Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues on all sides of the House for the informed and thoughtful range of contributions on a Bill that is of particular interest to Members of this House. As many speakers observed, the legislation will allow the House to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance in an effective and efficient manner within the well structured and well understood constitutional parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.

There are many legitimate inquiries the Oireachtas may conduct. The last speaker's contribution was interesting. We should not focus on the lack of powers, rather let us exercise the many powers we have to the maximum ability. A robust power of inquiry can play a very important role in ensuring lessons are learned from failures and that future legislation is influenced and guided by these lessons to the benefit of citizens and taxpayers. The approach represents the best assessment of my Department and the Government of what is constitutionally permissible based on the tenor of the Supreme Court judgment in the Abbeylara case. I had a direct involvement in that case as a member of the Oireachtas sub-committee and attended the hearings in the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Bill places considerable responsibility on the Houses, a point missed by some Deputies. This is not confined to the Government. It empowers the Houses to take full command of these matters. It envisages a central role for the Oireachtas in initiating and conducting a parliamentary inquiry. It is for the House to determine the appropriate subject for an inquiry, the nature of that inquiry, the terms of reference and so on. Under the terms of the Bill, responsibility is assigned exclusively to the Houses of the Oireachtas to determine the requirements for a formal inquiry, the terms of reference, the appropriate committee to conduct the inquiry and its procedural and organisational aspects. Many of the detailed arrangements and procedures to be followed will be laid down in the rules and Standing Orders of the Houses.

I wish to comment on some of the observations made by Deputies during the course of the debate yesterday and today. We will have careful regard to everything that was said, particularly between now and Committee Stage. Several Deputies mentioned bias, wondering if it would be possible for the Houses to find Members to participate in a banking inquiry, given the statements of so many Members on the matter. Any assessment of whether there is a perception of bias will depend firmly on the circumstances of the individual case. It is for the Oireachtas to make the assessment of bias in the first instance. The matter could ultimately be determined by the courts by way of assessment of the view formed by a reasonable person. That is how it is expressed in the Bill and that is the objective - what would a reasonable person construct as bias in terms of, for example, the specific utterances of a member of an inquiry committee that are directly relevant to the specific matters that are the subject of the inquiry under its terms of reference or serious shortcomings in the procedural fairness with which an inquiry is being carried out. Members of the Oireachtas would be expected to have strong views and express them on a range of important matters, particularly of public policy, relevant to the Legislature, the people and their parliamentary role. The fact that members of an inquiry committee have formed a preliminary view of serious failures in the performance of particular organisations and sectors, for example, has been the subject of other reports. That would not disqualify them from participating in an inquiry, provided that it was not established with the objective of establishing individual misconduct relating to that failure. It seems that it would not be appropriate for members of an inquiry committee to make public comment immediately prior to or during the course of an inquiry on the matters under inquiry where its findings had the potential to impact adversely on the reputation of an individual.

Deputy Sean Fleming questioned the purpose of the Bill and wondered whether there was anything new in the legislation or if such matters could be regulated better or more readily under Standing Orders. The Bill represents an important step in the process of clarifying the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in securing accountability through the appropriate use of the inquiry mechanism. Other Deputies have since said that if one reads the Abbeylara judgment, the Supreme Court is of the view that we need to set these matters out in statute law. The Bill sets out the overall framework, but in so far as possible it respects the authority of the House or the Houses to define their own procedures under their rules and Standing Orders as is proper under Article 15.10° of the Constitution.

Deputy Sean Fleming also raised some issues about periodic or interim reports to ensure work done would not be wasted, a point also raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy. The Bill provides for this in section 31 which states the House may request interim reports in writing in accordance with its rules and Standing Orders. The Deputy also referred to the number of new committees to be established. It is not intended that there will be new committees, simply clearly defined roles that can be assigned to existing committees. There could be many roles for the same committee.

Deputy Sean Fleming referred to the exceptions provided for in section 68. These largely replicate, as I indicated they would, the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997. Cabinet confidentiality, for example, is protected by the Constitution. Certain exemptions are necessary to ensure the public interest is protected during the course of an inquiry. Even if such exemptions are not included in the Bill, one would expect any committee of inquiry to carefully consider whether the disclosure of certain documents or certain information would be prejudicial to the interests of the State in dealing with clearly difficult security issues or prejudicing criminal proceedings. These are matters to which an inquiry and its chairman would have to have regard.

Deputy Sean Fleming also mentioned former Members of the House, an issue on which other Members also touched. If this type of inquiry is to be undertaken in any instance, it will depend on the precise nature of the matter into which it will inquire. The focus of a section 9 inquiry is a Member of the House in his or her capacity as a Member. It may be that in certain circumstances another Part 2 inquiry, other than a section 9 inquiry, might be appropriate.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh and others said this legislation was being rushed. I am sure Deputies on all sides will appreciate the urgency attached to having this legislation enacted. I appreciate that it is a large Bill which was difficult to digest before Second Stage, but I hope the very significant pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform since last November when the long heads of the Bill were published has enabled Deputies to give this matter a good degree of consideration.

I fully agree with Deputy Finian McGrath's comments on the damage done to politics by the actions of a minority of Members and former Members. I hope this legislation will assist in strengthening the effectiveness of the Oireachtas and enhancing trust in our political system. The Deputy referred to the commitment in the programme for Government to change the restrictions on the evidence of civil servants. Section 90 provides for this change.

Deputy Shane Ross wondered whether, as parliamentarians, we were the appropriate persons to conduct inquiries. Yes, we are. That is the nature of parliament everywhere. I do not know of any parliament that does not conduct inquiries and we are peculiar in being unable to do so, or incapable of doing so, in a robust fashion in this Parliament. I agree with Deputies Paschal Donohoe and Jerry Buttimer that this legislation provides an opportunity for us to change the political culture by giving the Oireachtas the tools to do its job effectively and trusting Members of the House to do that job.

Several Deputies mentioned the appropriate balance on committees. Section 16(2) provides that a committee of the House or the Houses may issue guidelines on the procedures for inquiries. Such guideline may include "to the extent practicable, achieving a balance between committee members as regards their respective political affiliations".

Deputy Catherine Murphy and others mentioned the Callely case before the Supreme Court. It would not be appropriate to delay the Bill to await that judgment, but we will, of course, have regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in due course.

Deputy Finian McGrath also talked about the importance of fair procedures. That is an extremely important issue. We have paid huge attention to ensuring fair procedures.

Deputy John McGuinness mentioned how effective the DIRT inquiry had been. He is right.

That inquiry was not resisted, witnesses came voluntarily, papers were produced and the scoping exercise had already been done by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It would be somewhat more fraught if witnesses were reluctant to come and we needed to exercise compellability to seek papers, documentation and to summon witnesses before a committee. That is why we need a robust framework. To do that, we need to ensure that fair procedures under the Constitution and natural justice are fully complied with.

Deputy Nolan believed some other speakers were misleading regarding the scope of the Bill. I welcome the clarity he brought on this matter to the debate. I echo his statements that this Bill fully conforms to the rules of fair procedures as set down in the Abbeylara judgment. That is why we have taken such care in the Bill’s crafting.

Deputy Dowds regretted the Oireachtas inquiries referendum was not passed. We must always have respect of the views of the people expressed but it would have been an advance for the Oireachtas if it had been passed. There was a message in the referendum result. In the subsequent analysis, we learned we need to win the trust of the people. If the people are going to give us powers, particularly to call in people and cross-examine them, we need to manifestly show we are capable of doing that without abusing them. We have seen instances where people were before committees and were bludgeoned, for want of a better word, by Members. That colours people’s perception on whether Members should be given power to summon people. We need to ensure that when we exercise the significant powers we already have, we do so in a fair way.

Deputy Dowds also spoke about the abolition of the Seanad, a point touched upon by several Deputies. Abolition of the Seanad is a position I came to after careful consideration in advance of the last election when I wrote a position paper for my party on the issue. I looked at second Chambers internationally and how they operated. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any case for one here. If we are to convince people to vote for the Seanad’s abolition and have a unicameral system, it will mean this Chamber must manifestly show it is capable of doing the people’s work in a fair way. That means rebalancing the relative powers between the Executive and Parliament. That means we must have better and stronger committee systems that are clearly resourced. As the Minister charged with resources, I have no illusions about this and I look forward to proposals coming in that regard from Members.

Deputy Pringle said the Bill contains no specific provision to permit a committee to appoint an investigator. In fact, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent that. The procedure we had envisaged had the inquiries referendum been passed was to have a scoping committee of the House which would appoint a parliamentary investigator to scope out inquiries. There is nothing stopping a committee of the House under this legislation appointing such an investigator. If the issue to be examined is a particularly complex financial matter, it can appoint a financial expert. If the issue is medical, then it can appoint a medical expert.

See this speech in context