Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. The referendum on the powers of inquiries failed in 2011, which, in one respect, was an incredible achievement by the people, given the near consensus politically in favour of making an amendment to the Constitution. Much of the commentary at the time was very much in favour of the amendment, but the people chose to do otherwise. Doing so in the face of such political consensus must be recognised as an achievement and it would be arrogant of Members to say the people got it wrong and that we should run the campaign again. It is more important to look at what the people decided and admit that we got it wrong. We can then debate whether the issue was one of timing or substance. Perhaps, it was a campaign issue. We got it wrong and the people said no to the proposed change to the Constitution.

Nevertheless, we have before us a Bill on the conduct of inquiries. It is perhaps the most significant Bill to reform the practices of the Oireachtas to be published in the past 15 years or more. It is incredibly important and should in no way be regarded as an attempt by politicians to sidestep the will of the people in the referendum. The Bill is completely and goes nowhere near the powers set out in the proposed amendment to the Constitution. It is important in the powers it provides for the Oireachtas and committees. It is also very important in the context of the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad which will take place in the next couple of months. If we are to remove the second Chamber, we must be absolutely certain that the remaining Chamber will be able to perform the tasks a parliament should be able to carry out in a democracy such as ours. It must be able to provide for the checks and balances and stand confidently and assert its opinions and use its judgment in the way a parliament should and to work with the government of the day. The Bill is very much part of ensuring this Chamber will be able to stand on its own, confidently and competently, should the Seanad be abolished. I will support the referendum when it is held.

This is not just about the Bill, it is also about the reform of the committee system, as many Members have said.

Recently, at a Fine Gael Parliamentary Party meeting, I and other colleagues put forward different ideas on how to reform the committee system. We are conscious of the mandate every single Member was given in 2011 to fix the economy and also to reform society and the political structures in the country so that the mistakes of the past, which destroyed the economy, cannot happen again. That is our central mandate and at every step of the way we must ask whether we are doing enough, reforming enough and changing enough to make sure it cannot happen again. This Bill is part of that but more work needs to be done in the committee system to do that. The committees must be given more teeth and those serving on the committees must be given more teeth.

I refer to the use of the Whip system on every single issue in committees. An important issue was raised in respect of the Bill and the use of the Whip system. We discussed it at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts and Deputy Donohoe made reference to it. Is it possible to whip members of the committee holding an inquiry such as this? Is it possible to whip members on the terms of reference for the inquiry, the findings made, the conclusion or how the business was to be conducted? I believe we could not because it would undermine the standing of the findings of the inquiry. When the first inquiry happens after the Bill is passed, it will lead to interesting challenges to the Whip system and will bring the use of the Whip in Irish politics front and centre.

Some are critical of the time it has taken us to bring the Bill to the House in the context of the banking inquiry because they want it to happen. The work done on the possibility of a banking inquiry in the Committee of Public Accounts sets out the amount of work that needs to be done. The significance of the legislation and what we are trying to do, bearing in mind what may happen with the Seanad and what people said in the referendum in 2011, means we must take our time in what we consider and how we take it through Committee Stage and make amendments. It will be an important change for this Dáil. It is ridiculous but there are those who say the Government may not want to hold a banking inquiry. The idea must be rejected at every turn. It is part of our mandate to discover what happened on the night in question, the preceding weeks and months, the following weeks and months and what was happening in the years building up to the collapse. We need to look at it to learn from it, understand it, improve our systems and move on through a form of catharsis for the country as a whole. That is why the Government wants to hold a banking inquiry as soon as possible, deal with the legislation and get it through and move to that stage. Much of the work of the Government has been to deal with legacies from the past, trying to correct mistakes or, where mistakes could not be corrected, trying to negate the impact of their outcome. The Government had to find the courage to do new things and this Bill, and the referendums, including the Seanad referendum, are examples.

The protection of life through pregnancy Bill is a new thing, as is the courage of the Government to deal with a legacy issue that was not dealt with before. The protection of life through pregnancy Bill, and how heads of the Bill were handled by the committee, pave the way for the kind of reforms we should see in every committee dealing with legislation. It is incredibly important. When I look at the debate on the protection of life during pregnancy Bill, I look at the substance of what is discussed and also how people are reflecting on how it is being discussed. It is returning some standing to politics, politicians and the practices we engage in in this House and its committee system. That is a good thing and we need to see more of it in our committees. We need to be more transparent in our work so people see us at our best and worst. People need to see us wrestling with these issues in public, consulting experts, taking our time and deliberating on important points for the country as a whole.

When I get the opportunity to speak, I continually say that passing legislation makes it the law of the land. Sometimes we are not certain how the legislation will be interpreted, unintended consequences on the enactment of legislation or how a situation may come about that was unintended. It happens all the time and we must reform and amend legislation. That is fine and is part of the parliamentary process. That is why is it is so important we take our time with these important matters.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys and Deputy Twomey referred to the extra resources needed for committees. If we want to have the kind of committees we see in the European Parliaments with successful committee systems, and if committees are to act as checks and balances to the Government, as the Seanad could have but never did, the committees will require extra resources. That involves extra people, extra money and extra facilities. We should not be shy about spending a small amount of money where it will bring about great reform and financial savings in the work Government does. Potentially, a committee that we will set up will prevent a future economic collapse or a particular problem with banking regulation. That is a money-saving in the long term.

I have not begun to get to the substance of what I wanted to speak about because I went off script. This Bill will lead to a banking inquiry. The Committee of Public Accounts did a substantial amount of work in preparing a preliminary report. I wanted to read parts of into the record because we never had the chance to debate the report properly. Six members sat on the sub-committee and put a lot of work into it, together with the officials. It is comprehensive and contains a roadmap for holding a banking inquiry. We never got to debate it in detail because we do not debate enough committee reports in the Dáil. One of the reforms we must make is to bring the work from individual committees to the Chamber so people who do not sit on committees can see the work others are doing and that the public as a whole can see it. The roadmap exists but I caution that the kind of banking inquiry we can have, given the powers conferred on us by the Constitution, will not be what people hoped for. However, it will still be incredibly important to have the principals of the day come before a public committee to take public questions in full transparency and openness. That will be an important moment for the country and I look forward to it. I congratulate the Minister on this Bill, which is perhaps the most progressive legislation in reforming the Dáil in the past decade or more. I am very proud the Government is doing this in conjunction with other efforts for reform.

See this speech in context