I am in a little difficulty here because the point I want to make embraces really four consecutive sections. Under this section, the Minister:
may appoint one or more competent inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such manner as the Minister directs—
Then without prejudice to his powers under this section the Minister may make appointments under the next section. Will it be in order to discuss the scheme of the sections? I am afraid I must.
I think they all go together to some extent.
In the next section, there is the idea of the Minister appointing an inspector, or inspectors, at the request of the company or at the request of the court. I am right in that?
Yes. The Minister " shall " in that case.
He shall appoint. In Section 165, there is the question of the Minister appointing inspectors in the ordinary course of administration. In the second case, he is appointing inspectors in circumstanes that may be tantamount either to a judicial or criminal investigation. They are two separate things. In the section we are considering—Section 165— the Minister may want to inspect a company for the purpose of getting information and I do not say that is wholly a bad thing if the Minister wishes to do it.
The Minister is limited, is he not, in Section 165 to appointing inspectors in certain cases only?
Yes. The section sets out :
(a) in the case of a company having a share capital, on the application either of not less than one hundred members or of a member or members holding not less than one-tenth of the paid up share capital of the company ;
(b) in the case of a company not having a share capital, on the application of not less than one-fifth in number of the persons on the company’s register of members.
I agree there is that but I was trying to bring out the point that, as I conceive, one is a simple investigation and the other is a judicial one. It is split between the two sections, as I see it, on the basis, shall we say, of numbers.
Number of applicants.
I know, but that is not important for my argument at the moment. There are, as I see it, two separate kinds of investigation here. The point I really want to make is the use of the word "inspector" or " inspectors " in both cases because, later on, in relation to Section 168, I will want to object to the giving of the powers of taking evidence under oath, and a great many of these other things in the simpler case, whereas I would agree with it under Section 166. That is the point I am getting at. I would suggest a re-drafting of these two sections, something on the lines that " the Minister may ", in more general circumstances than Section 165 gives him, have power to appoint inspectors but the inspectors will have less powers when it comes to criminal responsibility for the answer given to them. I have some little difficulty in making my point here because what I really want is a rescheming. Section 165 might reasonably give the Minister more powers than are taken here of investigation and control of the cost of restricting the powers in so far as oath and, shall I say, witness's responsibility under Section 168 are concerned. I would give more powers under 165. Section 166 could stand, particularly if the Minister were empowered to move the court under the section on his own initiative by simple motion. The Minister would always get a simple motion there. Then I would bring the whole force of the law under Section 168. I realise that means a complete redrafting, but I think it would be an improvement.
I do not think there is any case for it because the investigation to be conducted under Section 165 is exactly the same type of investigation as that under Section 166 and is designed to elicit the same type of information; in any event, there is no question of a criminal liability attaching to the findings of the inspectors because the inspectors' reports are only evidence of their opinion.
But it is the responsibility on the witness responding. Section 168 comes in there.
In the first place, as far as Section 165 is concerned, that substantially is the law as at present. Section 166 is new law. It is important that an investigation should be carried out if a company, by special resolution, itself requires it, or if the court so orders. Section 168 then is consequential on both Sections 165 and 166. It is in the law already as far as the equivalent of Section 165 is concerned. In order, therefore, to conduct a satisfactory investigation under either section, the provisions of Section 168 ought to apply. I do not think there is any distinction.
Does Section 168 apply to Section 165 in the law at the moment ?
It does, except that Section 168 has been elaborated to some extent.
No, what I suggested—I do not want to press the Minister on it—was that it might be useful for the Minister to take rather wider powers of inspection somewhere, say in Section 165, without this liability of witnesses. It is the liability of witnesses that is worrying me. He could reserve that liability for the more formal and weightier procedure in Section 166. I do not think anybody could object to that, but I would ask that in some way some court sanction would be behind the judical powers given to the inspectors here.
Could I raise a point partly on Section 166 and partly on Section 165 ?
Yes; I do not think we can separate them to any great extent.
The power of inspection is, of course, already there. It is not a new arrangement but the effect of these two sections is very greatly to extend it. As I understand the position up to this, the objection to the implementation of the power of inspection has already been—I was going to say " the danger " but I think it is, in fact—the probability that the applicant would have to shoulder the whole costs of the investigation. The Minister's powers at present are discretionary and very rarely exercised. Under Section 166, however, it is mandatory on the Minister to appoint an inspector if the court orders it. Am I right in thinking that is done deliberately in that way for the purpose of ensuring that an inspection is made by order of the court and that then the costs of the inspection will not be borne by the applicant because it will be a mandatory exercise by the Minister of his power ? It seems to me to be a different approach to the existing legal approach entirely. If I correctly understand it, this is an approach that I entirely appreciate. Up to the present the position has been that, while the Minister has a right to appoint an inspector, whoever employs the inspector bears the whole burden of the inspection and that is not desirable. If the other effect would arise because of the mandatory provision of 166 (a), then I would have very much less difficulty in objecting to Section 165 in the form in which it is drafted. I am sure the Chairman appreciates the point.
I can see the point. Can the Minister help us on the question of costs?
In an investigation under Section 166 (a), where the court orders it, the question of costs would not arise for applicants. In other words, the Minister would be presumed to be responsible for any investigation ordered by the court because there would not be, in that event, any particular applicant except of course the person who made the motion before the court. If the court thought fit to direct an investigation, then the Minister must be responsible for the costs, but he might recover from the company concerned under Section 171.
That is what I hope is the effect of it.
In qualification of what I said on Section 171, I should have mentioned that if, following an inquiry, a person is found guilty of some criminal action, then that person could be ordered to pay.
That is fair enough. I think that is an improvement.
Under Section 165, is there any chance that costs would have to be borne by the applicant?
Yes, that could happen.
May I come back to the suggestion I made earlier? If that is not acceptable, then I fail to see why it cannot all be done in one section because, if Section 166(a) is mandatory Section 166(b) is worded " may do so if it appears to the Minister that there are circumstances suggesting . . ." could not (a) and (b) of Section 166 and all of Section 165 be included in one section if that was intended? I do not want to make heavy weather about it.
That point was made all right but it is largely for drafting reasons that it is set out as it stands. Section 165 is existing law; Section 166 is new law.
Some of these points arise in later sections more so than on Section 165. Can we agree on Section 165 at the moment and deal with the other points as they arise?
I move amendment No. 60a :
Before Section 166 to insert a new section as follows:
" (1) In respect of a company in which a controlling interest is held by a Minister of State or his nominees or the wholly-owned subsidiary of such a company the Minister shall appoint one or more competent persons to investigate the affairs of the company and to report thereon in such manner as the Minister directs on the joint application of not less than 20 members of Dáil Éireann.
(2) The application shall be supported by such evidence as the Minister may require for the purpose of showing that the applicants have good reason for requiring the investigation.
(3) The Inspectors' Report shall be laid before Dáil Éireann."
I tabled this amendment in order to draw attention to the fact that these provisions, as drafted, do not seem to be at all suitable for the several State companies which we have registered under the Companies Act. The principle of Section 165 would appear to be that an agreed minority of, roughly speaking, 10 per cent of the shareholders or one-fifth of the members shall have certain rights in taking the initiative in launching an investigation if they feel that there are adequate grounds for doing so. In the case of State companies, in most cases, all the shares are held by the Minister, with the possible exception of shares held by his nominee directors. I suggest that an aggrieved minority should have very considerable rights in regard to State companies on behalf of the general public and that the aggrieved minority might be represented by the Opposition in the Dáil. I think it is desirable to give any considerable group of members of Dáil Éireann, not less than 20 in number the right to require such an inquiry, the report of which should be laid before Dáil Éireann. As you know, we have had in recent months an investigation where the Minister took the initiative under the provision in the Companies Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 165 of this Bill to inquire into the affairs of a subsidiary of one of the State companies. If the Minister had not in fact taken the initiative——
May I intervene ? I am the Minister involved. I did not take the initiative. I acted on the application of the principal shareholders.
No, but you exercised discretion.
If the company concerned, Irish Estates Limited, had not in fact taken the initiative, the Minister would have no power to compel the institution of an inquiry in that case. Still less would the Opposition in Dáil Éireann have any power, except by the very cumbersome procedure of putting down a motion there, to compel an inquiry. My amendment is designed to deal with that state of affairs. I think it is a good one.
I think there are ample provisions in Section 166 at present to enable the Minister to investigate the affairs of a State-sponsored company if he thinks it is necessary. These are in Section 166(b). As far as the Deputy's amendment is concerned, I suggest that it is possible such an investigation could be initiated by 20 members of Dáil Éireann for political purposes. It does not matter what Government is in power or what Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned, nor does it matter what State company would be involved, one can easily envisage circumstances in which the signatures of 20 Deputies could be got for an application such as envisaged in Deputy Byrne's amendment. In any event as the amendment stands, it would not seem to go much further than the law as drafted because subsection (2) of the Deputy's amendment requires that the application shall be supported by such evidence as the Minister may require for the purpose of showing that the applicants have good reason for requiring the investigation.
The Minister obviously has very wide discretion there to defeat the purpose of an application made by 20 members. I would suggest that in the event of a requirement like this being necessary, it should be incorporated in the legislation setting up the State-sponsored company rather than in a general Bill like this. I would suggest, too, that if a Minister, in respect of a particular State-sponsored company for which he was responsible, wanted to circumvent the requirements of Deputy Byrne's amendment, he could easily have a provision inserted in the relevant legislation setting up the company that it was not to be affected by certain provisions of the Companies Acts. Therefore in all the circumstances I do not think the amendment is necessary and in many cases the amendment could be undesirable. My immediate reaction is that I would not be in favour of accepting it.
I think it would be objectionable in the form of 20 members because it would be very easy to get 20 members and perhaps the leaders could avoid responsibility for the action.
Deputy Byrne's amendment provides that the application shall be supported by such evidence as the Minister may require for the purpose of showing that the applicants have good reason for requiring the investigaton, but are we assured that Section 166 does definitely apply to all State companies registered under the Companies Acts?
Yes it does.
Are there any other State organisations which are not registered?
Yes.
The ESB is one.
Bord Fáilte.
Are those the companies you have in mind Deputy ?
No; I have in mind the companies registered under the Companies Act because this Bill does apply to the State-sponsored companies.
It does not apply to the corporation sole.
I might point out that the purpose of these sections, Sections 165 and 166, is to protect the interests of minority shareholders. State-sponsored companies usually operate in the full glare of public opinion, in the full background of political criticism, and the type of misfeasance that might be perpetrated in ordinary companies is hardly likely to occur in State-sponsored companies. Certainly there is no question of protecting the rights of the minority shareholders in State-companies.
It is a very broad question, of course. In regard to the accountability of State-sponsored companies to Parliament, as we all know, many members of the House, on all sides, are aggrieved by the high-handed approach of some State-sponsored companies to Parliamentary representations. This amendment, of course, does not cope with that particular problem. Insofar as subsection (2) of the amendment requires any applicants to provide such evidence as the Minister may require of their good faith, it should deal with the political misuse of these particular provisions. I do not think the Minister has dealt with my point that if Irish Estates Limited or the Minister for Finance as principal shareholder in Irish Estates Limited, had not taken the initiative in the recent case, the Minister himself would have had no power whatever to compel an inquiry. Indeed, he still has no power as far as I know to publish the report of that inquiry and to place it before Dáil Éireann for discussion or otherwise.
Well, on the latter point, the Minister has power to do what he likes with the report. There are statutory obligations which require him to do certain things but the question of his right to place the report, for example, on the Table of the House, is one which is under consideration at the moment in respect of the existing law and will also arise under the new law if it is passed in this form. There are many considerations that apply to the publication of these reports. One of the main considerations relates to the obligations that the Minister might incur under the law of defamation in publishing such a report.
It is not a privileged document?
We are not certain.
Could we not simply meet this—I agree that if there is any doubt it should be met—by a provision in Section 169 that if the Minister does lay such a report on the Table of the House—and I think the table is the proper place—then he is absolutely privileged in respect of it, just the same as if he stands up in the House and in a reply to a question reads the report from beginning to end?
Surely the laying of the document on the Table carries privilege?
I do not think so.
Not necessarily. This question has been raised repeatedly in connection with the current inquiry.
The Minister should take power to fix that, as Deputy Sweetman suggests.
I wonder is that power desirable? It may not always be in the public interest to publish——
I mean a permissive power.
Could we leave that point——
We could come to it in Section 169.
It is very relevant to this particular matter.
It is.
I think Deputy Byrne is right when he says there should be a method by which the Opposition, be it present or future, would be entitled to raise a question in relation to a State company and get the answer to it, and that so far as the Minister is concerned, there must be no possible way of avoiding giving that report merely because he was in doubt as to whether an action for liable might lie against him or not. Let him stand up and say it was not in the public interest to give it and defend himself on that ground if he likes. That is a matter with which the Opposition could cope, but it makes it very difficult for the Opposition to attack the Minister for not putting it on the Table if the Minister's answer is: " I cannot give any guarantee that I might not be up for defamation if I did."
I would be in favour of such a provision because I think it desirable that the Minister should have discretion in regard to publishing a report where there is no danger of an action for defamation.
If the Minister does not publish the report, the Opposition has an appropriate method of making him, which is to put down a vote of censure.
Are all documents laid on the Table not privileged?
It is not certain they are privileged because the Constitution refers, as far as I remember, to words which are read or spoken in the House.
There is some doubt. I think that it goes further than that and that there is some doubt as to whether, when the Minister says " with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I am circulating this in the Official Report " the matter circulated is privileged.
Supposing the Minister reads it ?
Then it is privileged——
It is, but there is some doubt if he inserts it in the Official Report with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, which is nonsense.
——but the Minister may have to move adjournment of the House in order to do that if the report were a lengthy one
Would the Opposition have sufficient protection in sub-paragraph (2) of sub-paragraph (a), which gives any citizen the right to apply to the court for an order in this case, that is without doing it in a Parliamentary way but simply making an application to the court ? In Deputy Byrne's opinion, would that be sufficient protection ?
That puts them to the expense of doing it.
It does.
Sub-paragraph (b) is the discretionary power of the Minister.
As I see it, Deputy Byrne's amendment has two points. The first is that he wishes to ensure that where no question of shareholding was involved, members of the company or anybody else could force the Minister to conduct an investigation into the affairs of a State company which otherwise he might not be prepared to do. The second point is the question of the publication of the inspector's report.
Might I ask a question for reference ? In Section 166 (a) (ii)—" the court by order "—who has the right to go to the court ? Is there any section which so states ? Is that limited ?
Our understanding is that anybody can make an application to the court.
There is nothing hidden away in any section which says any member or any creditor or anything like that ?
No, it is completely open.
It is a matter for the court to decide whether the person is a responsible applicant or not, so to speak ?
And establish a prima facie case that an investigation is necessary.
Just as a matter of interest, it does not say anywhere else who can do it?
No.
If it does not, surely the court will entertain only an application by somebody with something equivalent to an interest ? I cannot go into the court and—take the biggest firm in the country — just because I have been out the previous night and did not like their product—straightaway start to make all sorts of allegations?
You are talking about Carling's, no doubt?
I am not privileged. The point I am making——
I think we are privileged.
The point I am making is that surely the answer of the court in that case would be, if it is a civil matter, to ask : " What is your interest ? " and, if you have no interest, you will not be let go on; and, if it is a criminal matter, you will be politely referred to the Attorney General. Is that not the position ?
Not necessarily.
In a State company, has everybody not got an interest ?
Are we talking about the State companies only tonight?
We are talking about Deputy Byrne's amendment.
Is that not stretching it a bit ? It is a suggestion I should like to pose.
I would suggest to Deputy de Valera that he can leave that to the court.
And the Act is law, and the court says——
Deputy de Valera has put an idea into my mind. I think the phraseology of paragraph (a) (ii) of Section 166 will have to be " the court by order may by motion by any person ". It will have to be made clear that a member of the Oireachtas, for example, would have the right to go in, if he wished. If it is not so, then the court will be inherently restricted to saying that it must be either a member of the company, before they will hear you at all.
And do you want to give that power urbi et orbi in the case of companies ?
Yes. Let them go in at their own peril of having an order for costs awarded against them, if the court regards them as being frivolous. It is the right of every citizen to approach the courts, as of right, to get relief if he considers—not if we consider—he has a grievance; and, if the court declares he has no grievance, he will pay for his consideration that he has. It is a right that is there and it is an essential right of a free democracy.
But I think you are making a serious inroad on both the principles of ordinary law and company law if you suggest anybody can go in and investigate—make an application and investigate the affairs of any company without showing an interest in it. For instance, I cannot sue Deputy Sweetman in the broad. If I am going to sue him, I must sue in relation to a specific interest I have against him. I cannot just go and bring Deputy Sweetman into court and put him in the position where he has to show cause.
No.
It is the plaintiff who must show cause.
But the motion here is to show a prima facie case that the company is being rottenly run or mismanaged.
There is nothing to prevent Deputy de Valera bringing Deputy Sweetman into court to answer almost any fact of law—company, tort, or anything else.
But I have to make it specific. To put in what Deputy Sweetman is suggesting savours of the idea that I can walk in, without showing any particular interest, and have the right to have my application heard, without first of all showing my prima facie interest. It is to that I object. I have no objection to anyone doing it, but he must show interest. Deputy Sweetman could have a point to go as far as he is going—to go that distance—but I say he has gone too far. You will have to qualify him again to show cause for his application. Otherwise, if you have “ the court by order of any person ”, it might be wide enough and a Supreme Court decision already in one of these cases might bring about the position in which somebody walking down the street takes it into his head to walk into some company in the street and have it investigated; the whole thing is set in motion then even though he may have to face the costs business at the end of it. Men of straw have been provoked to bring actions before now.
Surely, if I go into court and say I want to have X, Y or Z company investigated, I will be met with : " Why? Where is your prima facie evidence that there is anything wrong?” If I cannot produce the prima facie evidence, my application is thrown out, with costs, whereas, if I can produce the evidence, then the court will presumably consider the evidence I produce; and the evidence I produce on a motion made will be the equivalent of the statement of claim in the case that Deputy de Valera mentions. That is my understanding of it.
We are at one in what we want to do, but I am suggesting that if you do it broadly by putting in merely " by any person " you do want to qualify it by having something to put the burden of making a prima facie case on the person. This is a new Act and if we put into a new Act like this that the Minister may, or that a person may, apply to have the affairs of a company investigated, and you stop at that, the court might easily interpret that word “ may ” as giving the person just the simple right to have the affairs of the company investigated. It is a question of interpretation.
Paragraph (ii) of (a) would run " or if the court by order sees fit to do " or " if the court by order sees fit to request after motion made by any person." I want the court to have the discretion. I want the court to get the prima facie rumble that there is something there, but I do not want—I want to meet Deputy Byrne to this extent—to be met at the door of the court with : “ You are neither a member of the company nor are you a creditor and, therefore, no matter whether you were an ex-Minister, or a member of the Dáil or Seanad, you have no business coming and asking us to hear you under this.” As long as we have some basis, plus, shall we say, the basis of attacking the Minister under (b)——
I still disagree. I still think that where the legislation is as tight as it will be here, and where you have a situation that can be so easily abused, the principle of interest is a good one. I admit the public have an interest as well as creditors and shareholders, but I think some safeguard to avoid vexatious or frivolous actions is needed, something more than costs. Remember it is very easy to make corporations pay costs. That is the tendency. They are an impersonal thing. Somehow or other, in a case like that, I think there should be some limitation, or specific provision, as to interest at the earliest stage to prevent abuses.
I am sorry. I was led off by an odoriferous herring of Deputy de Valera's.
I was about to intervene to say so.
We are on Deputy Byrne's amendment. I think the Minister is not quite right when he says that he can be made entirely amenable in the Dáil under paragraph (b), without Deputy Byrne's amendment. Under subsection (ii)—fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct—what is misconduct there ? Does that not virtually mean that the Ministerial discretion is entirely restricted to a suspicion, if you like to use the word, of a criminal offence ? While I am prepared to go a good part of the way in saying that that is desirable for an ordinary company, I think it is totally insufficient for a State company. Mismanagement or a suspicion of mismanagement by members of the Oireachtas should be enough to give the Minister not a mandatory power but the discretion to appoint an inspector ; and, if he does not appoint an inspector, then we will give him the works in the Dáil, or the future Opposition will. But I do not think that the Minister has any power to provide inspection of a State company unless the Deputies who want it investigated are prepared to go the distance and say: " We suspect criminal acts." As I understand it, what Deputy Byrne has in mind is that he wants to have a State company investigated, properly so, where there is a strong suspicion of something wrong, but not criminally wrong.
On Deputy Byrne's amendment, I would suggest that it should not be taken as an amendment here. The section stands, but there have been to date, and will be again, I am sure, specific references to State companies incorporated under this Act. I suggest that the whole problem be dealt with in a separate section at the end of the Act. I suggest this should be postponed to a separate section dealing with these companies, if there is anything in particular to be added or clarified.
The Minister and Deputy Cosgrave will confirm that the methods of investigation of State companies has been a matter that has occupied the attention of successive Ministers in successive Governments and successive Committees without any satisfactory solution ever having been discovered. The only thing everybody will agree about is that it is not satisfactory at present, and I think that is true not merely of this country but others as well. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the proper thing to do is to have something on the lines of the Committee of Public Accounts—in other words, to have a committee for State companies in respect of which the committee members would act as members of an ordinary company would act at their annual general meeting, with the right to quiz their directors—something like that but, of course, that is probably not the view per se.
I should dearly love to follow Deputy Sweetman on that line.
You would sir, if you were not in the Chair.
I would if given half a chance.
If I might make a suggestion that might meet the amendment: if I expanded subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of Section 166 on the lines suggested by Deputy Sweetman—the court may by order on the application of a member, creditor, or a person who shows to the satisfaction of the court that he has an interest in the company—that might meet it. Leave it to the court to decide.
I think that is worse. That restricts it more than at present. Once you say a person has an interest in the company, then you restrict it even more than you do at present.
Deputy Sweetman's suggestion was any person—on motion made by any person.
Might I say also that there are two difficulties. If you expand the right of a person under subparagraph (ii) to go to the court, you automatically, by so doing, give the Minister an alibi for not proceeding under clause (b) because he can say: " Oh, well, if you are so interested as all that you can go to the court ".
That is right, yes.
What I want to do more than to go to the court, really, is to be able to harry the Minister in the Dáil if he refuses to appoint an investigation into a State company.
It is completely undesirable that parliamentarians should be required to go outside Parliament to enforce public rights.
But we have separate legislation for the formation of all these State companies and so far as any provision is necessary for the investigation or regulation of these companies, the place for doing so is surely the place where the legislation setting up that particular State body is proposed.
I think the place for dealing with them when they are all sui generis is here. We do not want to have one power of investigation for the sugar company, say, and another for the grassmeal company.
Surely they are not sui generis with every form of commercial company.
Could we hear from the Minister how many State companies are registered under the Companies Act ? I asked a Parliamentary Question some time ago and I got a reply that there are three such companies under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. What I want to get is not merely the number under the control of the Minister but the number registered under the Companies Act, no matter which Minister's control they are under.
You have to put down a question to each member of the Government under Standing Orders to elicit that information. It seems a ridiculous procedure but it is there. If you look back approximately three years, I put down 13 such questions and we could, perhaps bring them up to date by 13 new questions. There was a recent question by Deputy Corish asking each Minister in respect of State-sponsored companies for which he was responsible for information regarding remuneration.
I think there might be something like 20 companies or more involved. I cannot remember exactly but I imagine it would be not less than 20.
There is a certain number of semi-charitable ones.
I find myself facing conflicting points of view arising indirectly out of Deputy Byrne's amendment. First, Deputy de Valera suggests that sub-paragraph (a) (ii) of Section 166 should be restricted confining action under the sub-paragraph to people who have, or can establish interest in the company, as members, creditors or otherwise. Deputy Sweetman, as far as I understand, would like the sub-paragraph expanded to ensure that anybody, irrespective of showing an interest, would have the right to go to court for an order under the section.
I am becoming a little frightened frankly when you put it in that way. Deputy Byrne has given me second thoughts by his statement of the principle that parliamentarians should not have to go to anybody except Parliament to ensure public rights. I think that is a very sound principle and he has converted me quite a long way back. He has rather converted me towards Deputy de Valera's view, although, I am sure, he did not mean that. Per se, there must be something wrong with Deputy Byrne’s amendment in that case.
Does that mean you are converted back to Deputy Byrne's original amendment?
I am, I am afraid.
We have discussed this very fully. Would the Minister be prepared to consider the matter if Deputy Byrne——
I am not prepared to consider the matter to the extent of accepting Deputy Byrne's amendment as it stands but I would go this far, that is, to the extent of including 20 Deputies as a unit of application to the court under (a) (ii) of Section 166 but I know that would not meet the principle enunciated by both Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Byrne that parliamentarians should not be obliged to go outside Parliament to seek redress.
Surely the Minister agrees it is a good principle ?
It is a good principle, but I can well imagine circumstances in which vexatious motions could be made by Deputies to embarrass particular State bodies.
Forgive me if I say I would not be prepared to go as far as he goes when he says: " The Minister shall . . .". I think " The Minister may . . ." would be adequate and I suggest the Minister should consider this at any rate and that in relation to paragraph (b) of Section 166, there should be added a sub-clause " for or in respect of a State company if requested by 20 members of the Oireachtas."
Yes, I shall consider that.
I shall withdraw the amendment.
