Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate these draft Standing Orders. As colleagues will be aware, we had a full debate when the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill came before the House. Senator Susan O'Keeffe spoke for the Labour Party group on that occasion and we had a full debate on the mechanisms for inquiry. The Standing Orders before us were debated and adopted at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Senator Paul Coghlan outlined how the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges dealt with them last week. The Minister of State is before this House because the committee requested that we debate the draft Standing Orders on the floor of the House, which is welcome. We need to be clear about the reason we are debating the Standing Orders with the Minister of State. If this debate had not been sought, this matter would have been for the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges to deal with.

As the Chair confirmed and as is clear from a reading of the text, Standing Orders relate to the Seanad and its Members. All of us accept the context in which a banking inquiry is being established, the importance of ensuring the mechanism for conducting inquiries is clearly set out and the need to provide clear guidelines on important issues such as allegations of bias in the conduct of inquiries. The Minister of State noted the importance of people hearing directly from those who made the decisions that brought about the economic collapse. All Members of the Houses should agree that an Oireachtas inquiry, held in public, is the most appropriate mechanism for achieving this objective. I regret that the referendum on the powers of committees was not passed as it would have enabled an even more comprehensive inquiry to take place. Notwithstanding the result of the referendum, the relevant legislation and these Standing Orders were passed to ensure the most comprehensive inquiry possible could be carried out.

On the substance of the draft Standing Orders, which make provision in four areas, it is eminently sensible to set out clearly how the chair of an inquiry committee would be replaced. It is appropriate that this would be done by resolution of the House rather than simply by the relevant committee. This is important in terms of perceptions of the status of the chair of such an important inquiry.

On the issue of bias, Senator Barrett correctly noted how difficult it will be to find Members of either House who have never expressed a view on matters relating to banking. The Senator also made a good point on the importance of members of committees that are undertaking investigations declining to give interviews that may appear to prejudge issues.

I welcome the decision to set out clearly a step-by-step procedure to be adopted in circumstances where a member of a committee of inquiry believes himself or herself to be biased in the conduct of an inquiry or where any other member believes that a member who has not recused himself or herself may be biased or there may be a perception of bias. I welcome the clear guidance that has been given in this regard. The issue of bias has arisen in committees on which I sit and it is important that members know how it will be dealt with.

In respect of Standing Orders generally, I hope Senators will sit on the banking inquiry. I understand no decision has been made on the composition of the committee for the banking inquiry. I hope the House will adopt the Standing Orders adopted by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as they envisage Senators taking part in committees of inquiry. I hope the banking inquiry will be the first inquiry on which Senators sit. Will the Minister of State confirm that Senators will be included on the committee?

The Constitutional Convention considered the issue of Dáil reform at the weekend. Many of the issues that arose were related to accountability and how the Houses of the Oireachtas can hold Ministers, public officials and private individuals to account. Some of the recommendations made by the convention are interesting in that regard. We recommended, for example, that committees be given constitutional status in recognition of the important role they have in holding people to account. We also recommended greater independence for the Ceann Comhairle and that the Ceann Comhairle be elected by secret ballot and have the power to set business in the Dáil. The Seanad had a particular difficulty with a logjam of legislation - the Minister of State will be aware of the problem - and in getting business into the House. Some of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention would free up and facilitate an easier flow of legislation in both Houses. This would be of benefit to the democratic process.

It is important to stress that this issue relates to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges and Seanad procedures. The Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges tried to make rules for the Seanad in terms of access to the audiovisual room and we resisted them.