Alan M. Dukes
Ceist:4 Mr. Dukes asked the Taoiseach if he considers that the limits of the privilege conferred on Members of the Oireachtas by Article 15.13 of the Constitution need to be defined more clearly.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Constitution and Powers.
Patrick McCartan
Ceist:5 Mr. McCartan asked the Taoiseach if the Government will consider proposing an amendment to Article 15.13 of the Constitution to clarify more precisely the appropriate circumstances under which Members of the Oireachtas may claim privilege from arrest in going to and returning from the precincts of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Dick Spring
Ceist:6 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach whether he considers that clarification of the privilege from arrest for the purposes of Article 15.13 of the Constitution is needed; and if he proposes to bring in legislation on the matter.
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.
Article 15.13 of the Constitution states that when a Member of either House is going to or returning from the House the only circumstances in which he may be arrested is for treason, felony or breach of the peace. In the case of other offences he may not be arrested.
The immunity given by Article 15 to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas is of long standing — Article 18 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State provided an identical immunity — and has in fact been regarded as a necessary protection for the Oireachtas from interference with its proceedings by the Executive or its agents.
There may be a case to have the constitutional principle more precisely defined by legislation. If this view is widely held I would be happy to have that question examined by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Is the Taoiseach not aware that there has recently been a case where it appears that this privilege may have been abused? Can the Taoiseach confirm for me that it would be improper for this House, or, indeed, for the Government, to make rules or regulations interpreting that particular Article in the Constitution? Can the Taoiseach tell us whether there is any means open to the Government under which the Supreme Court could be asked to give a clearer more detailed interpretation of what that provision can actually be taken to mean?
I do not know that that would be a very sensible way to proceed. I think it would be a matter primarily for this House to look into these matters if that is the wish. There are a number of principles outlined in the Constitution which are subsequently elaborated on by legislation. The legislation indicates how the particular principle should be given effect to or implemented. If the wish of the House is that this particular constitutional provision, which I must again emphasise is here for the protection of Members of this House basically against any possible interference by an Executive at some stage with their privileges, should be more precisely elaborated, refined or defined, then that is something we might look at through some House mechanism, such as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and then decide whether we should legislate in detail.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would accept——
On a point of order, it is normal when there are three or more questions that each person is allowed to ask a supplementary first.
This is what the Chair strives to attain but there are times when a Member is entitled to a second bite of the cherry, so to speak.
I would ask the Taoiseach to accept that there is a view in this House that that particular provision needs clearer definition and specification. Would the Taoiseach accept — and I would like to have his advice on this matter — that it would be improper for this House to take on itself the rôle of interpreting the Constitution? Would he not also accept that in all the cases in the Constitution where a constitutional provision is interpreted or elaborated on by legislation, specific provision is made for that in the Article of the Constitution? That is not the case in this instance. Can the Taoiseach tell the House whether there is a mechanism available either to the House, as he suggests, or to the Supreme Court which can be used in order to give a clearer definition of what is intended in that Article?
The normal way that would be explored would be if a case were brought all the way up to the Supreme Court and then through the normal judicial court procedures, the Supreme Court would interpret the particular constitutional provision. That would be the usual way of proceeding. I am not suggesting that this House should attempt to interpret the Constitution; what I am suggesting is that there may be some case for elaborating by legislation the implementation, operation and the circumstances in which this particular constitutional provision would operate. There may be a case for doing that by legislation, but that is different from interpreting the principle in the Constitution. The situation might then be that the Supreme Court, in due course, would decide whether the legislation we enacted to elaborate the constitutional principle was in itself constitutional. However, I think it is something that could be examined.
I am calling Deputies in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper, Deputy McCartan.
Will the Taoiseach accept that minor infractions, such as breach of the peace, are not offences from which a Deputy or Senator can be exempt? Would he also accept that the application of the rule in the context of drunk driving, or alleged drunk driving, or a refusal to give specimens, are clearly offences not contemplated by the Article? Would he consider those facts to represent an abuse? May I ask the Taoiseach in the context of the recent case does the Taoiseach as Leader of the Party of which that person is a member, intend taking any particular action to bring his views to bear on members of his party about the use of this privilege?
I have allowed general questions on the amendment of the relevant Article in the Constitution. I am not going to allow specific questions relating to a matter which is clearly sub judice, and the case will, I understand, come before the courts on 29 March.
It has been publicly acknowledged.
Deputy McCartan, please desist.
It is not for me to say what should or should not come within a particular constitutional provision. That is a matter for law officers, for the courts and for others. It would be entirely inappropriate for me — following Deputy Dukes's line of argument — to attempt to give an interpretation of a constitutional provision. The constitutional provision is clearly stated but we might consider, if we think it desirable, whether that clear statement of principle in the Constitution should be further defined by law. That is a reasonable approach.
As leader of his party, does the Taoiseach not consider that the reported invocation of immunity under Article 15.13 of our Constitution by a member of his party in extremely dubious circumstances, reflects badly on all Members of this House and, in view of that, will the Taoiseach take some action in this matter?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I again admonish Deputies not to refer to a matter which is sub judice.
This matter is not sub judice.
The Chair accepts the statement of the Government that it is sub judice.
I should say I do not answer parliamentary questions here as leader of my party, but as Taoiseach.
You have responsibility in this matter——
You have a responsibility, too, for your party. We all have a responsibility of a different type for the behaviour of members of our parties.
——which you do not seem to be taking.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of information, could the Chair say when the Government indicated that this matter was sub judice?
I have made my statement on the matter. I have said categorically I understand that the case hinted at in this House will come before Court No. 6 on 29 March next.
I accept that, but I suggest that when, the Chair subsequently said the Government had indicated the matter was sub judice that is not the case.
It is a long-standing tradition in this House that the Chair accepts the statement of the appropriate member of the Government as to whether a matter is sub judice.
Although I listened attentively to what he had to say, I do not recall the Taoiseach saying, although he may have communicated it to the Ceann Comhairle's office on an earlier occasion, that the matter was sub judice.
Deputy Quinn will appreciate that the Chair carries out his own investigations into such matters.
Do I take it that the Government indicated——
Let us not argue about the matter, Deputy.
I am not arguing, I am only trying to——
The Deputy is arguing.
On a point of information——
I have set out the position of the Chair. I have nothing further to add.
On a point of order, can the Chair indicate the date on which he was notified that this matter was sub judice, and did that date predate the announcement by the law officers of the State that they were not pursuing a prosecution?
I have made a statement on the matter. I will not allow my ruling to be questioned in this fashion.
The House is entitled to that information. Did the information conveyed to the Chair by the Government predate the announcement by the law officers of this State that they were not pursuing the prosecution?
A final question to Deputy Spring.
Are we not entitled to this information? I must protest. We are entitled to this information.
I have given the information I have to the House.
You have given us incomplete information.
I have stated that the matter is sub judice and that is that.
It is not.
The Government are not involved in this matter.
The Chair said so.
The Chair said so.
The Chair says that the Government gave the information but the Taoiseach is now saying that they are not involved at all.
The Chair makes his inquiries from the usual sources of authority in these matters.
Earlier you stood over a statement by the Government that the matter was sub judice. The Taoiseach says, in fact, that the Government did not convey any information to you.
It is a long-standing tradition in this House that the Chair accepts the statements of a member of the Government as to whether a matter is sub judice and there are many precedents for that.
On a point of order, perhaps the Chair will consider this matter and perhaps later on in today's business the Chair will take an opportunity to clarify this.
No, I will not.
Have statutory consultations taken place between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to this matter?
I am not aware whether or not they have. My understanding is that matters of this kind are dealt with entirely by the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with the statutory functions bestowed on him by this House. The Director of Public Prosecutions is charged by this House with dealing with matters of this kind and it would be totally wrong for the Government to appear to be involved in any way in the deliberations or actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I think the Taoiseach has indicated he is open to considering among the parties in this House whether action might not be taken to clarify this. Whatever about that, does the Taoiseach intend to take any action within his own party to clarify the proper place, function and use of this privilege?
That would not be appropriate.
It would be entirely appropriate.
We are dealing here with a matter of the law under the Constitution. It is not a party matter.
We are dealing with a matter of practice.
If you want to make it a party matter, I would ask you to inquire into what happened in your party on a similar occasion.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 7.
I wish to ask one final question. Would the Taoiseach not agree that as democratically elected representatives in this House, having the protection of the Constitution, there is an overriding responsibility on all Members, particularly the Taoiseach, to ensure that the privileges we enjoy by virtue of our elected status are not abused? Will the Taoiseach take every possible measure open to him as Taoiseach and leader of his party to ensure that the public perception of this privilege is not misinformed by actions of any Member from whatever side of this House?
I fully agree with that with one exception, that the behaviour and the decorum of Members of this House is not exclusively, nor would it be desirable, a matter for the members of the Government. That would be an invidious position. We have a Committee on Procedure and Privileges which is charged with the sort of issues with which the Deputy is referring and I would wish that all these matters be dealt with carefully and scrupulously by that committee.
You should have said that 20 minutes ago.
He did.