I am pleased our visitors from Russia are here today rather than on Wednesday because I doubt in that fledgling democracy there that they would have been impressed with this one, which is 70 years old. I apologise to my colleague, Minister of State Deputy Noel Treacy, who wished to speak on this matter but cannot do so because of the order of the House. Unlike the spectacle here on Wednesday — which shocked me and caused me to re-evaluate my belief in the fairness of Members of this House — I look around and note that not a single Member of the Opposition is present. They appear to have decided they have done their job. Deputy Barrett is now entering. They have made certain that Fianna Fáil cannot form a Government with any party and are huddled outside in little groups wondering whether they will get a job.
I agree with many of the points made by Deputies opposite, but there are aspects of this Bill with which I am unhappy, many of which have been highlighted by various speakers. The most important aspect of the Bill as drafted, on which Deputy O'Malley and others touched, is that if people use it and their constitutional rights and protections to the full extent this committee will be longer-running than Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" in London. If a witness mentions the name of another person, that person has the right to be heard and if he or she mentions the name of somebody else that person also has the right to be called and to call his own witnesses. That is not on. There is no way that those on this side of the House who have been accused, tried and executed by the media and Members opposite wish the inquiry to continue for that length of time. That would not be fair and would go against all the concepts of natural justice. We are not trying to delay this Bill but we would expect our constitutional rights to be vindicated. The only answer to this is the one I proposed to the Whips yesterday and hope to discuss with them before Tuesday next; we must set up a new more sharply focused committee which would consist of fewer Members, in which strict procedures would be adhered to by the chairperson. Such a committee is necessary if we are to avoid this matter going on ad infinitum.
Many important issues were raised during the debate, such as the extent of privilege, compellability and the right to natural justice for ordinary citizens, officials and Ministers. Some Members do not believe Ministers should have constitutional rights. I am a citizen of the State. I will answer in the House for the way I conduct my business as a Minister of State, but if a person tries to impugn my integrity — which is worth more to me than a ministerial position — I will use my full constitutional rights to vindicate that without apology. Neither will I give any person the right to tell lies about me or any of my colleagues and expect to be indemnified.
Deputy Ferris may have given the impression that I wish to amend the legislation so that it would apply to other committees of the House and I acknowledge that he did not mean to give that impression. I told him that if Members decide, rather than pursue this matter in the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, a new committee should be set up, I would introduce an amendment to cover that. I want this legislation to cover any committee set up specifically to deal with this matter.
I acknowledge Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's point about dismissing the popular motion that people should not be entitled to receive costs. Witnesses called before this committee may be subjected to questioning from senior counsel. If the procedures are not changed and the committee takes as long as I believe it will to deal with the matter before it how can we expect witnesses to attend on a daily basis over a long period? They would need somebody to look after their interests, and I certainly could not afford the legal costs that would entail.
Since its foundation, my party has been described as "slightly constitutional". From what I heard in the House today, it appears we will have plenty of company in the future. If some of the points made today are true, we are probably the only party which is in any way slightly constitutional. Many of the Members opposite appear to hold an unconstitutional view in that they do not believe a person should have a right to cross examine, to legal representation and so on. It is all very fine to come in here and quote examples from the United States, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, Australia and so on, but none of those places has a Constitution similar to ours. We must compare like with like. It is facile to use the examples of the United States and elsewhere when our Constitution does not allow for that and it should not be inferred that people are trying to hide behind the Constitution.
On the question of constitutionality, some Members suggested that the Dáil can set its own business as provided for in the Constitution and that, therefore, people's constitutional rights can be disregarded. I would remind Deputies of the case instituted by a Member of the Seanad regarding the procedures of the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges where the High Court granted a judicial review of the procedures followed by that committee. Let nobody tell me that this house can infringe on a person's constitutional rights and expect to get away with it. The courts will defend the constitutional rights of Members of this House and examine the procedures of the House, if necessary.
Members referred to the question of compellability which is not provided for in the Bill. However, as a result of comments from Members on all sides, I understand the Attorney General is reconsidering this matter because there would be no legal redress against a person who refuses a request for information from a witness and that would make a joke of the committee. I appreciate the impatience of Deputies in regard to arrangements which could have the potential to hamper this inquiry, but the Government must be guided by the Attorney General on constitutional matters. Unlike some other Members, I do not have a legal background, I am not a legal practitioner. All I can do when matters such as this arise is refer them to the Attorney General for his consideration and I undertake to do that.
Deputy Mitchell spoke eloquently on the necessity for a legal officer for committees of the House. While his opinion and mine may differ on many matters — and he did not do himself or his party any justice on Wednesday last — I have always maintained that he is deeply committed to the procedures and committees of this House and to the supremacy of Parliament, and I am ad idem with him in that regard. As Chief Whip for the past three years I have introduced many reforms. In terms of a legal officer for committees of the House, in recent months we arranged for the provision of advice in a manner which does not impinge on the Attorney General. In the draft Bill on privilege and compellability introduced yesterday, it was acknowledged that the House would need a legal officer and provision for that was made in the Estimates for the coming year.
I join with my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, in saying that we are more than willing to answer whatever questions need to be answered. We did not raise the difficulty about privilege and compellability, but once raised it had to be addressed. The Bill is an attempt to address that matter; it is rushed legislation and, as pointed out by Members, there are many flaws in it. On Committee Stage, for which we have allowed four hours on Tuesday next, those issues must be addressed in a clear and concise manner. Despite what I may have said earlier, a number of Members who spoke in this debate made very considered contributions. I thank them for so doing.
I want to avail of this opportunity to say that one thing we can say about Wednesday's proceedings — I am glad the media were fair enough to say so even though others, for their own political reasons afterwards would not agree — is that the media were fair enough to comment that the Chairman of that committee, Deputy Dan Wallace who is sitting beside me, made an excellent job of endeavouring to chair that committee in very difficult and exceptional circumstances. I want to express my thanks to him. If anybody did anything for democracy on Wednesday last — and it is questionable if anybody else did — Deputy Dan Wallace did. The impartial manner in which he endeavoured to chair that committee has enhanced his stature among Members and the general public and he deserves to be commended.
