Seanad debates
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2013: Second Stage
5:15 pm
Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source
The Minister is very welcome to the House. It is very welcome to be debating the Bill here and it is particularly timely given the publication of the Anglo tapes. Obviously, the tapes are of great interest and concern to everyone in the country. We have been drip fed the revelations and the so-called humour of bankers has been exposed.
In the context of the Bill's introduction, as a criminal lawyer, the key priority is to ensure that criminal investigations are expedited. The public most wants to see that those individuals responsible for the economic collapse will be held accountable under the criminal law where relevant and necessary. The criminal process is undoubtedly taking a long time. Charges have been brought and one must be careful because cases are pending but, as the Minister said, the DPP advised the chartered accountants some two years ago, on foot of certain information, that charges were imminent then. More recently, the Irish Independentwas also asked to withhold publication of certain aspects of the tapes. We all very much hope that charges are imminent but it is important to put in place necessary resourcing both for the Garda fraud squad and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement to ensure that investigations are not hampered and are brought forward in a timely fashion.
It has been alleged that there have been clear breaches of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act. A more straightforward defence is available for prosecuting fraud under that legislation, rather than the more complex corporate criminal offences which are also being investigated. It seems to me that certain investigations could be carried out in a more timely fashion.
Leaving aside the criminal process, however, the issue at stake here is about holding broader Oireachtas inquiries. The Bill provides for six different types of inquiry, while the focus of public debate has been on one particular type - the inquiry to hold the government to account. However, there are also important provisions in the Bill which deal with inquiries relating to the removal of office holders, the impeachment of the President, and the inquire, record and report inquiries.
The inquiry that everyone is interested in, however, is the one into the collapse of the banks. The public may want to know "who dunnit" but that is a question for a criminal process. Given the parameters of the Abbeylara judgment and the failure of the referendum in 2011, Oireachtas inquiries are limited to an equally important question which is, what happened? People are anxious to know what occurred. That question is a key one but none of us knows the answer. Five years after the fateful night of the bank guarantee we still do not know what happened or, indeed, how it happened. Those are questions that an Oireachtas inquiry - carried out within the constitutional and statutory framework of this Bill - could and should answer. It is good to see the Minister bringing forward this Bill so swiftly so that we can see that inquiry being set up in the autumn.
The questions of what happened and how events unfolded are appropriate to an Oireachtas inquiry conducted in public with the specific powers provided for in the Bill before us. The legislation contains measures such as the protection of whistleblowers - which is qualified privilege for confidential communications for members of the public to Members of either House - and the section 21 prohibition on Members sitting where there is a perception of bias. Senator O'Keeffe has spoken eloquently about that.
It is important for us to defend the principle of Oireachtas inquiries. During the referendum campaign in 2011, unfortunate language was used. I know that many lawyers were swayed by the gimmicky slogan "kangaroo courts", which I thought unfairly characterised what was being attempted. It was to set up a sort of inquiry that could be conducted by parliamentarians in a dignified and robust fashion. I am referring to the sort of committee inquiries we have had in the past, including the Committee of Public Accounts' inquiry into DIRT. I have been present at hearings of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality on contentious issues such as prostitution. These issues are dealt with in a forensic but respectful fashion by members of the committee who have left aside party political allegiance in the context of such directed inquiries. When Oireachtas committees work well they can be impressive. It will be positive for the Oireachtas to see a committee of inquiry being carried out under this legislation.
A great deal of work goes on under the radar at committees and there is much criticism about people turning up. When they work well, however, they really are impressive. In a broader context, it will enhance people's trust in parliamentarians. There is currently a vicious circle with people saying that they do not deserve our trust. At the back of the kangaroo courts slogan was the idea that somehow parliamentarians are unworthy or unfit to conduct inquiries. Yet we are elected by the people and the people must have trust in their parliamentarians. Providing more detailed and comprehensive powers to conduct inquiries as set out in this Bill will enhance trust in parliamentarians and give them more responsibility to conduct the sort of important inquiry we all want to see carried out.
I want to make one final substantive point about the Bill. I am glad the Minister emphasised in his speech that the Bill empowers the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries, and not the Executive. As the Minister said, this was a conscious decision because of the critique that Irish politics tends to be dominated by the Executive. Of course, having two Houses of Parliament should enhance the power of the Oireachtas as against that of the Executive but that is an argument for another day. Indeed, we have been having that argument here at length, and will be doing so, on the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill.
I am grateful to my colleague, Professor Gerry Whyte of the TCD Law School, who has raised the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. I know the Minister is aware of this issue. Article 28.4.3oof the Constitution states that the rule on Cabinet confidentiality can be set aside by a High Court order for disclosure, but that the application must be made "...by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas...". I have discussed this with colleagues and we wondered if this means an Oireachtas inquiry. I have looked through the Bill to see and it is very much an Oireachtas inquiry. These inquiries will be creatures of the Oireachtas.
Senator O'Keeffe has raised an important question about the process by which the inquiry is set up and which committee will do it. Clearly, however, they are being set up by the Oireachtas, rather than by the Executive, which is a significant strength of the Bill. I wonder nonetheless if that will hamper access to Cabinet records. That will obviously be very important in the context of a banking inquiry. It may also be important for some other sorts of inquiry the Bill envisages that Oireachtas committees will conduct.
I referred to the central questions of what happened and how it happened. In this context, an inquiry would need to have some access to what went on in Cabinet deliberations, so I wonder how that can be dealt with without, I dread to say, having a referendum on amending Article 28. The latter article was clearly drafted to envisage a tribunal of inquiry. That is the model that was envisaged but we have moved on greatly since then and this Bill will add these new sorts of Oireachtas inquiries. However, I do not see them being allowed for within the current wording of Article 28. I hope I am wrong about that but the point was raised with me and I think it is worth raising again now and later on Committee Stage.
I welcome the debate we will have on the Bill's more detailed provisions on Committee Stage. I also welcome the Bill and the inquiries we will see being conducted within its parameters.
No comments