queried on the motion to approve the order of establishment. As the Bill is drafted, it allows the Government to establish a tribunal by order and requires certain matters to be done on foot of the order. For example, there must be a report outlining the timescale and costs of the tribunal within 30 days of its establishment. I take no issue with this but there is no requirement to make the order appointing the members of the tribunal within a period. However, as the Minister is accepting my amendment, I will not labour the point.
Regarding amendment No. 11, section 6 requires certain details of persons, places and times to be included within the order establishing a tribunal. This amendment would tidy up that section and link it to the requirement specified in section 3(3).
The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to allow the Oireachtas to specify the date by which it expects the final report of a tribunal. It is also an important amendment. More care must be shown in future in focusing the terms of reference of tribunals of inquiry. Given our experience over the past 20 years, it should be possible to make a better stab at providing a reasonable timeframe within which tribunals will be expected to report. There is a strong possibility that a change of generation will take place before the tribunal reports are received. Such a scenario would not be the best outcome.
As I stated, if Deputy Rabbitte withdraws amendment No. 9, I will address the issue on Report Stage. I am in a position to accept amendment No. 10. I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that amendment No. 11 is unnecessary as the matter is adequately provided for in section 3(3)(b). While I cannot accept amendment No. 12, I appreciate Deputy Rabbitte’s intent in tabling it and the sentiments he expressed. It would be difficult or impossible for any tribunal to be established to realistically comply with this prescriptive proposed provision. It would be preferable to address this issue in section 8 which makes provision for a tribunal to produce a statement of its estimated costs and duration within 30 days of its establishment. Section 8(4) requires such a statement to be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I refer the Deputy to section 18(1) which requires a tribunal to use its best endeavours to ensure it performs its functions as efficiently, effectively and expeditiously as possible, having regard to its terms of reference. Furthermore, under section 32(4) a tribunal is required to submit its final report before the expiration of this estimated timeframe except where such compliance is not practicable and an extension is agreed with the responsible Minister. The approach taken in the Bill is sensible and balanced and will achieve the aim of the Deputy's amendment.
The major problem in this respect is amendment No. 9. The Houses are being used as a rubber stamp in that they must either approve or reject the draft order. As the Minister succinctly put it, the Government proposes and the Oireachtas disposes. Members cannot make amendments or modifications in the absence of a substantive motion. The instrument of tribunal of inquiry is being turned into a creature of government by the day. The Government is getting a grip on this instrument by assuming the right to shut down tribunals and so forth.
Rather than continuing to make incremental amendments, it would be preferable to consider whether a statute that precedes the foundation of the State is suitable in the 21st century. This Bill is the seventh amendment to the legislation. The Lord only knows what gave birth to it in the Department or what promoted it because it is not a significant Bill. We would be much better introducing legislation that refurbishes the law on the right of inquiry by parliamentary committee. I do not share the fear that allowing parliamentarians to inquire into these matters would result in the end of civilisation as we know it. While I favour protecting the permanent Government and acknowledging its outstanding contribution, I do not believe this is a cause of fear. The Government is taking over the instrument of tribunals of inquiry. In that context, amendment No. 9 is important.
I welcome the Minister's decision to take on board amendment No. 10. His decision on amendment No. 11 may be the correct one. I regret he will not accept amendment No. 12. As part of the riding instructions issued to a tribunal on establishment, the learned member or members should be given a broad outline as to when a report is expected. This is not an unreasonable requirement. If the learned members wish to submit to the Houses an interim report indicating they have discovered X or Y or that it is not feasible to report in the timescale laid down, so be it.
I have always believed it was within the power of those chairing the tribunals, from the beef tribunal involving Mr. Goodman onwards, to indicate that they have the necessary staff in place, have a grip on the issues into which they must inquire and have the terms of reference before them. As such, they should be able to state how they propose to implement the terms of reference. If the Houses of the Oireachtas take issue with that, let them do so and make whatever changes are considered necessary.
The tribunals have decided to follow every mucky boreen in the country and continue ad infinitum, which is not necessarily in the public interest. One of the current tribunals may have good reasons for inquiring into the purchase of a football club which was not bought when the tribunal was established but I am confused about the reasons for doing so, although admittedly I am not seized of the information. I am puzzled as to how it could be in the mind of the Oireachtas that a tribunal should inquire into a transaction which takes place a year following its establishment. It is not unreasonable to require their lordships to study the terms of reference and in the event that they believe it to be unreasonable of the Oireachtas to request that they report within 12 months, to indicate that this is the case. In such circumstances, the Oireachtas could give them a further 12 months if it believes a good case has been made.
I concur with much of the Deputy's contribution and I, too, would much prefer if the Oireachtas had more powers. However, having experience of sitting on committees which have tried to investigate various issues, it is clear that unless the Constitution is amended we, in our primary role as legislators, will not have the ability to inquire into certain matters. The Deputy is aware of the issues to which I am referring, namely, the restrictions imposed on the Oireachtas by the courts inhibiting it from inquiring into these issues. I wish the position were different and perhaps we should propose changes in that respect. The purpose of the Bill is to try to address some of the valid issues the Deputy raises regarding the longevity of tribunals.
The Deputy stated that tribunals are the creatures of Government. If my memory serves me correctly, most of the amendments made to the tribunals were not necessarily proposed by Government but by the Opposition following a public outcry. Once information emerged from the first part of an inquiry, there was a rush to broaden its terms of reference. It was akin to the approach of a juggernaut as everyone sought to secure an amendment to allow their lordships, as the Deputy stated, to go down every boreen that came into view.
The Deputy proposes that the Government, by draft order, and subsequently the Oireachtas, by resolution, tell the tribunals of inquiry the date by which they are requested to deliver a final report. We may choose some lordship from the Four Courts who does not know the first thing about the issue in question. In such circumstances, the Oireachtas would tell him, before he even starts his work, that he must produce a report by 31 December of the year in question, even if he does not have a clue about the issues. As stated, a later amendment in my name refers to a 30-day period. It will only be after such a period that an estimate as to the timeframe involved will be brought forward. I wish it were the case that we could stipulate a date for receipt. However, it does not work that way in reality. Someone in opposition — perhaps not the Deputy — might accuse the Government of trying, in effect, to hamstring a tribunal of inquiry by making provision in the legislation for an unrealistic date.
We have built a reasonable body of jurisprudence in respect of these issues. I am of the view that we ought to provide for interim reports. If, in an interim report, the chairperson of a tribunal of inquiry wishes to inform the Oireachtas that he or she had a Securicor truck full of documents delivered to him or her and that the expectation that he or she can complete his or her work within 12 months is not, for a number of reasons, realistic, the Oireachtas can extend the period stipulated. Members of the public find it difficult to understand why tribunals have been in business for 11 years. We had an interesting discussion earlier about matters of urgent public importance. How can something be urgent after 11 years? Why not include a deadline and permit tribunals of inquiry to inform the Oireachtas that deadlines cannot be met, provide good reasons as to why that is the case and seek an extension of time?
This is an interesting debate and I have some sympathy with what Deputy Rabbitte is trying to achieve. If the Minister is in agreement with the proposals made by the Law Reform Commission, there is a mechanism that could be used. I was going to table an amendment to this section — in line with another tabled in the name of Deputy Flanagan — in respect of the terms of reference. If, as the Law Reform Commission suggested, we decide that there should be a two-stage process in drafting the terms of reference, the tribunal could be appointed and given time to draw up the terms of reference. Having gained some knowledge of the matters it would be charged with probing, it would return to the Oireachtas with an estimate of costs and a proposed completion date. The individuals appointed to such a tribunal would be learned people and have some idea of the time required to investigate matters. The Oireachtas could then debate the terms of reference and the completion date and pass a resolution adopting what might be suggested by the tribunal.
As stated, it appears the Minister is being selective because the Bill does not contain everything suggested by the Law Reform Commission. However, when we debated the meaning of the term "urgent", he quoted the commission chapter and verse. I hope that on this occasion he can take on board what I am saying because this would allow Deputy Rabbitte's amendment to be tied to the terms of reference. Under the apparatus I have outlined, the appointed members of a tribunal could discuss the matter to be investigated, consult the injured parties and make a decision as to the likely timeframe for the completion of its work. Such a timeframe could be three months, six years or even — I hope this will never be the case again with a tribunal — 12 years. When a tribunal returned to the House with its proposals, Members could decide that it would not have six years but that it would have to report within three. The Dáil could also make changes to the terms of reference suggested to it by a tribunal. This mechanism has been brought forward by the Law Reform Commission and represents a way to deal with the problem of overly long tribunals.
Deputy Rabbitte is on record as criticising me when I welcomed a statement from a Supreme Court judge to the effect that inquiring into a matter ongoing for ten years was the antithesis of inquiring into a matter of urgent public importance.
I find it extremely difficult to believe I am on record as criticising the Minister.
I remember it. Far be it from me, having been in government for several years, to be accused of trying to string out future tribunals. I accept that it is the desire of every Member of the Oireachtas to have matters dealt with as quickly as possible and at the lowest expense to the taxpayer. That is why what we are proposing in the Bill represents a balanced approach. The relevant provision follows on from the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission that there should be a two-stage process.
Tribunals have the ability to provide interim reports. If, in the order establishing it, one were to dictate the date by which a tribunal should publish its final report, apart from the normal difficulty of trying to encourage people to take up an appointment to that tribunal — in the light of the problems with recent tribunals I am not sure whether the Oireachtas will be able to find such persons in the future — this would be an added disincentive to anyone considering being a chairperson or member of such a tribunal. While Members of the Oireachtas or the public might be aware of some of the issues to be investigated by a proposed tribunal, who knows what might emerge when such a tribunal was only a few weeks into its inquiry? A tribunal might be informed that it should report by the end of a particular year but, in the light of new evidence, it might be required to extend its investigations beyond that date.
While I fully empathise with what the Deputy is trying to do, I draw his attention again to the way the matter is dealt with in the Bill. Section 8(4) requires that a tribunal shall, within 30 days of its establishment, provide an estimation of its costs and outline a timeframe for the submission of its final report. Sections 18(1) and 32(4) contain exhortations to tribunals to be as effective and efficient as possible. Section 32(4) specifically requires a tribunal to submit a final report before the expiration of the estimated timeframe, except where such compliance is not practicable and where an extension is agreed with the responsible Minister. The approach I have outlined is balanced and will not dissuade people from becoming members of tribunals.
The Minister is not for turning. I accept that he is correct in that it is very difficult to make provision in respect of legal challenges. Several such challenges have been made in respect of the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals. Challenges of this nature have the effect of significantly delaying the work of tribunals and adding to the costs involved. It would be good business practice to have a reasonable timeframe of, for example, 12 months, given that we have garnered experience about the desirability of drafting items such as more focused terms of reference in the first place. We are where we are not just because of legal challenges but also the vagueness and generality of terms of reference in some cases which can be interpreted by a very rigorous judge as meaning, "I have to inquire into these practices in the context of the entire country and it will take me an unconscionable amount of time". If the Minister is minded to stand by the existing practice, he can do so.
The Deputy has misinterpreted what is contained in the Bill. We are trying to reform the existing practice to place a greater onus on members of the tribunal to keep to their own timescale.
What compulsion is there on them to do this?
We are trying to change the terms under which they operate in order that they will have to justify why they have broken, or potentially will break, their own estimated timescale which they gave within 30 days of the establishment of a tribunal. If one provides for too much prescription, there can be problems. Let us say a tribunal is told by the Oireachtas that it has to submit its report within 12 months and that when it starts to inquire into a matter, it finds it does not require 12 months, that, in fact, it requires only six months——
That is not difficult. Including the phrase "Report no later than" would deal with that issue.
If one is too prescriptive, it can cause a difficulty. The tribunal should give an estimate, having taken a considered view of what lies ahead, and then justify why it is going beyond its own estimate. Obviously, there is the ability to present interim reports if new issues arise or there is a necessity to change the terms of reference. We are trying to reform the system. The Deputy has accused the Government of trying, in some way, to make tribunals the creature of government rather than giving them, not a free hand, but the ability to inquire into an urgent and important issue, without interference. There are issues of cost and duration which are a worry for people like us in the Oireachtas who vote on the matter.
It is very difficult to intervene once they are up and running, for all of the reasons we understand. In so far as it is feasible to do so, it is more feasible for it to be done by the Oireachtas or Dáil Éireann than by a Minister, for obvious reasons. It is a fair criticism to level at the Government that it talks up a storm on certain issues, but when it comes to taking a hard decision, it is not taken. I remember all the speeches by the Minister's predecessors who said, "By God, we are going to rein in costs," and what a fulminating former Deputy Michael McDowell was not going to do. What did he do? He increased the fees. Former Deputy Charlie McCreevy did the same. The indignant decibels rose in close proximity to an election. If an election was drawing near, what was said about what would be done with legal fees was unbelievable. It was said the cat o'nine tails would be taken out, but it never was and now we find people were being paid more than the Government had intended. The Government has lived a charmed life and it is beyond me how it has managed to survive. I congratulate the Minister.
I wish life was as simple as the Deputy suggests. I am somewhat constrained in what I can say on the pressure Government was under in order to ensure matters were properly investigated. As the Deputy knows, their worships live in a different atmosphere from that in which we live. We live in one which is extremely confrontational; because of this any efforts made by Governments to circumscribe or reduce the level of fees payable can possibly be used by various people to suggest we are in some way trying to curtail the activities of tribunals. Far be it from us to be accused by people such as the Deputy that we are in any way trying to prevent the truth from coming out from tribunals. He will have to accept that in this Bill we are trying as best we can to make changes to the system, while giving tribunals autonomy to investigate. Who knows what issues they will uncover? It may well be, given the experience in recent years, that there will be no rush to establish new tribunals of inquiry. I hope, as long as I am in government, we will not set up any more. I wish we were in a position in the Oireachtas where we could inquire much more intently and fruitfully into issues without going down the road of using senior counsel. I recall many occasions, not least the Fr. Brendan Smyth affair, when we had lawyers out the door and yet could not come up with adverse findings against any of the major participants because under the Constitution, on which delivered judgments are based, we were unable to do so. If we want to do so, let us change the Constitution and ask the people to give us these powers. We are where we are regarding tribunals of inquiry. We need to reform them, as we are trying to do in the Bill, to put an onus on them to curtail their activities and deal with them in the way outlined in section 18(1), that is, efficiently, effectively and expeditiously as possible.
I welcome some of the material included in the Bill. It is a step forward, if the Minister listens to what we have to say. It also refers back to the initial report of the Law Reform Commission. I refer the Minister, in particular, to sections 11 and 12 on page 171 where it is quite specific, as I mentioned in my earlier contribution, in outlining a two stage approach. It states the draft terms of reference should be submitted to the Oireachtas for approval and, in addition, should be accompanied by a memorandum setting out the length of time the proposed inquiry would take, subject to the commission's recommendation concerning cost. Obviously, it ties costs, the length of time suggested and the terms of reference together to be proposed by the tribunal members. This is to be given to the Minister in seeking the approval of the Houses. It encapsulates the amendments being discussed and would make for a better tribunal system because those with some knowledge of the length of time a tribunal was likely to last would be able to have an input before the Oireachtas signed off on the terms of reference. Otherwise the Oireachtas will sign off on another 12 years of tribunals, whereas under this arrangement we have a mechanism whereby we are informed by the experts as to what is a realistic timeframe. The Oireachtas could say a tribunal must report within a year, which would be an unreasonable timeframe, whereas this way there is some mechanism for us to be informed. The other commission recommendation was that the terms of reference should not be vague. If we drew up the terms of reference, because we are not the legal eagles and not the persons directly affected, we would make them vague and all encompassing whereas the commission would be focused on trying to have them specific so that we end up with a tribunal which can report in a shorter timeframe than tribunals have reported in the past.
While I have sympathy for the point made in Deputy Rabbitte's amendment to draw a final curtain on this issue, the way in which we have tried throughout the Bill to put the onus on the tribunal — once it has been set up and has examined what is ahead — to keep to a certain timescale is the way it should be. Obviously it would be for the Oireachtas to decide if an extension is to be granted or if an interim report is to be made by the tribunal.
How stands amendment No. 9? The Minister has indicated he will come back on Report Stage.
I am pressing it.
I am prepared to look at it again for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (3), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(a) the member or members of the tribunal,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Section 4 is extraordinary in that for the first time in tribunal legislation it is specified that a tribunal shall be inquisitorial and independent, both of which are laudable aims. However, the Bill then introduces a reservation which will have the effect of watering down the inquisitorial nature and independence of the tribunal by stating that either of these laudable aims should not impact on any other provisions of the Act. I am curious as to the drafting of section 4(2).
Subsection (2) is based on section 6 of the Law Reform Commission's draft Bill. The commission notes that both the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 and the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 provide expressly for the independence of those investigative bodies. Accordingly, the commission recommends that the independence of the tribunals of inquiry should be placed on a statutory footing because of the role of tribunals investigating matters of public concern. While specifying the independence of tribunals the subhead recognises that there are provisions in the scheme which fetter the independence, to some extent, in so far as the tribunal may operate efficiently and must prepare interim reports at the request of the responsible Minister. While it emphasises that it is inquisitorial in nature and independent, nothing in its functions shall prejudice the issuing of reports.
I do not find that very convincing but I will not delay the proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
5. — A tribunal established pursuant to this Act shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue and be sued in its corporate name.
This amendment seeks clarification on the legal entity or the form of the tribunal. That form should be certain and the tribunal should be granted similar legal entity to that of a body corporate. There may be times when a tribunal may wish to engage in legal proceedings and times when persons may wish to sue a tribunal, so the legal entity should be similar to that of a body corporate.
I honestly do not see the logic in setting up a tribunal as a body corporate. Despite what the Deputy may say, a tribunal is a creature of the Oireachtas. I cannot see the logic in having it made a body corporate. What benefit would it have?
It would allow legal certainty to the entity which is the tribunal.
Does it not have that legal certainly under the resolution of the Dáil and Seanad?
There are times when that legal certainly may not exist. By ensuring it is an entity similar to that of a body corporate would give a tribunal a type of certainty that it does not have at present.
Under section 27(3) a tribunal is conferred with many of the powers of a judge of the High Court so that it can carry out its inquiry. It is influenced by the Government's decision not to proceed with this recommendation of the Law Reform Commission because bodies corporate do not have the power of High Court judges, whereas under section 27(3) a tribunal is given many of the powers of a High Court judge.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 15 is a technical alternative to amendment No. 14. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, to delete lines 25 to 29 and substitute the following:
"6.— (1) The order establishing a tribunal shall authorise the tribunal to set the terms of reference of the tribunal.
(2) Before setting the terms of reference, the tribunal shall consult with the responsible Minister, and such other persons or organisations as the Tribunal considers appropriate.
(3) The tribunal shall conclude any consultation under subsection (2) within 60 days.
(4) The terms of reference of a tribunal shall, with a view to ensuring that the scope of the inquiry into any matter referred to the tribunal is described as precisely as is practicable, specify, to the extent practicable, the events, activities, circumstances, systems, practices or procedures to be inquired into, including—".
Accepting that the Executive could not, should not or will not dictate in absolute terms, it is important that a precise framework be placed on arriving at the terms of reference, the estimate of the work programme and the specific framing of a remit. Before terms of reference are agreed in certain form there should be a process of consultation, however brief. That framing process is not sufficiently incorporated in section 6 as currently drafted. By having a pre terms of reference arena, the work of the tribunal, including the timeframe, may well be better fixed than allowing for section 6.
Does Deputy Rabbitte wish to comment on his amendment No. 15?
I am anxious to hear the Minister's reply to Deputy Flanagan's amendment which may be superior to mine. I did not see this as a matter of great moment. It was more a question of reconciling slight inconsistency in the Bill as drafted. For example, section 3(3)(a) and section 3(1) refer to the tribunal inquiring into a particular matter. That is the word used. There is a slight inconsistency with the wording of section 6 which envisages a tribunal inquiring into events, activities, circumstances, systems, practices or procedures. Amendment No. 15 seeks to harmonise the two sections. That was all that was in my mind.
As I indicated the last time I addressed this matter in dealing with section 3, this is a procedure that should be carried out when the tribunal members have been appointed, whether it is 60 days or less that one gives the tribunal members to draw up the terms of reference, as the Law Reform Commission suggests. The draft terms of reference would then be submitted to the Minister for the approval of the Oireachtas. It would be time well spent, although I do not know about the figure of 60 days. If a matter was urgent, as the Minister said, it may be done within the 60-day period, but we could appeal for it to be done in as timely a fashion as possible. I welcome the amendment. It would be useful for the Minister to re-examine the section to ensure what we produce is in line with the Law Reform Commission's proposals.
I cannot accept Deputy Flanagan's amendment No. 14. The Bill provides that the order establishing a tribunal under section 3 must specify, subject to sections 6 and 7, the terms of reference for the tribunal. The terms of reference, or subsequently modified terms of reference, for the tribunal are a matter for the Government with the necessary approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is the critical point. Section 6 sets out the various elements required in describing as precisely as possible the terms of reference. The Government has decided that this process is a matter for it, although the Oireachtas must approve the order containing the terms of reference. It would be eminently sensible and responsible for the Government to consult the chairperson of the tribunal on the proposed terms of reference. This happens in practice. Should the tribunal consider that an amendment to the terms of reference was warranted, the provisions of section 7 would apply. It would not be appropriate or acceptable to permit the tribunal to set its own terms of reference.
With regard to amendment No. 15 in the name of Deputy Rabbitte, I am advised by the parliamentary counsel that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and would not add anything to the text.
I regret that the Minister is so inflexible on this aspect. It would benefit the entire process if there was consultation prior to the setting of the terms of reference. Had it been done in the past, a far clearer picture might have emerged. Had there been a consultation process prior to adopting terms of reference, public confidence in the tribunals might not have been undermined. The process could be assisted by the Houses of the Oireachtas, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh proposed, which would be laudable. I will withdraw the amendment on the basis of what the Minister has said but will certainly give it further consideration. I regret the inflexible nature of the Minister's reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Amendment No. 16 is in the name of Deputy Rabbitte.
I suggest we discuss that amendment after the suspension.
We will suspend the sitting until after the Order of Business. We will return to complete our deliberations today at approximately 6 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 4.25 p.m. and resumed at 5.25 p.m.
The meeting is reconvened. We are on section 6.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) This section shall not prevent a tribunal from inquiring into any matter which is related to or consequential on matters referred to in subsection (1), if such enquiry is authorised by the terms of reference of the tribunal.”.
This amendment proposes the insertion of a new subsection. We have already dealt with the necessity to try and keep the terms of reference of any future tribunal tight and tied down, to the maximum extent that we can. However, as the Minister has said when we were discussing interim reports, no matter what we do there will be cases where the tribunal may come across something in the course of its inquiry which warrants further investigation.
Some flexibility must be maintained in this regard and the purpose of this amendment is to do no more than provide that a tribunal shall not be prevented from inquiring into any such matter it stumbles across and considers to be of value and needs to be inquired into. We ought to maintain that flexibility and unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise, I am not sure that flexibility is there at the moment.
As far as we are concerned, section 18(2) adequately deals with this issue. The manner in which the Deputy's amendment is phrased runs the risk of significantly widening the scope of the tribunal beyond its original terms of reference.
Section 18(2) states:
A tribunal shall not inquire into a relevant matter unless it is satisfied that the cost and duration of the inquiry into the relevant matter are likely to be justified by the importance of the facts that are likely to be established in consequence of such inquiry.
I think the issue is adequately dealt with.
On a small drafting point, the Deputy referred to subsection (1), but there is no such subsection. I appreciate he may be inserting a new subsection, but if it refers to subsection (1) we would have to table an additional amendment to take care of that. To come to the pertinent point, section 18(2) deals with the situation.
If the Minister thinks the situation is provided for, I accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, subsection (3), line 7, after "would" to insert "unduly".
I am also looking at section 14(10). Amendment No. 17 simply inserts the new word "unduly", that the amendment would unduly prejudice the constitutional or legal rights of any person who has co-operated with the tribunal. It is designed to make the section consistent with section 14(10) which states:
A tribunal may perform or continue to perform its functions notwithstanding that there is one or more than one vacancy among its membership if it is satisfied that to do so would not unduly prejudice the constitutional or legal rights of any person affected by the inquiry.
The wording, as it stands in this section, is safer than the wording I am seeking to amend. The insertion of the term "unduly", as is proposed in my amendment, would reconcile it with section 14(10).
Does Deputy Rabbitte wish to comment on amendment No. 18 as we are discussing the two together?
I will have a look at amendment No. 17. I am not sure if both concern the same issue or concept. I will look at amendment No. 17 on Report Stage.
Will I move amendment No. 18?
No, just discuss it for the moment.
The amendment seeks to add certain words after the word "tribunal". The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an amendment to the terms of reference of a tribunal will not be prohibited if there are reasonable steps open to it to redress any prejudice that would be caused by the amendment to those terms of reference.
Amendment No. 18 is related to the previous amendment. The provisions of section 7(3) deal with how the tribunal might satisfy itself as to the nature and extent of the redress of any possible prejudice to a person's legal and constitutional rights. I do not believe the proposed addition would add anything useful and may bring upon us unnecessary litigation if we were to include it, according to the advice I have received from the Parliamentary Counsel.
I am not sure that I fully understand the Minister's apprehension that it might give rise to litigation, not otherwise anticipated. Why might that be the case?
By inserting the Deputy's amendment, one is asking the tribunal to decide on the issue of prejudice in its own court, in effect. If it did, and was obliged to do so under the legislation, it would potentially leave itself open to unintended litigation. What the Deputy is saying is that a tribunal may not consent to or request an order amending its terms of reference if it is satisfied that the amendment would prejudice the constitutional or legal rights of any person who has co-operated with the tribunal and that such prejudice cannot be redressed by any step reasonably open to the tribunal. The effect of the amendment would be that the tribunal would have to determine if it could redress any prejudice by any other means. Such prejudice cannot be redressed by any step reasonably open to the tribunal. It is putting the onus on the tribunal to take some steps to, in effect, deal with that prejudice. While it might be seen to give the tribunal some leeway in how it deals with a person who co-operates, it runs the danger of bringing on unintended litigation.
The motivation behind my amendment was to give the tribunal some leeway as the Minister has describes it. Certainly that was the thinking behind it. While I do not want to create a more litigious environment than already exist, in the case of a person who has co-operated with the tribunal, the tribunal might appreciate having this spelt out.
A tribunal per se, exists to establish facts, not to judge on prejudice one way or the other. It is not a court of law and it may not have within its power the ability to take any steps that might redress a prejudice that might have occurred. In effect, a tribunal or a court cannot be the judge of its own issues in regard to prejudice. My note states it is unnecessary and does not add anything to the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 20 is in the name of Deputy Rabbitte. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are technical alternatives to amendment No. 22. Amendments Nos. 20 to 24, inclusive, may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, subsection (1), lines 17 and 18, to delete "tribunal's establishment" and substitute the following:
"appointment of the member or members of the tribunal".
I accept the amendment.
I will not waste the time of the committee in explaining the amendment if the Minister is accepting it.
Does Deputy Rabbitte wish to comment on amendments Nos. 23 and 24? I should point out that I am not trying to stifle debate but if amendment No. 22 is accepted, amendments Nos. 23 and 24 cannot be moved.
If amendment No. 22 is accepted——
To clarify, my amendment No. 25 incorporates Deputy Rabbitte's amendments Nos. 23 and 24 and proposes a new amendment.
Does the Minister wish to comment on amendments Nos. 21 and 22 in his name?
Amendment No. 21 makes clear that the estimate of the cost to be furnished to the Minister by the tribunal shall include all costs in consequence of the inquiry, not just the costs of the tribunal itself. The intention is that the tribunal should prepare a statement of estimated cost to give the Exchequer a realistic estimate of the cost of the inquiry. The revised wording would copper-fasten this intention by clarifying that the statement must estimate all third-party legal costs likely to be incurred in consequence of the inquiry, not just those likely to be incurred by the tribunal.
My amendment No. 22 provides essentially for the limiting of the scope of the current section 8 to the provision of the statement of estimated costs and duration of the tribunal. This will better emphasise the intention here. The amendment also makes it clear that the statement of costs made by the tribunal under section 8(1) must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the responsible Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 9, subsection (1)(a), lines 22 and 23, to delete “by the tribunal in performing its functions” and substitute “in consequence of the inquiry”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 9, lines 26 to 47, to delete subsections (2) to (4) and substitute the following:
"(2) A statement prepared under subsection (1) shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the responsible Minister as soon as may be after it has been prepared.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 65 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 10, before section 9, to insert the following new section:
9.—(1) Where—
(a) it becomes apparent to a tribunal which has prepared a statement referred to in section 8 that any estimate (“old estimate”) referred to in that section which is contained in the statement is no longer appropriate to a material degree (whether or not in consequence of an order under section 7(1) amending the terms of reference of the tribunal), or
(b) the tribunal is advised in writing by the responsible Minister that it has become apparent to the responsible Minister that the old estimate is no longer appropriate to a material degree (whether or not in consequence of an order under section 7(1) amending the terms of reference of the tribunal),
the tribunal shall, subject to section 33(3) and in consultation with the responsible Minister, prepare a statement containing the estimate (“new estimate”) which it is considered should replace the old estimate (and accordingly, the new estimate shall for the purposes of this Act replace the old estimate).
(2) Subsection (1) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to a new estimate as it applies to an old estimate.
(3) A statement prepared under subsection (1) shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the responsible Minister as soon as may be after it has been prepared.”.
Effectively, this amendment splits the provisions of the previous section 8. The new section better emphasises the requirement to prepare a revised statement of costs and duration. Subsection (1) requires that the revision of the statement be occasioned when the original statement is no longer appropriate to a material degree. This latter qualification was suggested earlier by Deputy Rabbitte.
Amendment No. 65 is a drafting amendment to correctly reference the new section in section 33.
I agree.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 10, before section 9, to insert the following new section:
10.— (1) A tribunal shall furnish the responsible Minister with a financial statement-
(a) in respect of each relevant period, and
(b) not later than one month after the expiration of the relevant period concerned.
(2) The responsible Minister may make a request in writing to a tribunal to be furnished with a financial statement-
(a) in respect of such period as is specified in the request, and
(b) within such period as is specified in the request, being a period reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
(3) A tribunal shall comply with a request under subsection (2) made to it.
(4) A tribunal may of its own volition furnish the responsible Minister with a financial statement in respect of such period as it thinks fit.
(5) Where a tribunal submits to the responsible Minister the final report, or furnishes the responsible Minister with an interim report or a divisional report, it shall, at the same time, furnish the responsible Minister with a financial statement in respect of that period preceding the date on which the report is so submitted or furnished, as the case may be, in respect of which it has not previously submitted a financial statement pursuant to this section.
(6) A financial statement furnished under this section to the responsible Minister shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the responsible Minister as soon as is practicable.
(7) Nothing in this section shall prejudice sections 8 or 9,
(8) In this section-
"financial statement", in relation to a tribunal, means a statement in writing specifying all known costs incurred in consequence of the inquiry during the relevant period or other period to which the statement relates, including, as separate items-
(a) the tribunal’s legal costs (excluding third party legal costs),
(b) the tribunal’s administrative costs, and
(c) third party legal costs;
"relevant period", in relation to a tribunal, means-
(a) the period commencing on the date on which the tribunal was established and ending on the 31 December next following that date, and
(b) each year thereafter.”.
Amendment No. 26 will insert a new section 10, after section 9, explicitly providing for the furnishing of a financial statement specifying the costs incurred by the tribunal either on a periodic basis at the request of the responsible Minister or of its own volition. The financial statement will be placed before the Oireachtas. The experience of the practical operations of various tribunals thus far would suggest that this provision would be very useful to assist the responsible Minister and the Oireachtas in their oversight roles.
I did not get an opportunity to study this particular amendment with which I think I agree. Are they just the costs of the tribunal itself, including its staff and counsel, or are third-party legal costs also included?
Third-party costs are included in subsection (8).
Yes, I see that. However, is that not problematic in the sense that the practice we have had up to now is that third-party costs are not decided until after the tribunal has concluded? That is probably one of the great shocks the taxpayer is in for. Many of the figures being mentioned in the media are for the costs of the tribunal itself, but when third-party costs come home to roost the skies will darken. How is the tribunal expected to make a stab at third-party costs when it cannot be known whether the tribunal would award such costs to a particular witness or might decide that a witness should bear his or her own costs because of a finding of obstruction or other reasons? I would like to know how third-party legal costs are comprised in the Minister's amendment.
The tribunal approved the representation and because of that it would have a reasonable idea of how much the third-party costs will be. We are requiring the tribunal to furnish a financial statement in respect of each relevant period and not later than one month after the expiration of the relevant period concerned. So, after each period, it would have a reasonable view as to what the legal costs, even third-party costs, were at that stage, while being certain that the parties due to get their third-party costs have actually co-operated and would be due costs. This amendment is trying to provide a little more certainty.
I accept what the Deputy says about the issue of third-party costs. When I hear some of the estimates coming out of some of the tribunals I cast a wry smile because I believe the Deputy is correct in saying that when all of this pans out, Joe and Jemima Taxpayer will have to pay a lot more than people are estimating. This amendment is trying as much as possible to give some certainty to all the costs, including administrative, third-party and those of the tribunal.
I am not opposed to what the Minister is seeking to do, but I have some difficulty with the notion that the tribunal can factor in a guesstimate of third-party legal costs. In all probability these are matters that are ongoing. One does not know what the finding of the tribunal might be in respect of a particular witness or witnesses. In circumstances where an adverse finding might be made or, worse, where a person has engaged in obstruction or delay, how can the tribunal chairperson make a stab at what he or she is likely to do? One cannot find that a person has done something inappropriate while evidence is still being adduced or the tribunal's work is not finished. It seems to be problematic. Can the Minister say how mandatory this is? Is it just contained in the definition section of the financial statement, or are we legislating to require any future tribunal to report to us periodically on a guesstimate of third-party legal costs?
That is the whole idea of it, but in subsection (8) it is specifying all known costs. It may be that when the tribunal produces its financial statement it does not know. As the Deputy says, there is a significant element of crystal ball gazing, particularly as regards third-party costs. I suppose the tribunal will know when each relevant period is over what type of co-operation has been fulfilled by various parties to the tribunal. It is a guesstimate of what the overall costs are so that, at least, the Oireachtas can see that from time to time. It refers to the period commencing, including the date on which the tribunal was established and ending on or including 31 December next following that date, and each year thereafter, so it is a periodic oversight by the Oireachtas on the ongoing costs.
This does not seem to be oversight. It is sight but not oversight in so far as what the Oireachtas can do to change it. It is stuck in the Oireachtas Library and laid before the Houses, but it is a bill that has been computed, presumably with a view to some form of publication. What can the Oireachtas do?
It is not a huge difficulty. All the costs of the tribunal would normally be set by the Minister for Finance and agreed by the Government. There would obviously be an effort to keep the costs as low as possible. Third-party costs are subject to taxation, so the Deputy is correct in that much of this is ultimately subject to the decision of the taxing master. I would have thought that in the initial phase the tribunal would decide on the costs of the third party, but it would be subject to agreement. If there was not agreement it would go to the Taxing Master who, in effect, would be the appellate court.
Was all of this put to bed before the Comptroller and Auditor General issued his report on tribunals of inquiry? He made an attempt to come to grips with the different elements that make up the costs of the tribunal that is under way. If one did not already have grey hair, one certainly would have after reading this in terms of the costs that are coming down the tracks at us. I wonder if the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendations have been looked at by the Minister's officials before the Bill is enacted, given that the Bill is somewhat historical and was initiated in a different climate.
We published this Bill in November 2005 so the Comptroller and Auditor General has had an opportunity to see what was being proposed in it. In fact, a substantial number of the Bill's proposals have been referred to and accepted by the Comptroller and Auditor General's most recent report.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with the powers relating to the suspension of inquiries and section 10 relates to the dissolution of a tribunal. The provisions are only to apply in exceptional circumstances but a change in Government could bring about the dissolution of a tribunal if it was going in the wrong direction. The Law Reform Commission also suggests it should only happen in exceptional circumstances but there should be a formula of words in both sections to take account of the possibility. There is nothing to indicate whether the timeframe for a tribunal would be extended in the event of suspension and no specified duration of any suspension. The wording needs to be fleshed out so that these sections cannot be abused for the benefit of one person or party over another.
Instead of a draft proposed order and a statement giving the reasons for suspension simply being laid before the Houses, they should be debated and passed because a tribunal would have been set up by the Houses of the Oireachtas. If there is a reason, owing to exceptional circumstances, for a tribunal to be suspended or dissolved there needs to be a guarantee of a debate.
I agree. Where a tribunal might be regarded as political, as many of them are, it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure a broad measure of acceptance for the terms of suspension. My amendment has not been accepted but the Minister should attempt to go beyond the governing party of the day rather than rely on its own majority in the House to curtail the work of a tribunal. It should not use its power in a way that would neuter the tribunal, even one with wide terms of reference, and render its work null and void when there has been a change of Government. My amendment sought a two-thirds majority of the House but, since the Minister has refused it, I ask him to consider a measure that might secure a broader level of acceptance as an alternative to the heavy hand of Government.
This is not the heavy hand of Government. It comes from a recommendation on page 147 of the report of the Law Reform Commission, which reads:
There may be circumstances where it is necessary to suspend the work of a tribunal of inquiry. For example, it might be deemed necessary to do so pending the outcome of criminal proceedings, thus ensuring the work of the tribunal would not have the effect of prejudicing downstream criminal proceedings. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2004 do not provide for the suspension of the work of a tribunal of inquiry.
The report notes that the courts already have power to suspend the work of a tribunal of inquiry by injunction, and refers to O'Brien v. Moriarty in this regard, where the Supreme Court granted leave to apply for judicial review and an injunction on the basis that the balance of convenience more strongly favoured the grant of an injunction in a situation where the grounds upon which leave to apply for judicial review was granted would, if successful, mean that there would be no public hearing at all on the matter at issue.
The commission is of the view that the tribunals of inquiry legislation should contain power to suspend the work of tribunals of inquiry in exceptional circumstances to facilitate and not prejudice criminal prosecutions. It recommends that this power can only be exercisable on foot of a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, such resolution being sponsored by the Minister responsible for the operation of the tribunal. Heads of a Bill provided for suspension of an inquiry on its own initiative but this provision has not been included in the draft head so it falls to the Oireachtas and the responsible Minister.
I am aware of difficulties in several inquiries where costs are incurred after they have been set up but where, because of criminal proceedings, they cannot go anywhere and barristers and others have continued to clock up fees while waiting for the criminal trial to finish. This provision allows for the situation where a tribunal is hamstrung and cannot move forward.
In the circumstances such as those outlined by the Minister a Government would have no difficulty gaining broad acceptance in the House for suspension. I do not agree with the excerpt from the Law Reform Commission report because it does not allow for the broad acceptance which might be required for a political decision. The Minister replied to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's reference to the words " in exceptional circumstances" by using the same words but the section does not contain any such wording. If there is not to be an in-built mechanism whereby a broader level of acceptance could be achieved than that dispensed by the heavy hand of Government — a term which I do not apologise for using — the use of the term "in exceptional circumstances" would at least help suspension to be more broadly acceptable.
Nobody disagrees with the Government's intentions in this regard because there are occasions when a tribunal might need to be suspended, as the courts have already decided by the requirement for an injunction. We suggest some mechanism which respects the Law Reform Commission's belief that suspension should be allowed exceptionally, though I do not know if the word "exceptional" would be enough for legal purposes. If the tribunal has a deadline for publishing its report and it is suspended for 12 months it will fail to meet it and that should be taken into account when a decision is taken to suspend. Will suspension be open ended until it is reactivated or will a specific duration be set for suspension, tied to the reason for that suspension?
This is designed to deal with the situation which, as the Law Reform Commission of Ireland has stated, has not been catered for in previous legislation. Section 9 provides that "the Government may, after the responsible Minister has consulted with a tribunal ... suspend the inquiry" and specifies the conditions or criteria, for example, the completion of any other inquiry or the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings arising from any of those matters pending or in progress at the tribunal. It is also subject to the Oireachtas. We are dealing with a hypothetical situation. It is unlikely that the Government would try to force the Oireachtas to suspend a tribunal against the will of the tribunal because of criminal or civil proceedings. This is being inserted to fill the lacuna in existing legislation which does not provide for a suspension.
The section provides that the Government may suspend an inquiry, whether proceedings have been issued. It is not predicated on proceedings having been issued. The Minister should not attach too much importance to the issuing of civil or criminal proceedings in allowing for a suspension. The section clearly provides for whether any proceedings have begun.
This relates to proceedings arising from matters pending or in progress at the tribunal. It does not refer to any proceedings but to proceedings that are relevant. That happened in the case of O'Brien v. Moriarty where an injunction was sought and the Supreme Court came down in favour of granting an injunction in order to ensure there were no public hearings on the matter at issue. What we are trying to do is provide legislative cover for this.
Question put and agreed to.
I must leave as my parliamentary meeting is in session.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 6.05 p.m. sine die.