Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I will go further and say, having listened carefully to what has been said, that it is not a correct interpretation of Ms Justice Denham's judgment to suggest that she said or that the Supreme Court held that the Parliament had no power to institute inquiries. Her judgment is entirely in regard to the Abbeylara case. It is also specifically on the issue as to whether the committee could effectively try somebody or reach a conclusion which was damaging to that person's integrity, but it did not exclude nor did it place integrity in such a position as if it could defeat policy. What is happening here is the accepting of an under-labourer version of parliament. As one who believes in a rugged parliament committed to transparency, to its public work and to extending and deepening democracy, I go so far as to say that if this Bill, on which Deputy Rabbitte worked and which he produced, was found unacceptable and if we had to go to the extent of having a constitutional referendum on this issue, it would be the right thing to do. One cannot continue when a Member of Parliament, sadly and disgracefully in the case of the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, describes oppositional voices and views in this Parliament, to which we are elected, as squabbles. That was a pathetic indicator of a party that is weak on its commitment to equality and democracy, even if it is strong on the environment. He can reply to that elsewhere and he and I can debate that elsewhere.

The nub of this issue relates to the role of parliament and parliamentarians and then one turns to the role of committees. We spent a great deal of time here recently talking about reform of the parliamentary process. It would be ridiculous to suggest that we would spend our energies deciding whether we would meet at 9.30 a.m. or 10.30 a.m. and would not express ourselves and say that we want no obstacle to be placed in the way of a committee of inquiry. If one considers Deputy Rabbitte's Bill and examines it in detail, one will note it respects the integrity of the individual and does not dislodge the legal process within the division of powers. However, one could argue the case the other way. Parliamentarians are self-inflecting a wound on themselves by taking an interpretation of the Abbeylara judgment, which is excessive and which cannot be sustained.

See this speech in context