James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The provision relating to amendment No. 18 is: "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." This is found in much other legislation, as it would be important not to interfere with the integrity of any future court proceedings as well as to protect the integrity of any current court proceedings. The phrase "is likely to" is designed to narrow matters down in the context of possible future proceedings. The new section 16I(6), as inserted by the Bill, provides for an application to the High Court by the director general or the committee to determine whether the director general is required to give an account to the Oireachtas committee. This is widespread throughout Departments and State agencies.

On amendment No. 19, the subsection concerned is located in a general section dealing with the attendance of the director general before Oireachtas committees. It is in that context that the subsection is enacted. Senators will notice that subsection (9) begins with the words: "In carrying out his or her duties under this section". It is not an attempt to prohibit or censor the director general in any way but to delineate the position of the director general when he or she appears before an Oireachtas committee.

If one were to accept the amendment and delete the provision, as proposed by Senator Barrett, an Oireachtas committee would be free to ask the director general about matters of policy and his or her agreement or disagreement with it, and he or she would be obliged to answer. Matters of policy are properly the domain of Ministers and the Government, as other Senators have pointed out. It would not be appropriate for a representative of the HSE to comment on policy matters. To ask a director general such a question would compromise his or her ability to properly serve the elected Government of the day and would also compromise the ability of the Government to have a working relationship with the director general, who has a pivotal role under this legislation in the planning and execution of policy in regard to health matters. This type of provision is standard in legislation setting up State bodies.

Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments. I agree with the Senators who have pointed to the chaos that would result if public servants had to decide on whether they agreed with policies and argue with the Government of the day which is elected by the people to implement its policies.