Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 13, line 17, to delete ", or is likely to be".

This amendment is to delete ", or is likely to be" from the line "The Director General is not required to give an account before any Oireachtas Committee of any matter relating to the general administration of the Executive that is, or is likely to be, the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State". I tabled my amendment long before yesterday's events at the Committee of Public Accounts. I appreciate the sub judice rule, but I know of no other "likely to be" sub judice provision. The Bill's provision could allow people not to answer questions, something that seemed to annoy many of our colleagues yesterday. Is there anything in law that allows one to refuse to answer a question because it is likely to be sub judice? Is there a burden of proof on the person using that defence at an Oireachtas committee or can he or she just shrug his or her shoulders, claim the issue might arise again and not answer? The spirit of the amendment is to solve a serious problem. We do not want to give people easy reasons to avoid answering questions at Oireachtas committees.

That deals with the first amendment.

Amendment No. 19 seeks to delete: "In carrying out his or her duties under this section, the Director General shall not question or express 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." We are in a democracy and are in a position where we have had to be rescued by the IMF. Silencing people, including this director general, is not appropriate. I welcome the discussion we are having this afternoon. Let us all have the ideas. No one is so precious as to be able to claim he or she is precluded by law from discussing 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". It is draconian in a democracy. If we had all the answers, we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves of trying to solve them with all the reforms we are carrying out. I welcome everyone's views and I hope the Members of the House would consider deleting that subsection along with what I regard as an extreme version of the sub judicedefence mentioned in amendment No. 18.