Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. I was a member of the sub-committee, chaired by Deputy Ardagh, on the inquiry into the Abbeylara incident in 2001. Early last year, a committee of which I am a member, examined the possibility of a preparing a report on one or other of the banks and on the issue of compellability and so forth. An Oireachtas committee carried out the successful DIRT inquiry. Considerable preparation and work was done by the sub-committee dealing with the Abbleyara inquiry, but when it came down to the fine points the court found that an Oireachtas committee did not have the power to determine findings of fact.

I welcome this Bill and the discussion on it. Deputy Rabbitte must be complimented on it. A fundamental debate among all practitioners of politics in this House is needed on whether we want to go down the route of Oireachtas inquiries and committees having the powers to inquire into different issues. As other speakers said, there is no doubt that the tribunal system, particularly during the past ten or 11 years, has failed, it having incurred major expense for the public with no gain in the short term.

If we are to have committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas inquiring into issues to determine findings of fact, what is required is the fundamental step of having a referendum on this question. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Howlin, was also a member of the sub-committee that inquired into the Abbeylara incident. The advice we got at that time and, on the Monday morning our case was rejected by the courts, was the fundamental step of a referendum on the issue was what was needed. The Bill before us is to be welcomed. The debate on this issue must be about whether Oireachtas committees should have these powers. Parliamentary committees in other jurisdictions have powers of inquiry and they use them very effectively. Such powers can be seen, in some cases, to have been very effective tools that were used by elected members. They can be very effective tools used by people, as they elect the Members to the Houses, and they in turn can have inquiries. In other instances, such inquiries may turn into witch hunts in some shape or form. If properly constructed and dealt with, such processes can be welcome.

The advice from the Attorney General and the legal advice from staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas indicated there could be as fundamental a process as a referendum involved in this issue. A debate must ensue on whether we want to go down that route, and we should explore it. Some people have said that the Bill is a starting point. It is well drafted and has the right intention, but we should have a full debate on the powers being given to Members to determine a fact. We should explore the matter to the nth degree and ensure we get the best possible advice. The matter would have to go to the public in order to give that kind of power to the Oireachtas.

Under the Constitution, there is currently a separation of powers, which has been very effective, by and large, since the 1937 Constitution. There is separation of the Oireachtas and Judiciary, which is seen to work extremely well despite some shortcomings which we have seen from time to time. We should take time to debate the issues.

There was a point on whether the Oireachtas should undertake a full inquiry into the banks and financial institutions, particularly regarding how much credit, etc., was made available over a period. Some of the newly-appointed people in the Central Bank and other places have expressed a wish for an Oireachtas inquiry.

Even with powers of compellability at a committee, it would not be enough to carry out such a task. All the committee could do is produce a report. Even if we undertook an inquiry along the lines of the Abbeylara process, every comma was contested by the legal advice from other parties in that case. If we had gone down such a route, we would not have got as far as the first fence because it would have been challenged by legal people. The debate concerns whether we need these powers and there should be a referendum if we go down this route.

See this speech in context