THE PENALTY for non-appearance at an inquiry set up under the proposed 30th amendment to the Constitution will be a fine of up to €500,000 or five years’ imprisonment, according to a spokeswoman for Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin.
Responding to a series of questions from The Irish Timeson the practical implications of the amendment, the spokeswoman referred to the draft Houses of the Oireachtas (Powers of Inquiry) Bill, published earlier this month. She also stressed that the exercise of any powers conferred under the Bill could be challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds.
Asked what would be the penalties for non-appearance in front of an inquiry, she said the High Court could order the person to appear, or alternatively the Bill makes non-appearance an offence with a maximum penalty of €500,000 and a five-year term of imprisonment. This is an increase from a maximum fine of €300,000.
Asked what the penalties would be for non-cooperation, she said that costs could be recouped by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission where a person hindered the inquiry. This direction must be confirmed by the courts.
Asked if there would be penalties for Oireachtas members who abused their privilege at inquiries or made unfounded allegations, she said there was no provision for this in the draft legislation. However, all the rules and procedures under Oireachtas Standing Orders relating to the abuse of privilege would remain.
In addition, the Bill provides for the oversight committee to make rules relating to dealings between the committee and its members and the media. She also said that if a committee member demonstrated bias by making unfounded allegations, he or she would be opening up the inquiry to legal challenge by the courts.
Asked if people could challenge a committee’s finding of fact, she said that a person against whom adverse findings were made in the draft report, and who believed that the inquiry had not observed fair procedures, could apply to the High Court to have the draft report amended.
Asked who would decide what “having due regard for the principles of fair procedures” would mean, she said if the amendment was passed an Oireachtas inquiry committee would determine how fair procedures will be secured, operating within a framework of rules drafted by the oversight committee which must be approved by the House or Houses of the Oireachtas.
Asked if the new inquiries would have the power to search people’s homes, she said that under the proposed Bill an investigator could only do so either with the consent of the occupier or with a District Court warrant.
Asked if it would have the power to demand journalists reveal their sources, she said there would be no change to the existing legal position on this.
On the question of whether witnesses would have the right to legal representation, she said the oversight committee would make rules relating to the conduct of the proceedings and fair procedures.
Asked if witnesses would have the right to remain silent, she said that they would have the same immunities and privileges as witnesses in proceedings in court.
Asked if any office-holders or categories of person would be exempt from examination by a committee of inquiry, she said the draft Bill provided that the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions should be exempt, apart from dealing with administrative matters before the Public Accounts Committee.