Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I must talk about last week's meeting. I do not like to be in conflict with the Chairman, who is very fair and very good to us all. His is a difficult job at times. I got an opportunity last week to mention that I needed to raise this matter with the Chairman before the meeting. I put a series of questions on the record that were relevant to the Irish Prison Service. Off the record, I informed everybody present that I was about to do this. If people could understand, they would give me a bit of latitude. I knew we were dealing with the Vote that is primarily of concern to the Department of Justice and Equality but, as often happens, one uses the opportunity if one can to raise some other issues. It was the first opportunity we had with the Irish Prison Service being before the committee and the response that was given to it in writing on 7 February so I did what I did. I took legal advice on the framing of questions and explained to the witnesses in advance that while I appreciated that I might not have the relevant expertise or that the relevant line managers were not with us, it would be perfectly fine for those answers to be given in writing after the fact. We proceeded along those lines.

I must put on record a couple of things said by the Chairman. I do not like to be in conflict with him but as this happened in public session, I would like it to be clarified. The Chairman stated that they were questions and issues raised by me as one of 13 members of this committee and that it was not a request from the Committee of Public Accounts until such time as the committee agreed to put the questions. The Chairman later stated that it was not a request from the Committee of Public Accounts, that the committee had not yet decided what questions to put to the witness and that it was a request from one member and was not representative of the Committee of Public Accounts. Later still, the Chairman stated that the member was not speaking for the committee but was speaking for himself and that it would be up to the committee to decide whether it wanted to put those questions to the witness.

That obviously causes a problem. I am a member of the committee, as nominated by my party and formally selected by the Committee of Selection of Dáil Éireann. To the best of my knowledge, and I have taken legal advice, I broke no Standing Order last week and raised no issue regarding parliamentary privilege. To the best of my knowledge, the committee is the forum and the members ask the questions. If the committee collectively decides to make a recommendation, that is certainly a committee decision but I know of no Standing Order that requires the unanimous agreement of the other 12 members as to the providence, validity or content of the question of one member, so that is a problem.

Will the Chairman respond to that? As far as I am concerned, the Prison Service is included in the justice Vote. While I appreciate that the subject of the meeting was the core justice Vote, digression to other matters relevant to that Department or Vote is reasonable and probably happens at every meeting. In addition, it may be argued that at least some, if not all, the matters I raised last week could fall under the remit of the internal audit of the Department of Justice and Equality. In any event, it did not depart from the practice of the past. Would the Chairman like to retract the unilateral instruction to the witness to the effect that he did not have to answer any questions, and the implication that my questions had to be affirmed, approved or checked by the committee as a whole? I will reserve my right to petition the Committee on Procedure about the matter. While I do not wish to be in conflict with the Chairman, the statements are of a serious nature.

I accept that my style of questioning may irk many people, such as fellow Members, the media and witnesses at times, but that is a separate matter which can, as long as I follow the rules, be adjudicated by the people of Sligo-Leitrim in due course. Nevertheless, the content, questions and quotes I have read directly from the transcript of last week's meeting seemed to undermine severely my position as a member of the committee. Suggesting that I was effectively a lone soldier who had gone rogue and asked irrelevant, inappropriate questions that required the approval of the other 12 members of the committee went beyond what I believe would be reasonably permitted.