Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on the Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries (Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2013. I welcome the Bill because it provides clarity in the area of Oireachtas inquiries and consolidates existing legislation within the constitutional framework as set out in the Abbeylara judgment. It is important to note that this Bill is not attempting to interfere with the outcome of the proposed 13th amendment to the Constitution, which was defeated by the referendum in 2011. Instead, it aims to ensure that Oireachtas inquiries can carry out important work in certain areas such as the proposed and much called for banking inquiry.

I want to focus on section 18 of the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider carefully this section which prohibits a Member of the House from sitting on a committee where a perception of bias might arise in a reasonable person. In a RTE Radio 1 interview, Paul Anthony McDermott highlighted that this section could be a possible source of legal challenge to an inquiry. Section 18 aims to ensure non-bias on the part of the committee of inquiry and provides that a Member of the Oireachtas may not sit on a committee of inquiry where his or her connections or dealings with the subject matter of the inquiry, public utterances on the matter or any other circumstances the House considers relevant mean that a perception of bias might arise in a reasonable person aware of that connection or those dealings or utterances. Mr. McDermott envisaged that there could be legal challenges during the course of a practical application of this section.

Utterances can be defined as the action of saying or expressing something aloud. Who has not made a comment or a public utterance on the banking crisis, particularly in this age of social media? Would a Twitter comment be sufficient for a committee member to be deemed biased? Many politicians have made many comments about banks and the banking crisis and some have made a virtue out of bank bashing. Does that mean that many of us will not be able to sit on an Oireachtas committee of inquiry?

However, I recognise the intent in this section because there are some people who should not sit on Oireachtas committees set up to investigate particular matters. The instance that springs to mind today is the issue relating to the investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts of public funds spend on ministerial offices in light of the €250,000 spend in 2007 on an office fit out and refurbishment for the then Minister of State, Deputy John McGuinness. The Committee of Public Accounts has agreed to look at the fit-out and refurbishment costs of all ministerial offices. When the figure of €250,000 appeared in the public domain, I called for the committee to carry out an investigation of this exorbitant expenditure and I am very pleased that it is now doing so. Deputy McGuinness, the Chairman of the committee, has said that he has nothing to hide and he wants the entire matter investigated and he is to be commended for this. However, this is a very clear example of why a Member of the House shall not be or continue to be a committee member if for any reason, his or her connection or dealing with any matter is the subject of the inquiry. In this particular instance, I am now calling on Deputy McGuinness to step down as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts while this investigation is underway.

Section 18 is a very important part of the Bill and will require further examination and consideration. We also need to view this Bill in light of the impending judgment in the Callely case as the decision will no doubt shed further light in this area. Finally, I welcome this Bill and commend the Minister for bringing it forward.

See this speech in context