Paul Bradford (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Senator Ó Clochartaigh raised the question of culture. We should reflect deeply on the culture of our political system and how we interact with business. One of the main arguments in the lengthy report prepared by Mr. Justice Hamilton following the beef tribunal was that if the Houses of the Oireachtas were effectively used so that parliamentary questions received full and open replies and information was published properly, many of the events investigated by the tribunal, which cost the taxpayer tens of millions of euro, would not have come to pass. That was the politics of the early 1990s but very little has changed since then. A previous speaker referred to the anniversary of the death of the Brian Lenihan. I join other Senators in paying tribute to the former Minister for Finance. He died shortly after the 2011 general election, which we thought would be a watershed for the political and economic management of this country. In promising a democratic revolution, the Government told us that Paddy would be told the truth and treated with respect. The old politics of hidden deals and undisclosed information was going to be replaced by a new politics of openness. If that new politics had emerged, we would not require this inquiry because the questions arising would have been answered through normal parliamentary procedures. We have to develop a politics in which every elected Member is treated with respect when raising issues on behalf of the citizen and taxpayer and in which he or she is given the information he or she requests. The motion before us is a response to the concerns expressed about the operations of IBRC, in particular by Deputy Catherine Murphy. The response to her valid questions and the attempt to shut down the debate indicate we have a long way to go if we want a more mature politics or an accountable system of administration.

The amendment proposed by Senator Heffernan and me, which we might have an opportunity to move later, would ensure an interim report would be published in the near future. Numerous fine commitments and promises were made on the rate of progress of and resources for previous tribunals and inquiries but they tended not to be followed through. This is why we propose that an interim report be provided by mid-September. We also want the Seanad to be in a position to debate the report and, above all, a final report to be issued not later than 30 October. We did not choose 30 October to participate in a silly game of table tennis over the date of the general election but to put down a marker on how we operate inquiries. Resources should be provided to ensure the report can be completed by a certain date and it would be relatively easy to answer questions of a "Yes" or "No" variety. We also propose to include more transparently in the inquiry's remit the dealings of officials in the Department of Finance with IBRC. These are reasonable suggestions and while I appreciate that what was refused in the other House is unlikely to be granted here, I am still calling for such an approach. I thank the Minister for offering me the five-minute opportunity. Again, we must ask ourselves that if we really wish to be parliamentarians on behalf of the public interest, why can we not order our business in a way that would allow people to actually make a reasoned contribution rather than just a rushed through script. Hopefully, I will have an opportunity to move the amendment at a later stage.