Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. I do not have the time to lavish sufficient praise on Deputy Rabbitte for this Bill, as others have done. I have been involved in two major inquiries in the Houses. These are the DIRT inquiry, which I attended along with my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, and I was also the chair of the sub-committee on the Abbeylara incident concerning the tragic death of John Carthy.

This Bill is a valuable contribution as a template for legislation that may be required for an inquiry on some matter of great concern. In particular, the sections relating to the assessors and investigators are novel and will be relied on in future legislation. The major concern has been articulated by all contributors on this side of the House of inferred liability, and this is mentioned in sections 4(3) and 8(1)(b). Apart from findings that could reasonably be seen to attribute civil or criminal liability, the report of a committee under this Bill could make findings that could reasonably be seen to imply wrongdoing by a person. Such findings could affect the good name, reputation and livelihood of the individual upon whom the liability was inferred.

Article 43.1 of the Constitution concerns the personal rights of the individual which are to be defended and vindicated by the State. It is a strong right and there are issues of allowing that type of inferred liability. I agree with Deputy Moynihan that a referendum probably would be desirable to see if the people would consider it appropriate for the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries that might have that effect on individuals.

I have no doubt that with the banking controversy that has prevailed over the past number of years, people would like to see those who operated in a cavalier manner and undermined the system named and shamed should an Oireachtas committee find them liable. However, no referendum giving more power to the Oireachtas would be passed in this climate and to take upon ourselves that power by law would be unconstitutional. The primacy in the Constitution is of the personal rights I mentioned.

It is interesting that what we mainly talk about with regard to the Abbeylara case is the infringement of personal rights. As a report was never even drafted by the sub-committee, whether rights would be infringed in a report is questionable.

There will be big problems with the Oireachtas committee hearings on the banking system. Will it be possible for members of that committee to infer liability on behalf of people whose names have been bandied around the press and outside this House? The committee secretariat here is second to none, and it proved itself in 1997 at the DIRT inquiry. It is up to us. The Supreme Court in the Abbeylara case found that we did not inherently have the power because we messed up the procedures and the setting up of the committee. The committee members did not do so as they are not legally trained, but the advice and the procedures did not work at the time.

This an excellent piece of work that will contribute to developing inquiries that are relevant, pertinent and it will enhance the Oireachtas in the eyes of the people in future.

See this speech in context