Alex White (Labour)

It concerned the issue of the chairperson and chief executive officer of NAMA and the extent to which they ought to be restricted or constrained in what they say before the Committee of Public Accounts and what type of evidence they are entitled to give, as well as the level, basis or extent of the nature of the questioning that is entitled to be permitted. The Minister for Finance last night made a number of points, chief among which was that essentially this was a protection for the chairperson and-or the chief executive officer. He noted the fact, which is interesting, that the Standing Orders of the Committee of Public Accounts already provide for a restriction on the members of that committee and the type of questions they can put to persons appearing before that body. However, he felt he needed to go further with this formulation.

The position I outlined last night was that it is odd that something that purports to be a protection of an officer should be expressed in terms of prohibition on that person. If one wants to protect a person from something, why does this translate into a prohibition on that person?

There was some debate on this question last night and the Minister said he would leave over the matter to Report Stage. We had hoped he might come to the House with something in this line. He has not done so, although I note there are two amendments before the House, one of which is the Labour Party's. It carves out of the evidence to be given by the officers concerned on the questioning or expression of an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or the Minister or the merits of the objectives of such a policy. It would meet the Minister's objective in subsection (3) but without being as restrictive or draconian. In the circumstances and given what the Minister said, the amendment would provide for the protection of the chief executive officer and chairman. There is a list of items that constitute the evidence that may or should be given and there is an exception, namely, that the evidence to be given or the questioning to be allowed should not include the expression of "an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy". The amendment would meet the policy objective without being as draconian as the formulation included in the Bill.