Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation. The context for these proposals is the Abbeylara judgment and, as many speakers have observed, the rejection of the 30th amendment to the Constitution. It is important to acknowledge that the Abbeylara judgment imposed a requirement on the Government to put in place a statutory framework defining the role and scope of Oireachtas committees and inquiries. The defeat of the constitutional amendment does not discharge the Legislature from that obligation.

Reforming how the Oireachtas works is a key pillar of this Government's programme of work. Newer Deputies in particular will certainly have views on how the committee system might be improved. There is undoubtedly enormous potential within the committees, particularly in the context of a less adversarial approach in recent years. There is scope to achieve a great deal when the focus is not on point-scoring. The banking crisis provided a significant impetus in regard to this legislation, but it should not be allowed to dominate the debate. The procedures set out in the Bill will be available to all the Oireachtas committees to facilitate them in inquiring into a broad range of matters of public interest.

Several specific concerns in regard to the provisions have been raised in the course of the debate, and there is sure to be a vigorous engagement with the Minister on Committee Stage. An issue of concern to me relates to the question of how the Dáil functions. We all hope and expect that this Dáil will run for another three years. It is impossible to know, however, in any Dáil, whether the Government will run its full term or when an election might arise. Where a committee is undertaking an inquiry and the Dáil is subsequently dissolved in the course of that inquiry, is there any provision for its work to continue? Will all such inquiries fall by necessity, or could some provision be made in this regard in the legislation? In regard to inquiries into the conduct of Members, where Members who anticipate an adverse finding against them choose to resign their seat, would the inquiry fall at that point? I accept that all of these issues will be teased out on Committee Stage, but the Minister might comment on those two points.

Several speakers referred to the prospect that Government majorities will somehow negate or impinge on the functionality of these investigations. I reject that contention. Under the current committee system, Opposition Members are absolutely free and able to ask any questions they require. In fact, they are generally facilitated to do so by way of lengthy speaking times and priority in the order of speakers. The numerical breakdown of the Dáil will not give rise to significant monopolising by the Government of how these matters proceed. That has not happened in the past and I do not expect it to happen in the future.

It is clear that Oireachtas committees require enhanced powers to allow them to function more effectively. This is particularly important in a political context where we might potentially see the abolition of the Seanad. We are all aware of the ongoing discourse in Britain and the United States in regard to the types of activities in which companies that function within their areas are engaged here in Ireland. The Oireachtas is almost unique as a parliamentary democracy in having no capacity to conduct those types of inquiries. We must have the ability, as in Britain and the United States, to address issues of concern to the electorate in a real way.

Many of the speakers on the Opposition side have focused on what we will not be able to do under the new legislation. The reality, however, is that its provisions will ensure there is a great deal we can do. Reform can take place without necessarily having recourse to making statements of fact, which is a matter for the courts. Several speakers are of the view that these provisions will be tested at an early stage in the courts. That is to be welcomed. The sooner there is clarity from the courts, the sooner we can move to a process that is clearly understood by witnesses and Members alike and by the Judiciary. In too many instances, unfortunately, we have seen how difficult legislation that is required by a ruling of the Supreme Court is kicked down the road. The Minister is doing his job, as is the Minister for Health in an another area, in bringing forward the legislation we are required to produce.

See this speech in context