Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

Let me quote from the report of the all-party committee. Senator Bacik already did so, fairly. This is the nub of the issue that we tried to grapple with. She said, "A robust amendment would include some constitutional ordinance allowing for reHaughey rights to be balanced against the public interest in the facilitation of effective parliamentary investigations". Nobody wants to oust the four re Haughey rights that have been clearly set out. Every person has the right to be heard, to be represented by counsel in certain circumstances, to rebut any evidence that is adduced against him or her, and to directly present his or her case to whatever tribunal, investigation or committee is dealing with it. However, these rights cannot be elaborated to the extent that the tribunals of inquiry have, with an endless, expensive process that prevents public business from being achieved. One can talk about a principle or one can talk about the practical requirement of the people. There is a fair balance here.

The joint Oireachtas committee stressed in its report the requirement for a new inquiry system to balance the rules of fair procedure against the public interest in the facilitation of effective parliamentary inquiries. It is intended that it would be a matter for the Oireachtas committee of inquiry, under rules laid down by the House and by the law - I have published the draft heads of a Bill in this regard - to lay out the procedural rights, which have, in any event, been previously identified as necessary by the courts, and should be afforded to witnesses. This will depend on the specific elements that pertain in each individual set of circumstances. As I have said, if the witnesses are merely giving a technical background, they do not need to be represented. As Senator Bacik indicated in her contribution, in some of the tribunals, anybody who applied for legal representation had it, and they sat for months on end with the clock running and the taxpayer picking up the bill.

We cannot have that; we need to have balance, and somebody has to set that balance. I am suggesting that it be set by the committee under clear rules and procedures laid down in law, and that all of it be subject, ultimately, to the oversight of the courts, because if fair procedures were breached there is no doubt - this is a strong legal opinion from the Attorney General - that it is reviewable by the courts. The manner in which the principle is applied in practice will be subject to review by the courts after, in the first instance, the balance has been struck by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Unfortunately, Senator Mullen's amendment dislodges that balance and does not advance us in terms of ensuring that we have effective inquiries, which is the purpose of what the Government wants to do. Some of the phrases that Senator Mullen used - he said that when people read the amendment, it had a chilling effect on them because of these extraordinary powers-----