Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Like Deputy Derek Nolan, I welcome the Bill. It is a great pity that the inquiries referendum was voted down, largely because of a well aimed bomb fired at the right time by some people in the legal field. If we had not been discussing the inquiry proposal in conjunction with discussing the Presidential election campaign, people would have seen the value of making the proposed change to the Constitution.

I listened to two Opposition speeches in detail, namely, those of Deputies Shane Ross and Mattie McGrath. I found their contributions disappointing and depressing, primarily because they were both saying this was something we could not do and that politicians were not really capable of carrying out inquiries honestly. If we note what occurs in other countries, we must say this is something we must do and ought to do. One reason the country ended up in such a difficult set of circumstances was that we did not have scrutiny of the kind afforded by an inquiry.

There are two factors that greatly damaged our parliamentary democracy. One was that one party, Fianna Fáil, had held power for far too long and had been corrupted in the process. That is a danger for any party that holds power for too long. Second, there was insufficient parliamentary scrutiny, both at committee level and in the House, which had added greatly to the problems experienced. How useful it would have been during the crazier days of the Celtic tiger to have had the banking regulator scrutinised in detail before the system really went off the rails.

That sort of thing points to the need for good working committees that can really inquire into and get to the bottom of issues.

It is worth remembering our experience of tribunals and committee investigations, and the contrast between them. The Mahon tribunal sat for 917 days of public hearings, with an estimated cost of €247 million. All that was recovered by Revenue was €34.5 million. There was a huge net loss to the State. The Moriarty tribunal gained nothing for the State, I understand, with an estimated cost of €100 million.

On can contrast that with the DIRT inquiry in the 1990s. A committee of the House examined the operations of banks in regard to DIRT. It sat for a total of 26 days, cost approximate £3 million and generated £446 million for the State. Not every inquiry will generate money for the State, but it is a very good flag for how committees of the House can operate to the best of their ability. We need to learn from that experience, which was very good, and that of other countries. There is no reason we cannot.

The main inquiry which will be on people's minds is a banking inquiry. I presume it would be the first practical test of the Bill after it is passed. It is worth reminding people of the types of inquiry outlined in the Bill. They are to make provision for an inquiry limited to recording and reporting evidence and making findings of uncontested fact or findings of relevant misbehaviour; to make provision for an inquiry relating to the exercise of any one or more legislative functions, including whether there is a need for new legislation; to make provision for an inquiry in relation to the removal of certain officeholders as provided for in the Constitution or in other legislation; to provide for power of inquiry relating to the conduct of a Member of either House of the Oireachtas; and to give Dáil Éireann the power to undertake an inquiry into the conduct of a current officeholder, senior civil servant or CEO of a public body who was liable to be held to account by Dáil Éireann by virtue of the terms of his or her contract or statutory appointment. Had we had those powers in operation in the first decade of 21st century, this country would be in a much better place. For that reason, we have to be supportive of the Bill.

I appreciate the compellability section. It is important. I understand people will have the right to go to the High Court if they wish to contest something. If after the Bill is passed people traipse to the High Court, it will probably be an indication of its effectiveness. Why would they bother doing so unless they felt they had something to hide?

The Seanad is likely to be abolished. Therefore, it is really important that the powers of individual Deputies and committees are strengthened. If we do not have a second House it is very important that more examination of legislation takes place within this House. In that regard, it is important that we have Dáil committees with real and substantial powers and backbenchers with greater powers.

There is a need to examine the operation of the Whip system. There is a case, for example, for a free vote on Bills which do not have serious financial implications. Clearly, if one is a Government backbencher it is understandable why one is put under the hammer to support measures to deal with the financing of the State, although it is difficult at times to support them. I support the idea of a very strong Whip in that situation, but a case can be made to allow a weakening of the Whip on Bills without serious financial implications.

We have moved towards reform, in terms of having Friday sittings for Private Members' Bills. I look forward to a time when significant numbers of such Bills can be enacted. A free vote would be appropriate on many of them.

See this speech in context