Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I agree with Deputy Rabbitte's earlier argument. If there is a concern about this Bill, it is about the initiation process of a commission inquiry. The Bill as currently arranged is coming from the Government with the approval of the Minister for Finance and that is of incredible significance in that ultimately like so much else in the running of our society it is the Minister for Finance who would have the "yea" or "nay" in its approval. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether he contends that the discussion on that process as to whether a Minister wants to initiate it would be open for public scrutiny, or would be public knowledge. I presume not, given the legislation regarding cabinet confidentiality. There could be no knowledge or understanding as to what sort of battle was going on or if there was a debate about a decision on whether we should set up a particular commission and that is the key failing in the Bill.

I welcome the broad principles and intent of the Bill. However, for it to establish this House as the initiator it has to be open to the members of the opposition or to the Dáil to initiate a commission. If the Government does not approve, then obviously it can be voted down in the House. It would be a difficult system to administer. We would want to avoid a situation where on every second day Deputies would clamour on the Order of Business for an inquiry on the lack of a hospital bed in some small village. It would have to be established in some way so that we would not have a Standing Order 31 of the day where we would have half a dozen people standing up on a matter of national interest seeking an inquiry in their local villages. I understand the Minister's concern in not setting up a system that could be used in such a manner.

The Minister's alternative proposal is that it is fundamentally decided within Cabinet by the very people who in a sense have probably most to gain from not having something exposed. What interest will the Minister for Finance and his Department have in exposing certain issues? The nature of the business that will be exposed will more than likely involve the State and the operation of the Civil Service within the State will obviously be a corner part of that investigation. The likelihood of a Minister deciding to take that route is slim. The likelihood of the Minister for Finance approving it is even more slim and of the Cabinet agreeing to it is yet more slim. The Minister needs to consider an amendment on Committee Stage that will allow a motion from the House to initiate a commission of inquiry even if the final "yea" or "nay" would be held by a majority in the Dáil voting it through.

My other concern is about the nature of such a commission. The presumption that the group should not comprise politicians is regrettable. As politicians we are well placed to be neutral arbiters in an investigation in a particular area. I am not sure whether it is better to get experts to investigate their own particular field. Sometimes it is better if the investigation is carried out by people from a different background who do not have a particular understanding of the area or a career involvement. They tend to ask fundamental questions that an expert who has spent his or her life's work in a given area might not see. Given the size of this country it is difficult to find an expert in a given field who will not have a close affinity at a high level with any of the people involved in a particular tribunal. It is difficult to get people close to an industry or particular area to investigate themselves. There is a strong case for political representatives taking on that role.

I do not know whether it will be possible under the legislation for politicians to be appointed as members of such a commission. I would not like to see that ruled out, however, because we tend to develop and evolve an expertise. One of the things we learn on committees is how to start asking questions, though perhaps not in the barristerial or quasi-judicial manner one sees in the High Court and elsewhere. One of things I have learned in the last two years is to have a nose for where the story is, what questions to ask and, on occasions, where the bodies lie. One does not find them most of the time, but at least on committees one learns how to work towards that objective.

I appreciate the Abbeylara case was an unfortunate one to fight in terms of the House's ability to compel witnesses to come forward. With hindsight it probably was not appropriate. There are a large number of other areas, however, where it may be appropriate for a committee of this House — whether it is specially set up or a sub-committee of an existing Oireachtas committee — to have some ability to compel witnesses. This is particularly appropriate where the investigation may be focused on a subsidiary organ of or an organisation within the State. Significant powers are now being given to the energy regulator, ComReg, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and other such bodies, all of which I have dealings with as a member of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Some bodies are required by legislation to attend the committee. In other cases the powers to compel them to attend are much weaker. In the future it may be possible that the State or the Oireachtas will need to investigate in some detail the dealings of an outside, albeit statutory, body. If that were to prove difficult, there might be circumstances where witness compellability would be required. One could argue the Minister ultimately has the powers in that regard in terms of seeking answers from such boards. I have not been able to think of a particular instance where another DIRT-type inquiry might be needed. The example of the DIRT inquiry is a good one, however, and it is appropriate that this House should retain the ability to set up that type of investigation again. While not necessarily re-fighting the battle that was lost in the Abbeylara decision, I believe it is appropriate for the House to maintain that power.

I reiterate, public representatives can be good at this particular job, if we give ourselves this role. I recall watching some US congressional debates in the past. I still tune in to one of the American business channels, if Alan Greenspan or some other notable is on, for example, to get a feel for what is happening in the global economy. I often notice how good those public representatives are in the congressional hearings and committees and how their questioning is well-presented and focused. That is the direction this House should be taking with its committees, developing and honing expertise and asking questions on behalf of the members of the public. If we develop that skill it should be possible for us, on occasion, to provide special committees with powers of compellability. This would not arise in the ordinary everyday work we do, but as appropriate.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill which will allow future tribunals to operate in a more efficient and less expensive manner. I do not in any way share Deputy Kelleher's disappointment and cynicism about the work that has been done in the various tribunals. It comprises some of the most important work done in this State in my lifetime. To go back to what I said at the start, certain issues have enormous public importance. The biggest loss in my lifetime in this city has been the atrocious corrupt planning that has seen Dublin sprawl out in an unsustainable, unplanned manner. That will have a cost, not just in my lifetime but in that of my children, where we have to pay for the bad planning that was carried out. We will have to pay for the hours people spend in traffic because there are no schools close to where they live or because their jobs are such a distance away and no public transport is provided. That is the greatest ill that has been done by the State and the Government in my lifetime to people in this city and around the country. It has been mirrored in other cities and towns. It is right to allocate as much resources as are necessary to investigate why such planning was allowed and try to ensure it never happens again. Even though it is cumbersome, the work being done on the tribunals is among the most important that can be done. I fully support it.

I hope the Minister will consider the points I have made about the initiation of commissions and that this will be debated in more detail on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context