Vol. 255 No. 5
asked the Taoiseach whether, in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970 it is proposed to introduce any amending legislation; and, if so, if he will give particulars.
2.
asked the Taoiseach if, in the context of the recent decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970, he will state whether it is proposed to bring in legislation amending the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.
3.
(Cavan) asked the Taoiseach if, in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970, it is proposed to introduce legislation to amend any existing statutes; and, if so, if he will give details.
with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. The matters raised by these questions are being considered by the appropriate Departments. It will be necessary to examine all the implications of the judgment in order to determine fully the nature and extent of any amending legislation that may be necessary.
It would appear now that the implication of the judgment is that this House can no longer inquire into anything; that we cannot set up any committee to inquire into any matter in respect of which this House considers an inquiry to be necessary. Would the Taoiseach accept that?
I do not think it would be right to go that far. The Act that was passed in this House was found in one part to be repugnant to the Constitution but the basic Act by implication was not necessarily so found, that is, the 1920 Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.
(Cavan): In relation to Question No. 3, has the Taoiseach made any inquiries, or have his legal advisers briefed him as to the number of Acts that may be unconstitutional either in whole or in part arising out of the Supreme Court decision in the Public Accounts case?
That is one of the matters that is being investigated in the various Departments. Some Acts now in existence were referred to and to an extent, by implication, they may have offended against the Constitution but they were not stated specifically in the judgment to have so offended. These are the matters that are being considered.
(Cavan): Would the Taoiseach agree that there is the general belief abroad that there are several Acts affected by this decision and would he consider it desirable that the inquiries which he has initiated, or which are being made, presumably, by the Attorney General, should be completed as soon as possible so that people will know exactly where they stand?
I agree entirely. The Departments, of their own volition, have already undertaken investigations in respect of their own legislation.
Will the opinion of the Attorney General be sought?
It will if it is required in the event of amending legislation but apart from whether it is required the question arises as to whether each Act will have to be amended or whether one Act would cover whatever defects may be found in other legislation.
In view of the repercussions of the judgment in respect of the standing of this House, would the Taoiseach consider that the time is opportune to reconvene the all-party committee on the Constitution which, after all, produced only an interim report?
There is a committee already—the committee set up to consider procedure in the House. It would be appropriate if that committee consider any problem that might arise and then report to the House.
The Constitution was certainly a factor in the judgment. Could the Taoiseach indicate to the House when the investigations of his advisers are likely to be concluded and might we have information in this regard before the recess?
We may have information. I could not be sure of that but it would not be possible before then to introduce any amending legislation that might be found necessary.
Why not?
These matters require a lot of time.
The offending Act did not take very long.
That probably was the trouble.
I accept that. Having the benefit of the Supreme Court's view and on receipt of the advice of the various Departments, would it not be possible for the House to deal fully and expeditiously with the matter?
I am sure it would but I would like to give the Departments plenty of time so as to ensure that any legislation proposed and which might be brought before the House would be legislation that we could stand over.
And give the House a little time also.
