Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 26, after line 42, to insert the following: “(10) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the compellability powers of an Oireachtas Committee, save for where the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Dáil Éireann and the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Seanad Éireann have otherwise provided.”.

The amendment seeks to insert a new subsection in section 31, which would explicitly provide that, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the compellability powers of an Oireachtas Committee, save for where the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Dáil Éireann and the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Seanad Éireann have otherwise provided.”. I am concerned that certain aspects of the section, particularly section 31(2) to 31(5), could seek to limit the power of Oireachtas committees. It is appropriate, in the context of the separation of power, that Oireachtas committees would not debate live legal cases but some of these exclusions seems to be very much reliant on the discretion of the CEO and the board rather than the Oireachtas itself.

I have a particular concern about the provision in section 31(2), "the Chief Executive Officer shall not be required to give account before an Oireachtas committee for any matter that is or has been or may be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal of inquiry". Again, the use of the past tense is a real concern. It is to be understood that it would not be appropriate that an Oireachtas committee would be engage in respect of live proceeding but something that may have, in the past, been the subject of a court case or a tribunal of inquiry before the State may well prove to be of interest subsequently to an Oireachtas committee. The Oireachtas is regularly required to respond to court proceedings where legislation may have been overturned or tribunals of inquiry where a legislative or policy change is required to address the findings of such a tribunal, for example, the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes or other bodies. Tribunals and bodies very often produce a set of recommendations that may well require action by the State and those recommendations require consideration. I am concerned with the wording used here. If, for example, there was a concerning issue or a scandal in respect of an area of research and innovation and there was a tribunal of inquiry or court cases in respect of that and, subsequently, it became clear that new policies, ideas or approaches are needed,, the CEO of the research innovation body could effectively decline to engage with an Oireachtas committee because the topic at hand had previously been the subject of a tribunal. Again, it is the use of the past tense. The future tense is a little concerning because the words "may be" is somewhat ambiguous but I know that this is standard language and is used often.

I may come back to this matter on Report Stage. I am concerned about the language used and hope that the Minister of State can address my concerns.