Vol. 420 No. 4
15 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce legislation to allow Oireachtas committees to compel witnesses to attend and to be examined under oath, so as to allow the Oireachtas itself the option and capacity to conduct inquiries of this kind that it must now direct to be conducted by judicial inquiries at considerably greater cost to the taxpayer.
29 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce legislation to allow Oireachtas committees to compel witnesses to attend and be examined under oath, so as to allow the Oireachtas itself the option and capacity to conduct inquiries of this kind that it must now direct to be conducted by judicial inquiries at considerably greater cost to the taxpayer.
36 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce legislation to allow Oireachtas committees to compel witnesses to attend and be examined under oath, so as to allow the Oireachtas itself the option and capacity to conduct inquiries of this kind that it must now direct to be conducted by judicial inquiries at considerably greater cost to the taxpayer.
55 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce legislation to allow Oireachtas committees to compel witnesses to attend and be examined under oath, so as to allow the Oireachtas itself the option and capacity to conduct inquiries of this kind that it must now direct to be conducted by judicial inquiries at considerably greater cost to the taxpayer.
68 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce legislation to allow Oireachtas committees to compel witnesses to attend and be examined under oath, so as to allow the Oireachtas itself the option and capacity to conduct inquiries of this kind that it must now direct to be conducted by judicial inquiries at considerably greater cost to the taxpayer.
111 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance if he intends meeting the Government commitment to extend privilege to witnesses attending parliamentary committees and giving power to committees to compel attendance of witnesses.
112 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce legislation to allow Oireachtas Committees to compel witnesses to attend and be examined under oath, so as to allow the Oireachtas itself the option and the capacity to conduct inquiries of this kind that it must now direct to be conducted by judicial inquiries at considerably greater cost to the taxpayer.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 29, 36, 55, 68, 111 and 112 together. As previously indicated, this matter has been examined in my own and other Departments in recent months and the views of the Attorney General on how to give effect to new arrangements in this area have also been obtained. Arising from this examination, it has become clear that implementation of arrangements of the kind mentioned by the Deputies might have significant implications for the manner in which Oireachtas committees conduct their business. I would, accordingly, think it necessary when introducing legislation on these issues to discuss this matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I intend to do so at an early date.
Would the Minister not agree that the meat industry tribunal is costing taxpayers a lot of money and will cost more; that people are very worried about the cost of tribunals of this kind and that, therefore, there would be public support for the idea of giving Oireachtas committees some of the kinds of powers that are enjoyed by committees in the US Congress and also in parliaments elsewhere, including the neighbouring island, to enable them to investigate matters of this kind under oath? Would the Minister agree that we would be both saving money and also giving the Dáil a useful job to do in dealing with issues that arise from time to time by allowing committees of the Dáil the power, if the Dáil agrees, to conduct some of the inquiries that now cost a lot more when conducted by judicial tribunals?
Deputy Bruton has a point. These tribunals are a mounting cost for any Minister for Finance. I have been looking at the issues. Like Deputy Bruton I am a believer in the committee system.
Let me make a few points on the down-side — there would be no point in my going through the positive side. We will have a chance at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to iron out some of these arguments. The Oireachtas committees at present adopt a practical and pragmatic approach to their terms of reference. In general Members are allowed to put whatever questions the chairman considers relevant, and they can and do from time to time interpret these terms of reference rather loosely. It works well and the civil servants who go before the committees answer well. My understanding from legal advisers is that once witnesses are compelled to attend committees and face penalties if they do not answer questions, this position would have to change and the protection of a witness's constitutional rights in that situation would require the terms of reference of the committees to be tightened up and would require committee members in any inquiries they pursue to adhere strictly to their terms of reference. In addition, the witnesses may have a right to know the precise procedure under which the committee operate.
While I have sympathy for the objectives of enhancing the powers of Oireachtas committees, there are dangers that such changes, if not carefully worked out, might pose a threat to elements of our present committee system which we all regard as very valuable. As this is a matter of such fundamental importance to the House the Committee on Procedure and Privileges are the group best fitted to express their views on it. There are many arguments which I do not need to go through as they will be in my memorandum.
is the Minister aware that there is a number of committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts, which have the right, as bestowed on them by this House to send for persons, papers and records but are not in a position to apply a penalty in the event of someone not complying with such demands. Would the Minister agree that that is totally anomalous and needs to be changed? Is he aware that the Constitution refers to this House as the House of representatives, not just as a Legislature but as a body which is supposed to hold executive and other responsibilities. Is he further aware that in 1976 the Privileges Act passing through this House had in it a section which permitted witnesses to be compelled to attend before committees and it was only deleted when the then Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Lynch, persuaded the Taoiseach of the day, Mr. Cosgrave, that they did not need these powers? Legislation is there which shows exactly how it can be done. Finally, is the Minister further aware that under existing legislation the Ceann Comhairle does have the power to confer on any committee of this House the power to carry out examinations under oath?
I am aware of most of those points because I have been involved in some fairly contentious issues over the years. The Deputy will agree, however, that the real world is not so simple. In any move we make in this area there is the major issue of rights, what kind of privilege would be bestowed on these committees and whether privilege would be the same for everybody. This is something I feel strongly about and which will be addressed in my paper which will be discussed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I acknowledge the general thrust of Deputy Bruton's remarks which he has been stating consistently for a number of years. However, we are a relatively small parliament. If we take on some major inquiries we must take into consideration the time involved. Without going into the issues that we have to resolve, it is not as simple as saying we will do this, that or the other. This is an area that I have an open mind on and my paper tries to address the issues in a positive fashion. Naturally I have to deal with the legal issues as I have been advised.
With the utmost personal respect to the Minister, let me suggest that his response to my first supplementary question, to the effect that there would be dangers in chairpersons of committees not acting in a judicious fashion in the way they exercise their powers, is potentially a reflection on Members of this House in so far as it is implied that one can trust judges, accountants and others to conduct inquiries in a fair minded fashion but one could not trust elected representatives to do so. Would the Minister not agree that so long as elected representatives of any party are given adequate legal advice in the conduct of such inquiries, public representatives can be trusted entirely, whatever party they belong to, to conduct an inquiry in a fair minded fashion, that they have proven themselves capable of doing so on many occasions in the history of this State and that therefore, there should be no fear in the matter of conferring power on committees of this House?
Deputy Bruton is twisting my words. In listing some of the issues that have to be addressed on the negative side, what I said was that Oireachtas committees by definition consist of politicians and, rightly or wrongly, there would be an impression among the public that individual committee members might approach an inquiry in a political way rather than with the impartiality associated with an independent judiciary. That is one of the issues that must be addressed. I am confident that this House will deal speedily with the various issues involved. We have to deal with the legal questions and the question of pivilege and come to an agreement. I will submit my paper to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges shortly.
Is the Minister aware that the Committee of Public Accounts reached agreement, on an all-party basis, on a difficult report on Carysfort at no additional cost to the State? I think all concerned would acknowledge that that was a good and thorough report. However, at the same time enormous fees are being paid to people outside this House in relation to the Greencore inquiry, the Telecom inquiry and the Beef Tribunal etc. Would the Minister acknowledge this? Second, in addition to the powers of the Ceann Comhairle in relation to oaths and the 1976 Act which deals with the question of pivilege in its original form is the Minister aware that senior counsel's opinion was appended to the special report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the future role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the committee on how privilege can be extended and withdrawn from witnesses and on how penalties can be imposed constitutionally on witnesses who refuse to attend.
I invite the Minister to make a short reply as we have exceeded the time available by seven minutes.
While the Carysfort report is a good example and even though a good job was done in that area I think Deputy Mitchell would acknowledge that many civil servants were involved and that my own Department co-operated fully without getting into the legal questions, as they could have, because the questioning was intense. However, they wanted to co-operate fully. We will also have to deal with the question of whether we should change the procedures. While I am aware that the opinion of senior counsel was appended to the report on the future role of the Comptroller and Auditor General I have to follow the advice of the Government's legal adviser, the Attorney General, and not the advice of independent counsel.
A final short question from Deputy De Rossa.
I would like to ask if, with the agreement of the House, the Minister could deal with Question No. 16 which is in my name? I have been waiting for one and a quarter hours to reach it.
The other business, Deputy, must finish at 5 p.m.
The House might agree to the suggestion that the Minister should read the reply and that I be allowed to ask a brief supplementary.
If we were to start indulging in this ad hocery we would not proceed as ordered by the House. I am obliged to carry out the order of the House and I am sure Deputy Shatter, Deputy McCartan and the Minister of State are anxious to get on with their business as ordered.
I have no difficulty with the suggestion that the Minister read out the answer.
It will be circulated in the Official Report. The Deputy should accept a written reply.
The Minister should read the answer.
It is very long.
It is a very long answer and would lead to very long supplementaries. Therefore, I regret that we must move on.
