Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I join in the words of congratulation to Deputy Rabbitte on bringing this reforming measure before the Dáil. We hear much commentary these days about the need to reform politics and, in particular, the need for the Dáil to reform its own practices and procedures and the way we do business. Deputy Rabbitte's Bill is an important reforming measure which would give the House the power of proper inquiry.

Unfortunately, the way in which the Government has rejected the Bill is an all too familiar example of precisely the reasons that we need legislation like this. The Government, in its rejection, has been dismissive, arrogant, cavalier with the truth and contemptuous of the Dáil. We saw it last month in its reaction to a Labour Party motion calling for a banking inquiry. When even the Governor of the Central Bank had agreed an inquiry was needed, the Government was obliged to cobble together something, but it made sure it would be an investigation behind closed doors, with its own performance excluded from the terms of reference. As a result, the banking inquiry will serve only to reinforce public cynicism rather than addressing genuine public concerns.

All parties now pay lip service to the notions of accountability, scrutiny and oversight. We all say we are in favour of more openness, but the sincerity of our statements are tested when specific proposals for specific reforms are put on the table. The Labour Party is convinced that accountability, scrutiny and oversight are core components of effective democratic governance. Accountability helps keep Government open and honest. However, to be effective, accountability must be both informed and public. Anything less than that is window-dressing.

We are strongly of the view that Parliament must be central to the process of accountability, scrutiny and oversight of central government and the wider public administration. The decision in the Abbeylara case undoubtedly creates problems but those problems are not insurmountable, despite the efforts of the Government to create that impression. Put at its simplest - I recognise it is a complex case - the applicants in the Abbeylara case won two arguments in the High Court but, on appeal, they won on one ground only. The High Court had declared that statutory powers to inquire and report could never, "consistent with the principles of constitutional justice and fairness, be conducted by a tribunal comprised of elected officials". If that argument had succeeded on appeal, then there would certainly be an end to parliamentary inquiries. The Supreme Court, however, refused to uphold this argument. Instead, it relied on a much narrower ground: that the form of inquiry in that case was ultra vires in that it was "not within the inherent powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas".

Many of the judgments went on to suggest that, although powers of compellability for Oireachtas committees had been provided for in legislation, no legislation conferring the basic "power to inquire" had been passed and there was no inherent parliamentary power to hold an inquiry of any sort at all. According to Chief Justice Keane, "If there is no inherent power in the Oireachtas to initiate such an inquiry, there seems no reason why the Oireachtas could not simply establish such a committee of inquiry by legislation". On the other hand, Ms Justice Denham, who delivered the formula accepted by the majority, stated simply that this issue is one "to be determined by the legislature or by the people," in other words, by legislation or by constitutional amendment. Ms Justice Denham was careful not to express an opinion as to which option may be required.

I admit we cannot be certain but to refuse to legislate because we are uncertain is simply to prevaricate and to abrogate our responsibilities. The only way we can finally know the answer is to test the question.

The official Government line, as delivered last night by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, was that, "the Bill, as currently drafted, could be open to legal challenge". That is absurd. Any Bill can be improved in its drafting, during the course of the legislative process, that is why we have a legislature. Also, all legislation ever passed could be "open to legal challenge", that is why we have courts.

The Minister of State offered another reason for rejecting the Bill, which was relied upon by his party colleagues. He said:

There are already considerable powers available to the Oireachtas in order to conduct investigations appropriate to it. The Oireachtas may establish a committee to investigate a matter of significant public importance. It is worth recalling that the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 already contains provision for Oireachtas committees, whose terms of reference so provide, to permit the calling of persons and papers, statutory power to compel the attendance and co-operation of witnesses and the furnishing of documents.

Those few sentences show either a breathtaking ignorance of the true situation or a calculated determination to misinform and mislead.

The Minister of State says there are already considerable powers available. Surely he must know that, as long ago as 17 April 2003, the then Minister heading his own Department, Charlie McCreevy, announced that "Oireachtas Committees conducting inquiries under compellability provisions have been successfully challenged in the courts". Surely he must know that, apart from a single case involving separate constitutional powers to examine the possible removal of a judge from office, not a single Oireachtas committee has been able to avail of the powers Deputy Mansergh says are still available and that every Oireachtas committee has been told these powers can no longer be exercised, since the decision in the Abbeylara case.

The background to the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy's announcement is that he had to find a reason to abandon his original commitment to implement all the recommendations made in the report of the DIRT committee. One of those recommendations was to provide for the appointment of parliamentary inspectors to assist Oireachtas committees. The original intention was that parliamentary inspectors could be appointed where an Oireachtas committee, carrying out inquiries under certain statutory powers, decided that it required such an officer to assist it. This was to be done by giving those inspectors a range of legal powers to compel citizens to give evidence on oath and to provide documents relevant to his or her inquiry. However, because Oireachtas committees conducting inquiries under compellability provisions had been successfully challenged in the courts, in the light of these developments, the Minister no longer believes that such legislation would fill a useful purpose.

Finally, we have been told that an argument for rejecting this Bill on Second Stage is that it is not considered appropriate, necessary or prudent to proceed with it: The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, stated:

Whereas 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. There are complex legal issues which need to be the subject of detailed review and examination.

In all of this guff reproduced from the Minister of State's last speech rejecting an Opposition party proposal, there is not even the vaguest commitment to actually undertake a detailed review and examination, let alone to engage on a cross-party basis with all members of the House who are affected by this decision. Treating the Dáil and its Members like this demeans us all, including, perhaps in particular, the Members on the Government backbenches.

The basic truth is this Government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. If we try to improve the legislation, we are told exiting legislation is already in place. If we try to use existing legislation, however, we are told it has been successfully challenged in the courts.

The reality is that this Government does not want any form of public inquiry at all, let alone an inquiry by its peers, by the Members of the Dáil and Seanad. The growth in executive competence and action has led to a generally perceived decline in the relevance of another branch of Government, our national Parliament. Part of the solution is parliamentary reform and part of the project of parliamentary reform is to put on a clear footing the relationship, and the separation, between Parliament on the one hand and the Executive and Administration on the other. The Labour Party believes that it should be a function of the national Parliament to engage in oversight of public administration, both in general terms and, through its committees, by way of detailed scrutiny.

Our main argument for the strengthening of the Houses of the Oireachtas is that it enhances public accountability. A vigorously active and independent Parliament with powers to investigate matters of serious public importance will ensure that systemic abuses and the breakdown of good government are less likely to occur.

See this speech in context