Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am generally supportive of the extension of the inquiry powers of the Oireachtas as long as we have the correct parameters and safeguards. I was one of those who opposed the inquiries referendum. I made it clear at the time that I was not against inquiries by the Oireachtas. An all-party Oireachtas committee which had considered the question of inquiries in some detail had taken a great deal of time before proposing a wording that might be put forward. Essentially, the Government did not accept its recommendations and decided instead to put its own wording before the people. I felt that the wording recommended by the Government went way too far. I felt it crossed the line into an area that would more properly be dealt with the Judiciary. It was significantly more far-reaching than was necessary or would be in keeping with a democratic state. It is really important for us to retain the separation of powers.

When the citizens of Ireland refused to adopt the Government's proposal on the day of the referendum, I do not think they were saying they had a difficulty with the holding of inquiries by the Oireachtas. I think they were saying they were concerned with what the wording enabled the Oireachtas to do. They might not necessarily have been concerned about the current Oireachtas, but they were conscious of the possibility of corruption of power by a future Oireachtas comprising different people. When people are asked to adopt something and place it in the Constitution, they know it will not be there for a short period. It has to stand the test of time. I regret that this Bill has been brought before the House so soon after its publication. I would have liked a little more time to give greater consideration to it. Unfortunately, this was a feature of the legislation that set up the inquiries referendum as well. We need to learn a lesson from that. We have to take our time over these matters because it is important to get them right.

Questions need to be asked about why this legislation has been published before the Supreme Court has ruled on the Callely case. It is clear that elements of this legislation could and will be framed in that context. When the judgment is delivered, it may well bring about a significant change in what is intended. I ask the Government not to proceed with the Committee Stage debate on this Bill until the Supreme Court has delivered its findings.

If we cannot put forward the Committee Stage changes, having had the benefit of that, we will potentially come back with amending legislation, which I do not consider in anybody's interest.

I support the notion of a banking inquiry. However, there are very few Members of the House who have not compromised themselves in regard to such a banking inquiry when sitting on a committee. I have certainly given my views on the record as to what I thought about the banks. Yet, we are looking to assemble, from this Oireachtas, a group of neutral people who are suitably qualified to prepare a report. They will be difficult to find, certainly among those who were on the finance committee or the Committee of Public Accounts and who have the necessary competence. When one looks at the practicality of this, it will be difficult to achieve.

It is very important that we understand what happened in 2008, in particular with regard to the people who lobbied and all the rest, because if we do understand that, we cannot learn from it. However, this will be no substitute for what should rightfully take place in the courts. It has taken far too long to get to a point where people can be prosecuted through the courts and where the course of action that should happen through that process can happen.

I would like to hear how we can have a banking inquiry, given the safeguards in the Bill. While we have had a lot of debate on this for several years, how we can construct a committee that would be deemed to be not biased in terms of Members having taken a position?

Clearly, there are aspects of the Bill that are safeguards. We all know that perception is reality in terms of somebody's good name. Where there are not findings of fact, there are findings of implication or there is the possibility of that. There will have to be great safeguards as to what exactly will be inquired into, and I know a process is included in the Bill in this regard. One could find that a list of things are deemed to be of public interest but, on examination, they are populist rather than in the public interest. It is important that this section of the Bill is got right, which will require detailed consideration on Committee Stage.

In the absence of the report on the Callely case, we have no idea what sanctions are available to the Oireachtas. This is the kind of issue that will require detailed consideration on Committee Stage and it is why it is essential we do not proceed beyond Second Stage before the Supreme Court has ruled.

I understand there is to be a panel of legal experts and there will be a tendering process, which is good. However, we all know it will require much more in terms of the resourcing of this kind of committee. If we are going to set up a committee, there will have to be a commitment that it will be properly resourced so it will function properly.

In Part 2 of the Bill, section 7 deals with new legislation the committee may suggest is required. One obvious point is that there is an in-built Government majority on all of the committees. That is not very different from what happens at present, where the Government decides what legislation is taken, and pretty much everything that comes from the Opposition, while it might get a hearing on a Friday morning or in Private Members' time, does not get any further along. This needs consideration in terms of how we might get a balance on the committee. A strict reflection of the make-up of the Dáil may not be in order in this case.

During the lifetime of this Government we have seen plenty of evidence of abuse of process. For example, we have seen guillotines being used routinely and legislation being published very late. The Companies Bill was the size of a telephone book, yet we got it one week before it was due to be debated. Next week, we will debate both the social welfare Bill, which is not yet published, and the Croke Park II legislation, which we have not seen yet. When I see that type of abuse of process, and we are conferring on ourselves the right to have inquiries, it does not fill me with confidence. I would like it noted that the behaviour of a very large Government can be an issue of mistrust where power is used to ram business through very quickly. As an example, the promissory note night debate was a cause of great concern.

Part 12 of the Bill deals with the oath. While I may be misreading the Bill, I cannot find a provision for a non-religious oath or its equivalent. I would like to see this included as it is only right and proper that it would be. It is certainly available in the courts and is a more inclusive way to proceed.

The Constitution provides that the Oireachtas can make its own Standing Orders. In reality, however, the only Standing Orders that are changed are the ones the Government wants to change because, again, a majority decision is used. Even very small changes are not acceded to. For example, the Technical Group has been seeking a change in order that a nominated person from our group can speak on the Order of Business. However, unless one is a party leader, that is not provided for, even if no one is available to speak. This is the case even though the Technical Group makes up one third of the Opposition. We are being asked to adopt this in the context of a Government with a very large majority.

I have concerns in regard to section 8, which deals with the power to inquire into the removal of certain officeholders, such as the President, a judge or the Comptroller and Auditor General. Again, this is something we will have to give the gravest of consideration. I am not sure it is a power that should be conferred on this committee because there should be a balance of input from all sides of the House in an equal way.

Those are the main points I wish to make. I do not have a principled objection to the legislation and, while there are problematic issues, some of those can be dealt with on Committee Stage. However, I cannot stress enough the importance of waiting until the Supreme Court rules in the Callely case. I also have concerns about the balance and make-up of the committee.

See this speech in context