Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 13, line 15, after "reasons" to insert ", including risk assessment thereof,".

This amendment relates to the discussion we had the last day on the rather strange application of the sub judice rule, which we all accept. The section indicates the director general is not required to give an answer to any Oireachtas committee on any matter relating to the administration of the executive that is or is likely to be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal of the State. We believe the term "likely to be" is weak and this amendment asks that there should be some risk assessment of the likelihood. We cannot have somebody refusing to answer questions with an excuse that it could be the subject of some proceedings. We should know where the advice comes from and the risk assessment process used. It is a technique widely used in Government bodies.

Amendment No. 8 deals with what happens elsewhere in the Oireachtas where a Member feels there was a misleading response or a refusal to answer. The Ceann Comhairle would intervene and I gather the current holder of the post sometimes does this to the assistance of Deputies, contacting Departments and indicating that a question should be answered in a more complete way.

These amendments were put down before the recent incident where a person walked out of a committee. They would protect Parliament against a defence from a person pleading an inability to answer a question because it might be the subject of proceedings elsewhere. In such a case the person should indicate the advice and risk assessment. It should be possible for a member of a committee to ask the Ceann Comhairle, rather than a court, to help in such matters. The Ceann Comhairle seems to have effectively taken on this role with regard to answers given during Question Time in the Dáil. Public servants should answer questions that are asked by an Oireachtas committee or by Members.

We seek to protect Parliament against almost a shrug of the shoulder and individuals saying there might be a case and, therefore, they will not answer questions. That is significant in a Parliament and we seek to include those two protections so that Parliament finds out what is going on, including, as we on this side of the House have said, support for what the Minister is trying to reform. Involving Parliament and parliamentarians is better than individuals saying they will not answer questions because they might be the subject of proceedings. These are two ways to allow that to happen. If the risk assessment shows there is a very strong chance something will appear in court or, if the Ceann Comhairle has formed the same view, the individual refusing to answer the questions has that degree of protection.