Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

What would be the consequences for a chief executive officer coming before an Oireachtas committee where he or she is expected to answer honestly a question put by the committee? If the opinion of the chief executive officer happened to be at variance with the policy of the Government of the day — which is an important qualification — what would be the consequences for the chief executive who gave his or her honest opinion to that committee or perhaps to a tribunal of inquiry established outside the Oireachtas? Would that chief executive be in breach of the terms of this legislation? What would be the consequences for that chief executive if he or she did not, or refused to, answer honestly? Would the chair of a tribunal, for example, have the authority to direct that the chief executive be imprisoned? Which would have precedence in such circumstances?

What is wrong with criticism? If we accept this situation, we will move towards a totalitarian system. I commend Deputy Howlin's amendment and strongly support it because this section harks back to the Victorian era.

See this speech in context