Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I am completely opposed to the inclusion of local authorities in this section. They would be uncontrollable and that would give me cause for concern.

I was prompted to ask this question by the first point raised by Senator White. I am uneasy about an exclusive list, which is what this section appears to contain. We appear to have taken a decision to collate aspects of common law, existing legislation and the Constitution. Is it necessary to put into legislation something which is clearly understood to be protected? What is the rationale for including in legislation statements "made in proceedings before a committee of either House of the Oireachtas"? We know that to be the case, as it is covered in the Constitution and is stated at the beginning of every meeting. The extension of the privilege of the Houses to committees has been previously addressed. At the beginning of each meeting the basis on which the committee takes place is made very clear by each committee Chairman.

I find it interesting that in his protection of the Judiciary, with which I completely agree, the Minister intends to extend privilege to witnesses. Very often it is the comments made by witnesses in court that can cause a problem. In an earlier section we made it a requirement that when people put forward something in pleadings, they would have to swear an affidavit as to the factual nature of the statement, and that they stood by it, yet at the same time one can introduce a witness who can lose the run of himself of herself and say things about somebody in a court. This gives rise to serious questions. Why do we need to put into legislation something which is already covered either by previous legislation or by the Constitution, not to mention common law? It worries me to do that.

I remember arguing this case previously. When the first version of the Official Languages Act came before the House approximately five years ago, an issue arose concerning the provision that Members of the Oireachtas could speak in Irish or in English. I see the Minister is smiling but I will not talk about the obvious. I opposed this measure vehemently. It was a tautology, to say the least, and completely unnecessary that something which is a constitutional right was being given a statutory basis. Why do we need a statutory basis for something which is constitutionally protected? This is unnecessary, unless there is a constitutional imperative to do something, which is not the case here.

Following that debate, in the next version of the Bill that section was omitted. I worry when something that is in the Constitution is relegated to a statutory protection. This is unnecessary. The point raised by Senator White is an important one. If one starts making lists then the fact that something is not on the list will gives rise to questions.