(Not sure which is the right forum for this but I’ll post it here and let the mods decide.)
There is a referendum in Ireland this week to amend the Constitution to allow the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) conduct inquiries into the conduct of individuals. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
Many lawyers and civil liberties groups are objecting to this, mainly because of Subsection 4, which they argue gives the Oireachtas too much leeway in deciding whether fair procedures have been complied with and amounts to a breach of separation of powers between the legislature and the courts. (Bear in mind the right to fair procedures is a constitutionally protected right here, as is the right to one’s good name.)
On the other hand, defenders of the proposed amendment argue that it would only give the Oireachtas the same powers that other legislatures have.
Can lawyers or other people who know about these things in other countries comment? Does the proposed amendment look like the powers your own legislatures have? Or does it go further?
In the United States, each house of Congress is responsible for conducting fact-finding investigations in order to write new legislation (this is done by specific committees in each house.) That investigation can include issuing subpoenas to people who would otherwise not be inclined to testify, and forcing people to produce documents or other materials. Failure to comply with a congressional subpoena can land you in jail for Contempt of Congress.
People have the right to be represented by counsel at congressional hearing and to challenge subpoenas in court. (Most of the time the courts are not interested in interfering in “political questions.”) Because a congressional investigation is not a criminal procedure, people summoned to testify or produce information are not at risk of life or liberty, and so have little leeway. However, the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination applies, and so people may always “take the fifth” if answering a particular question may expose them to some criminal liability.
Congressional inquiries in the US are subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution. For instance, as friedo noted, a witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment right not to testify if doing so would incriminate him/herself, and Congress cannot establish inquiry procedures that infringe upon that right. In the US, therefore, the proposed section 4 in the OP would be read as having an implied constraint: “as permitted by the Constitution.”
As a counter-example, things may well work differently in the UK, where Parliament is supreme. It can presumably set whatever hearing procedures it deems appropriate.
So in this sense it seems to me that the Irish amendment does go further, because it actually puts the legislature’s power to establish inquiry procedures into the Constitution, and precludes the possibility of judicial review, beyond ensuring “due regard to the principle of fair procedures”.