Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions from this vantage point, if that it is okay. First, I agree entirely on the necessity for openness and transparency and that everybody should be represented, and the citizen has that particular right. As Members of the Oireachtas, and even as members of local authorities, we have all promoted ideas at one time or another that became the law eventually. I wonder if there is a danger that it might prevent people from expressing their views in such a way as to bring about change that may be of benefit to the constituents, which is what we do as legislators, and I mean all of the constituents without exception. Professor Murphy referred to issues that were raised in the House and that did not fall to be answered in the House, for one reason or another.

I felt at the time that if they had been fully investigated and answered in the House, that the inquiries that subsequently followed would never have needed to happen. I am also concerned about the freedom of information process taking the place of the parliamentary inquirer. Under our Constitution, the parliamentary inquirer comes first, and should come first. Otherwise, there is no sense in the public delegating responsibility to their public representatives to represent them. Our system gives that right to the elected members. It does not apply in other countries because some of them have different systems. It is possible in some other countries for people who were never elected anywhere to become influential. A different system is in operation and that aspect concerns a different quote.

I turn now to a suggestion that in some cases there is a necessity for secrecy in the context of the EU legislation which has come upon us in recent times. It is oppressive in respect of how we do our job. I refer to the suggestion that we may have to ask the permission of a constituent to raise an issue of interest to the constituent and-or of public interest. I have a strong view on that topic. I do not believe anybody has the right to put an embargo on or erect an obstacle to the right of public representatives to raise questions. The simple reason is that the question, and its subject matter, being raised by the public representative may not favour the position taken by others. How would it be possible to look for permission to raise an issue from a person who might, for example, be engaged in criminal activity? One can hardly go to a criminal, inform him or her that one would like to raise a question about his or her activities and then ask him or her if it will be okay to do so. That does not and cannot apply. Those are a few of the things that I feel must be borne in mind. I refer to how to best ensure that the activities of elected public representatives are not restricted to such an extent that they cannot do their jobs.