Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is very interesting legislation which we will either get very right, and make a significant difference, or get wrong. It is really very different from how the Oireachtas works. It will be a great test of Government and of the courts because we are, to some degree, interfering with some of their functions. The operation of this legislation will be a very significant test for Members of the Oireachtas.

Many Deputies commented on the role of tribunals in the past. Tribunals are judicial inquiries and they can find fact against individuals and organisations because they are very much part of the courts. Reference was also made to the recent hearings of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013. Everybody said everyone should have his or her say in this regard but it is always about striking the right balance at committee hearings. Deputy Mattie McGrath sent out a press release saying some individuals were denied the right to appear before the committee. He supported a Government for quite some time which gave nobody the opportunity to have his or her say.

We are now dealing with an issue which is 21 years old. He has claimed that people have not been given the right to have their say, but he denied people that opportunity, in effect, when he was on the Government side of the House. I would say this Government has moved on quite dramatically by giving people an opportunity to air their views. The issue in question was discussed in January and a further three days of public hearings have just concluded. The legislation has not yet been introduced in the House. This is part of the reforms that have been actively promoted by the Government. We are being a bit more transparent and opening up the Dáil. I think we are going even further. There is a whole plan in play. People have not noticed some of the changes that have happened. They will notice them over time.

I became a Member of the Oireachtas in 2002. I would suggest that in that time, it was the last Government which made the most significant attempt to close down debate and deny the people the accountability and transparency they expect from the Oireachtas. This was done subtly, for example, by means of small changes to the freedom of information regime and the way people do business in the House. It was enough to make it more difficult to hold the Government to account in the way people expect. As we consider this legislation, we must be careful that these inquiries to not take on a quasi-judicial status. That is not what the purpose of this Bill should be. We are not the courts and we are not the Government - we are the Parliament. When we hold our inquiries, it will be important for those involved to see this as one of their functions as parliamentarians. Obviously, there will be a risk that people will slip into thinking they have a role as senior counsels or judges in these inquiries. That is not what we are about. As parliamentarians, we have a much broader remit than that of a judge or senior counsel in the workings of the courts.

This Bill is interesting because we have already asked the people of Ireland whether they trust politicians or the Oireachtas enough to allow them to carry out full inquiries into issues like the banking crisis. That proposition was rejected by the people. Basically, that means the people of Ireland do not trust politicians or the Oireachtas to carry out fair inquiries in the manner that was promoted. I think we should have looked for answers from the results of that referendum to help us to frame our approach to this legislation. When the referendum proposal was rejected by the people, there was clear concern that the people did not trust us. We should find out why the people showed such mistrust of us. Many Members of the House, including some of the members of the Government that is introducing this legislation, might not wholeheartedly agree with it. We have to reflect the concerns of the people when we are deciding how much power to give ourselves in this Oireachtas. We have to think not only about ourselves, but also about those who will follow us in the Oireachtas. We must ask how much power we would like to give to those who will be asked to ascertain the facts about issues that could have an affect on people's lives.

The greatest flaw in any decision to give powers to the Oireachtas is that too often, neither the citizens of this country nor the Members of the Oireachtas see us as true parliamentarians. The power in this country lies with the courts and with the Government. The Parliament also has many powers, but the Members of the Oireachtas tend to refrain from exercising them. We take our lead from the Government, or we are led by the Government. It has been no different since the foundation of the State. As I have pointed out, many of these powers were weakened by the actions of the last Government. We have allowed some of the powers of the Parliament to slip from our hands. There is a need for people to define themselves - to set out exactly what they are as parliamentarians. Being a true parliamentarian is not just about looking for free votes in the Chamber or deciding to lose the Whip by voting against a specific measure proposed by the Government. It is about the day-to-day work of the Oireachtas. I suppose that should and could be done in a more consensual manner. We will need to change the adversarial approach that unfortunately dominates politics and business in this country if we really want to make this legislation work. A more consensual approach will be needed in the event of a politically sensitive inquiry. We will have to work together to make it work properly for the people of this country.

If we are to be true parliamentarians, we will have to make a greater commitment to reading and critically analysing legislation, reports that are published for the Oireachtas and by the Government and the actions of the Government. Honestly, I do not think that is done by many parliamentarians at present, or at least it is not often done well by most of us in these Houses. I am not condemning the Members of the House. I do not suggest that what I am speaking about is evidence of some kind of faulty trait on their part. I am suggesting that the harsh practicalities of working and getting elected to the Dáil mean that one is far more likely to get a return on work that has absolutely nothing to do with legislation, reports or the inquiries that will be carried out by this House. If we are make these inquiries work, and if there is to be a genuine return on the effort the Minister is making to get this legislation onto the Statute Book, we need to step up our game and to do the work of parliamentarians properly. We will have to change the way we work in the Dáil so that it is less confrontational and involves more critical analysis of the work we do. This is a fault of the way the House works. Backbenchers like me get very little opportunity to criticise any sort of Government policy without being seen as anti-Government. If I was to criticise aspects of health or education policy for any reason, I would be described as anti-Government. That is an indication of the failure of the way this Chamber and the committees work. The media will not consider what one says from the Opposition benches unless one is assassinating the character of a Minister or supporting some other agenda. It is not taken as seriously as it needs to be if we are to make this work.

As this Bill goes through and as people pay attention to it, we need to mature as parliamentarians. We should have confidence in our role and in our ability to make this legislation work. Some of the work that is being done in the committees gives me confidence that we have it within ourselves to do this sort of work well. It is up to the media to show the same interest in the good work that is being and could be done in the committees. The media should not be fixated on our expenses and on controversial issues like the abortion debate. Excellent work is being done at committee level every week. Those doing that work get no recognition from the media and the wider public, who do not see it as important. There is a need for us to educate the public on the difference parliamentarians can make in their lives. I believe the Oireachtas has changed in the past couple of years. The potential exists to add to the reforms that have already been carried out. It should be recognised that the committees need better resources to enable them to work. If the people of Ireland decide to abolish the Seanad, the committees will have to take on more responsibility for holding the Government to account. The Taoiseach and the members of the Government have already recognised that. The committees are being given a greater critical mass to make inquiries, to do their work and - to some degree - to offer a counterpoint to the role of the Government in running this country.

I know the Ceann Comhairle is very anxious to make this Chamber work in a more democratic manner and I believe he would like to see even more happen to make this Chamber more free-flowing and accountable to the people who elect us. We must move away from being an irrelevant talking shop, which we are to some degree, and become more of a Parliament.

In moving the legislation, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has a clear commitment to the sort of democratic process that needs to brought back into the Oireachtas. He wishes to make changes to the Freedom of Information Act and in regard to whistleblowers, and this and the other legislation the Minister has brought forward points to the experience this Chamber needs. We need to be given the opportunity to become a significant part of the democratic accountability of this nation, along with the courts and the Government. There is a serious need for Members of this Parliament to step up to the plate and make sure we do this work, and do it right.

Up to now, neither the Dáil nor the Seanad has worked to provide that counterbalance to Government. If we are to continue to move along the line as we are doing, for example, in regard to increased scrutiny of Government policy and budget plans, which I know the Minister would like the finance committee to do more of, we must not just scrutinise the Departments of Finance or the Taoiseach, for which we are responsible, but look at public expenditure across all Departments. However, the only way this will be possible is if additional resources are given to the finance committee to enable it to get information and to assimilate and understand the difficult processes that are part of the public finances. None of us is an expert in accountancy or economics, and in order for the committees to work, there is a need to beef them up in a manner which I believe is possible but which is not yet coming through.

The changes that have been put in place to date give the impression that there is an increase in democratic accountability in theory, but it will only work in practice when we have adequate resources. When we have those resources, I believe we will get the right attitude from Members of the Oireachtas to making the committees work in a true manner. The inquiries by the US Senate and the Houses of Parliament at Westminster have both been in the headlines recently in a way that references what is happening in this country in regard to our tax matters. We do not get that sort of publicity because our committees are not resourced to the same level as the committees making those inquiries in the US and UK. At the same time, even with those additional resources, they still got it wrong because it was not an issue of our corporate tax rate but very much about the bilateral taxation agreements that exist between many countries, including Ireland, and the US or UK. That is very much the cause of the disquiet that is exercising the minds of the US Senate and the Westminster Parliament.

That is the sort of approach we need for this Parliament. We need to beef up our committees and give them the necessary resources. What the Minister is doing here is providing a new legislative way of making an inquiry. However, it is very important we keep in mind that we are not the courts, we are not judges and we are not senior counsel. We are parliamentarians and, when we make our inquiries, we must try to be fair and unbiased towards the people we are dealing with. We must use such inquiries as a means of adding to our stock of information and to the improvement of the legislative roles we hold and the improvement of the legislation that exists, not to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past.

There is almost a need for a Cinderella clause to be put into the legislation to stop us from trying to use it to fulfil some sort of political goal, such as doing down someone from another political party or settling old scores. That is a very serious concern and one that existed when the referendum was put to the people, in that there was a fear there could be politically motivated inquiries that served no other purpose than to fulfil a short-term political goal on behalf of the Government. If we give genuine powers to the committees and decide to become genuine parliamentarians, we can prevent this sort of issue arising.

During the course of Committee Stage, I am sure we will have a lengthy discussion with the Minister on this issue. The Minister has brought in new measures in the legislation, such as qualified privilege for confidential communications from members of the public to Members of either House. There is a strong need to discuss this further with the Minister to ensure this privilege is not abused, for which there would be scope. There will also be a need to discuss further with the Minister how our terms of reference will work and how that will interact with the High Court, as well as what opportunities there will be for interested parties to file their own observations with the High Court before we could start an inquiry. I wonder whether this will become an issue. Section 92 makes provision for an application where a committee is of the opinion that a report could prejudice criminal proceedings, so there is a need for us to scope this out further with the Minister on Committee Stage. Section 97 allows for an appeal to the court where a direction from the committee could prejudice criminal proceedings which are pending or in progress. Again, we will need to scope this out with the Minister.

I presume the terms of reference will come from Government and, therefore, I presume there will be a significant role for the Attorney General, although I may be wrong on this. I would like the Minister to point out what sort of legal opinion would be available to the committee if it was to establish an inquiry of this sort, and whether there would be a role for the Attorney General to give us legal clarity as to what we could do.

Overall, this is another progressive piece of legislation from Government. It is following on with the concepts of accountability, transparency and responsibility to the people who elected us. It is up to us to step up to the plate, become real parliamentarians and make this legislation work. When I am in committee, I often find that those calling for meetings and inquiries, or demanding that we need to do this, that and everything else, are the ones who fail to turn up when we actually get witnesses before the committee. There will be a spotlight upon us in doing our job and it is important we face up to those responsibilities. I hope we will get the resources to do it properly.

See this speech in context