Committee Reports::Final Report - Northern Ireland Relief Expenditure::29 June, 1971::Proceedings of the Joint Committee

Deputy Patrick Hogan (in the Chair), Deputies Barrett, R. Burke, E. Collins, FitzGerald, H. Gibbons, Keating, MacSharry, and Nolan.

3. Mr. E. F. Suttle (Comptroller and Auditor General) was in attendance in an advisory capacity, accompanied by Mr. S. Mac Gearailt.

4. A request by Deputy Nolan that a pairing be arranged in respect of Deputy Tunney who, he stated, was abroad on official business, was not acceded to by the Committee.

5. The Committee took into consideration the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of the Committee and P. Haughey.

“The Committee is proceeding with the inquiry as ordered by the Dáil, and when it has completed the taking of evidence it will make a report to the Dáil.”,

the Chairman to let it be understood that the making of an interim report was being considered.

8. The Committee noted Deputy MacSharry’s statement to it that the motion of which notice was given on 24 June in his name and in that of Deputy Tunney was being deferred because of the absence abroad on official business of Deputy Tunney and in view of the Committee’s decision of today as announced by the Chairman.

“That Mr. John Kelly and Mr. Paraic Haughey be summoned at the earliest date to give evidence and that if they fail to attend or refuse to answer relevant questions legally required to be answered, an interim report be made to the Dáil seeking substitute legislation.”

Ordered: that it be recorded in the preceedings of the Committee that Deputy Nolan had stated that in his opinion the motion by Deputy FitzGerald in fact consisted of two motions.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 72, there being an equality of votes, the Question was decided in the negative.

1. In its Interim Report to the Dáil of 15th December, 1970 the Committee stated in paragraph 7:—

‘During the Dáil debate on the motion referring the examination of the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid to the Committee the question as to whether the Committee had power to compel attendance of witnesses was adverted to. No provision was made by the Dáil to settle the matter apparently on the basis that, if it transpired that lack of this power made the Committee’s procedure inadequate, it would be open to the Committee to report back to the Dáil. The Dáil could then decide what action to take, Should the House now decide to take legislative action as suggested by the Committee, the Committee further suggests that the opportunity be taken to resolve this matter also.’

2. The Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Bill, 1970, was introduced in the Dáil by the Minister for Finance on 16th December, 1970 and subsequently passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and enacted. This Act dealt in section 3 with the power of the Committee to summon witnesses and to require the production of documents.

3. The Supreme Court in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts and Haughey in the judgement delivered on 24th June, 1971 has ruled that subsection (4) of the above mentioned section 3 violates Article 38 of the Constitution and is, therefore, invalid.

4. The enactment of the legislation recognised that the effective discharge of the duty placed by the Dáil on the Committee required that it be enabled to invoke the due process of law in respect of any person who frustrated the lawful requirements of the Committee. From its experience, the Committee is satisfied that without the legislative action of the Oireachtas it could not have adequately carried out the instructions of Dáil Éireann. Although it has made substantial progress in its work, evidence pertinent to the proper investigation of the matter referred to it by the Dáil remains to be heard. Its view is that it is very doubtful if it will be able to secure some of this evidence, unless amending legislation according with the judgement of the Supreme Court is enacted. The Committee therefore requests the Dáil to introduce legislation immediately which accords with the intention of the Oireachtas in enacting the Committee of Public Accounts (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970, but which meets the objections of the Supreme Court decisions.

5. The Committee informed the Dáil in its Interim Report of 15th December that it had adopted a number of procedures to govern its examination. These procedures were set out in Appendix 3 of the Report. Procedure (iii) was as follows:—

‘(iii) The Committee will allow witnesses to be accompanied, solely for the purpose of consultation, by counsel, solicitors or advisors as may be determined by the Committee in each relevant case. Such counsel, solicitors or advisors will not, however, be permitted to examine any witness nor to address the Committee.’

6. The Supreme Court has held that a witness whose conduct has been impugned as part of the subject matter of the examination should be allowed the right to have his counsel cross-examine the accuser and to address the Committee. The Committee propose to amend the procedure to accord with this ruling.

‘The Committee shall examine the expenditure … of any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which monies from this Vote [Vote 16] were or may have been lodged.…’

The Supreme Court has ruled that the examination of monies belonging to the Irish Red Cross Society, not being monies granted by the Dáil to meet the public expenditure, is outside the functions of the Committee as defined by Standing Order 127, save only to the extent of segregating such monies from monies issued from subhead J of Vote 16. This ruling qualifies the Order made by the Dáil, and its effects and any required action in relation to it are matters for the consideration of the Dáil.”

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 72, there being an equality of votes, the question was decided in the negative.

11. Ordered: that Mr. John Kelly* and Mr. Páraic Haughey† be summoned to attend on Tuesday, 6 July, 1971.

12. Ordered: that the form of summons to witnesses be amended so as to invite instead of to require witnesses to send documents.

13. Ordered: that procedure (iii) of the procedures adopted by the Committee be rescinded and that the following new procedure (iii) be adopted:

“(iii) The Committee allows witnesses to be accompanied by counsel, solicitors or advisors. A witness who states to the Committee that his conduct has been impugned as part of the subject matter of the examination may apply to the Committee to be allowed the right to have his counsel cross-examine the accuser and to address the Committee.”

14. Ordered: that the form of summons should contain the text of the new procedure (iii) and that it should also contain a statement that if the witness intends to avail himself of the procedure he should give 24 hours notice of such intention.

15. Ordered: that the Committee engage solicitor and counsel where the circumstances warrant, that the sanction of the Minister for Finance be sought for the necessary expenditure,* the Minister to be informed that the Committee requires to be in a position to engage solicitor and counsel in respect of its meeting on Tuesday, 6th July and that he be notified of the new procedure (iii).

16. Ordered: that the Chief State Solicitor be asked if he would be prepared to act for the Committee and to engage counsel on its behalf, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance being obtained in respect of the necessary expenditure.

IMEACHTAÍ AN CHOISTE

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE

Dé Máirt, 29 Meitheamh, 1971.

Tuesday, 29 June, 1971.