No legal bar to making expenses comment
Related Articles
THERE are no legal or constitutional rules preventing Ceann Comhairle John O'Donoghue from commenting on his lavish ministerial expenses as a former minister, according to legal advice received by some TDs.
Yesterday Mr O'Donoghue sought to draw a line under the expenses controversy by circulating a letter to Dail colleagues explaining his decision not to make any public comment on the expenses affair.
The four page note cited a statement by former Ceann Comhairle Sean Treacy during a 1994 Dail debate where he stated that the Ceann Comhairle is "a neutral officer in the house who is impartial and should be seen to be above politics and controversy".
Impartial
Mr Donoghue has insisted that the importance of having an impartial chairman of Dail Eireann is reflected in a constitutional provision that provides for automatic re-election of the Ceann Comhairle.
He also defended his silence by stating his refusal to become involved in party or political controversy is "in accordance with the well established tradition of my predecessors".
But legal experts have dismissed claims by Mr O'Donoghue that the 1994 Treacy statement, which is believed to be contained in the Dail's "book of salient rulings" prohibits TDs from quizzing Mr O'Donoghue or precludes him from making a personal statement on his conduct as a minister.
The salient book of rulings is a collection of Ceann Comhairle's rulings which the Dail chair has at his disposal along with the Dail's standing orders. "The book of rulings have no legal status, and the book is not mentioned in either the Constituion or the Dail's own standing orders" said a parliamentary legal expert.
"If you want to know what the law is, you look to the Constitution and there is no constituional insistence on either impartiality or privilege [from questions on past conduct] to be attached to the office of the chair of the Dail." Last night the Labour Party, who acknowledged that Mr O'Donoghue was in a "procedurally difficult situation" given that he now occupies the position of Ceann Comhairle while the controversy relates to his time as a minister, but insisted there were no constitutional or procedural impediment preventing Mr O'Donoghue from making himself available for interview.
The role of Ceann Comhairle has evolved in a similiar manner to judges, who are independent in their office. Convention dictates that judges, even though they speak extra judicially on matters of public interest, do not make statements or become involved in political controversy.
Many Dail deputies, who believe that Mr 'Donoghue should make a personal statement subdue the controversy, nonetheless insist that previous rulings or precedents built up over time by former chairmen of the Dail are sufficient to ward off any interrogation of the Ceann Comhairle of his past conduct.
Any TD who does question Mr O'Donoghue when the Dail convenes could have their question ruled out of order by Mr O'Donoghue in his capacity as Dail chairman.
To challenge such a ruling, a TD would have to table a motion, a move that is unlikely as the Dail member would have to sacrifice his or her private member's time, a move parties will not countenance as the debate over NAMA unfolds.
- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
