Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It has been true in the two and a half years I have been in the House. The point is a relevant one. I appreciate that the proposal might not be constitutional and that a referendum might be required. Several are planned.

The point is a very important one. As the Minister is aware, this is common practice in many European parliaments. Seven European parliaments have in place a system whereby between one quarter and one third of their parliament is sufficient to instigate a parliamentary inquiry. In Germany it is just one quarter. I have article 44 of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany which states the Bundestag shall have the right, and on the motion of one quarter of its members, the duty to establish a committee of inquiry which shall take the requisite evidence at public hearings. I think it is important. We know it is common practice in some well-functioning democracies. For the Germans it is 25%. As I said to the Minister on Committee Stage, I am not hung up on whether it is 25%, 35% or even 40% but I would not go above 40%. Listening to the previous debate on the banking inquiry and inherent bias I am all the more convinced that something of that nature would be very useful in order to instil some public trust that these kinds of inquiries are being set up for the right reasons.

The Minister made a comment that the Oireachtas can do whatever Westminster does. We have seen some excellent inquiries there, for example, the Leveson inquiry, among others. The Minister said we have to prove this House capable of doing the normal work of parliaments. Unfortunately, due to the stranglehold which the Fianna Fáil Cabinet had for years over the Dáil, and which the Fine Gael and Labour Cabinet now exerts over the Dáil, this House cannot do the normal work of Parliament. Let us look at what happened in recent days. On an utterly non-political issue of deep conscience-----

See this speech in context