Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

If ever I needed to be convinced of the need for a change of Government, I am utterly convinced after the Government's response this evening to the Labour Party Bill. The Government is so satisfied with the status quo that it does not even want to consider any change. In the Minister of State's speech, he refers to the "existing arrangements or a balance, on the one hand, between the rights of the individual citizens to due process and fair procedure, and on the other, the entitlement of the national Parliament to investigate and examine questions of urgent public concern." In other words, the Government is completely satisfied with the existing situation. He confirms this further by stating that "while the Bill goes some way to addressing issues arising from the Abbeylara Supreme Court ruling, it does not provide a complete solution and further consideration needs to be given to the issues involved." Does the Government not realise what it is doing? It has this damp, cold hand that is there for years and years. It does not want to change anything. It is the party of the status quo and the message to the Opposition is not to upset that status quo.

This Bill is an extra tool in the arsenal of the Oireachtas, and it is therefore worthwhile. For that reason, I support it. I accept it is not a complete answer to the Abbeylara case. I would go much further, but my view would get into an area of constitutional ambiguity and possibly the need for constitutional change. I would not baulk at the notion of constitutional change. I believe we should be aiming in that direction, but it is no fault of the Labour Party that it has produced a Bill that is clearly within the constitutional parameters, yet does not provide the complete solution, as the Minister of State pointed out. It is not a complete solution because it cannot be the complete solution. The good is not the enemy of the best. The Bill improves the current situation and makes clear that the Oireachtas has an inherent power to conduct inquiries. That is an advance in itself, because some of the judgments in the Abbeylara decision suggested that was not even accepted.

I am quite appalled at the reaction of the Government, as expressed by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh. We are not talking about an academic exercise. This is not just a theoretical situation. Various issues crop up every week before the Oireachtas that could conceivably lead on to some form of an Oireachtas inquiry. Over the years I have seen issues of major concern arise that led the calls for public inquires. The tribunals were to be the answer to everything, but they led us into the sand. Days, weeks, months and years passed, reams of paper were used and, above all, dollops of taxpayers' money were poured down the drain chasing beef on the dolly carousel and elsewhere. Money is still being poured down the drain. We accepted that this approach was not the answer and when we examined what was being done in other countries we saw the benefits of having efficient parliamentary inquiries done fairly, expeditiously and at modest expense. I cannot understand how anybody who wants the democratic system to develop would not be imbued with the notion that we, too, should find a better way.

It is easy for the Minister to focus on whether the provisions of the Bill would send out the appropriate message regarding the banking inquiry. I will return to this issue because the Oireachtas could play a much greater role in the banking inquiry than has been provided for by the Government. That is not the issue, however. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I am aware that the committee is restricted, hog-tied and constrained in terms of the work it is charged to do by parliament. It is unable to do its work as effectively as it should be done due to the constraints imposed on it.

What answer does the Government give when an honest attempt is made by Deputy Rabbitte on behalf of the Labour Party to advance the current position? It indicates it is satisfied with the status quo, we should not upset the apple cart and it will take time to consider these complex issues. These damn issues were considered by the Law Reform Commission in 2003 when it produced a report providing extensive advice on this matter. What action has the Government taken since the publication of the report? It has done absolutely nothing.

As I indicated, this is not a theoretical matter. The Fine Gael Party strongly believes a new approach to politics is required to prevent the democratic process from withering on the vine, as is occurring at present. We need to rejuvenate and reinvigorate politics by giving the Dáil a much more central role in the years ahead. The Government appears to take the opposite view.

Over the past 12 to 18 months on the Committee of Public Accounts, I have observed many difficulties. I do not propose, therefore, to focus on only one issue. However, given that a fair amount of information on the issue I propose to raise is available, even to Members who are not on the Committee of Public Accounts, as a result of the publicity associated with our investigation, I will speak of FÁS. There was clear evidence of unorthodox procurement practices - I choose my words carefully but Deputies will get the drift of my message - and a lax attitude to the disbursement of public moneys. These practices and this attitude gave rise to considerable concern among members of the cross-party committee whose members did not set out to make political capital out of the issue but sought to do their job of investigating the expenditure of taxpayers' money and whether it was being wasted. The committee does this job week in and week out in its dealings with various Departments and offices.

The issue on which I focus, however, is the accounts relating to the expenditure of more than €1 billion by FÁS. After extensive investigation and hearing of evidence, the committee wanted to arrive at conclusions. In doing so, however, it was constrained by the decision in the Abbeylara case. While in one sense everybody is willing to accept, as Deputy Rabbitte correctly noted, that an Oireachtas committee should not find someone guilty of unlawful killing, at the other extreme, a lawfully and properly appointed, all-party committee genuinely seeking to do an honest job and produce conclusions which appear to be fully justified by the evidence was constrained from so doing by the same decision. This highlights the need for change to improve the current position.

While I would go further than the provisions of the Labour Party Bill, I appreciate that in doing so, one would have to plan one's steps carefully. I utterly reject the Government approach that nothing should be done. That is not acceptable from the point of view of the democratic process, even if that sounds theoretical. Members are paid by the taxpayer to do a job and if we are constrained from doing it, we must ensure we change procedures and legislation and, if necessary, seek to change the Constitution to ensure we do our job properly. The alternative is to sit back and accept that we do not do our job properly. This attitude, which emanates from the Government benches, is not acceptable.

I indicated that arriving at a finding of blame creates ambiguity. While the Supreme Court judgment in the Abbeylara case was held by a majority of five to two, when reading their judgments different judges chose to emphasise different aspects of the case. While I accept that one cannot directly attribute blame to an individual, in certain circumstances one should change the procedures to enable one so to do. I accept, however, that in changing these procedures, one must take into account the views of the judges in the Abbeylara decision and the views of the judges In re Haughey, an earlier case arising from the investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts into the arms trial money. Essentially, the outcome of the latter case established the procedures for fair process. This leads into some complexities as to how one would establish such a fair process if one came to a view that blame could be attributable to a person other than an officeholder, a private individual or an employee of a State agency. One would have to establish a fair process so that the person would be fully aware of the charges and given an opportunity to defend himself or herself.

The overall picture is that the current position is unsatisfactory and does not allow parliamentarians to do the job we were elected to do. This leads me to the banking inquiry. It is not possible without some change in the law to get a decent outcome by a parliamentary inquiry but it could make some contribution to an open, transparent investigation into banking.

I do not intend to rehearse the ground regarding the approach adopted by the Government but is it a coincidence it does not permit any inquiry into decisions made by banks and regulators? Regarding the limitation of the time in which the investigation can be made, is there a possibility of investigating the tax, regulatory and other economic policies, particularly during the tenure of, say, the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance? It appears to me that there is not. Is it a coincidence that it is not possible under the present position? I do not believe so. That would not happen if we had a parliamentary inquiry because that would be more open and transparent. It would be in public; the commission of investigation will not be in public. If it were conducted in the same way as the Committee of Public Accounts it would be done in a fair way. I am very impressed by the attitude of colleagues on all sides in the Committee of Public Accounts where an honest effort is made to try to trace the truth rather than any effort to-----

See this speech in context