Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann relative to Public Business:

In Standing Order 79, the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (3):

'(4) Where the Chairman of a Committee which is conducting a Part 2 inquiry ceases to be a member of that Committee, the Seanad shall, by Resolution, appoint a Chairman from amongst the remaining Committee members.';

(b) Perception of bias
By the adoption of the following additional Standing Orders:

'Perception of bias – responsibility of member
85A. (1) If a member is a member of a Committee which is conducting or which is to conduct a Part 2 inquiry, or is appointed to a Committee which is conducting or which is to conduct a Part 2 inquiry, and that member is aware of anything in his or her own behalf which might lead to a perception of bias arising in a reasonable person in relation to that member's participation in that inquiry, then that member shall recuse himself or herself from participating in that inquiry.
(2) A member may apply to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for an opinion as to whether a perception of bias might arise in a reasonable person in relation to that member's participation in a Part 2 inquiry. The opinion sought shall result in a motion in relation to whether that member shall be a member of the inquiry Committee, in accordance with Standing Order 85C(4).
(3) In these Standing Orders, where reference is made to a perception of bias which might arise in a reasonable person, this means a perception of bias which might arise in relation to—

(a) a member's connection or dealings with any matter the subject of a Part 2 inquiry, where that connection or those dealings might lead to a perception of bias in a reasonable person;
(b) a member's utterances on the matter or matters the subject of the inquiry; or
(c) any other relevant circumstances.

Removal from inquiry Committee in relation to perception of bias
85B. Where a member has recused himself or herself from a Part 2 inquiry, on the grounds that a perception of bias might arise in a reasonable person in relation to that member's participation in the inquiry, the Seanad shall resolve, as soon as is practicable, that the member be removed from the inquiry Committee.
Procedures re. perception of bias
85C. (1)(a) Any person may make a submission to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges claiming that a perception of bias might arise in a reasonable person in relation to a member appointed to take part in a Part 2 inquiry. Such submission shall be in writing and shall include evidence in support of the claim.
Provided that where the submission does not fulfil these conditions, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall inform the person of such, and afford them the opportunity to make the submission in the correct manner.
(b) The Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall, as soon as is practicable, consider the submission under paragraph (a), and give the member in question the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee in defence of his or her position, in such form as the Committee sees fit.
(2)(a) A member who seeks an opinion under Standing Order 85A(2) on whether a perception of bias might arise in a reasonable person in relation to that member's participation in a Part 2 inquiry, shall make the request to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in writing, with a reason or reasons why the opinion is being sought.

(b) The Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall, as soon as is practicable, consider the opinion
sought under paragraph (a).

(3) Where the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has considered either a submission under paragraph (1), or an opinion sought under paragraph (2), it shall, as soon as is practicable, and if the member in question has not recused himself or herself from the Part 2 inquiry, make a report in relation to the participation of the member in the Part 2 inquiry, with a recommendation that, on balance—

(a) a perception of bias might arise in a reasonable person in relation to the member, or
(b) a perception of bias might not arise in a reasonable person in relation to the member.

(4) As soon as is practicable after its adoption of a report under paragraph (3), the Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall lay such report before the Seanad, and shall nominate one of its members to table a motion, as soon as is practicable, which—

(a) takes note of the recommendation in the report, and
(b) proposes that either—

(i) the member in question be confirmed as a member of the inquiry Committee, or
(ii) the member in question be removed from the inquiry Committee.

(5) The Seanad shall consider the motion under paragraph (4) as soon as is practicable.';

(c) Committee on Procedure and Privileges
In Standing Order 90—

(a) the insertion of the following subparagraphs after paragraph (1)(c):

'(d) receive a relevant proposal from a Committee which proposes to conduct a Part 2 inquiry,
(e) from time to time consider and issue such guidelines as it considers appropriate in relation to—

(i) Part 2 inquiries, and
(ii) other Committee business where a power to send for persons, papers and records has been conferred,

in accordance with sections 19 and 79 of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013, and
(f) as part of its responsibility for overseeing procedure in Committees, consider matters relating to perception of bias in respect of a Part 2 inquiry, for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the Part 2 inquiry as it is being conducted by the inquiry Committee.',

(b) the insertion of the following subparagraph after paragraph (2)(e):

'(f) power to give consent in writing to the giving of a direction or directions in relation to persons, papers and records for Committee business, other than Part 2 inquiries.',

and
(c) the deletion of paragraph (4);

and
(d) Part 2 inquiries
By the adoption of the following additional Standing Orders:

'Part 2 inquiries
103A. (1) The Seanad shall approve the conducting of Part 2 inquiries in accordance with these Standing Orders.
(2) A Committee which proposes to conduct a Part 2 inquiry shall make a relevant proposal in that regard, under Standing Order 103B, to a Committee designated by the Seanad under these Standing Orders to receive such proposals.
(3) The Committee designated to receive relevant proposals shall cause those proposals to be evaluated and shall make a relevant report on those relevant proposals.
(4) The terms of reference for a Part 2 inquiry must be approved by the Seanad, in accordance with Standing Order 103E, and no Terms of Reference Resolution shall be passed, or be declined to be passed, by the Seanad, prior to the consideration of the report prepared under paragraph (3).
(5) The publication of final or interim reports of a Committee conducting a Part 2 inquiry shall be approved by the Seanad in accordance with Standing Order 103G.
CPP to receive notice of relevant proposal
103B. (1) The Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall be the designated Committee under Standing Order 103A(2) to receive notice of a relevant proposal from any Committee which proposes to conduct a Part 2 inquiry.
(2) The Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall from time to time devise and lay before the Seanad rules and procedures relating to evaluation of relevant proposals, including rules and procedures relating to any consultation on and method of assessment of relevant proposals.
(3) For the purposes of these Standing Orders, except where otherwise indicated, “Part 2 inquiry" means an inquiry under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013.
(4) For the purposes of these Standing Orders, except where otherwise indicated, interim and final reports in relation to Part 2 inquiries shall mean interim and final reports under sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013.
Relevant proposal
103C. A relevant proposal under Standing Order 103A(2) shall address or contain, insofar as is practicable—

(a) the type of Part 2 inquiry proposed pursuant to sections 7 to 11, inclusive, of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013;
(b) the matter or matters the subject of the proposed inquiry, to specify, as far as is practicable, the conduct, events, activities, circumstances, systems, practices or procedures to be inquired into, including—

(i) the dates on which, or the periods during which, the conduct or events occurred, the activities were undertaken, the circumstances arose, or the systems, practices or procedures were in operation,
(ii) the location or area where the conduct or events occurred, the activities were undertaken, the circumstances arose, or the systems, practices or procedures were in operation, and
(iii) the persons to whom that conduct or those events, activities or circumstances relate, or whose activities, systems, practices or procedures are to be inquired into;

(c) whether the matter or matters relate to a function of the Seanad;
(d) the reason the matter or matters ought to be the subject of a Part 2 inquiry, rather than being examined through other forms of parliamentary investigation;
(e) in relation to the Committee proposing to conduct the inquiry—

(i) the reason that it, further to its existing orders of reference, considers that it ought to conduct the inquiry, or
(ii) the changes, if any, to its existing orders of reference, which are, in its opinion, necessary for it to conduct the inquiry;

(f) the anticipated time schedule for the proposed inquiry, including whether it is proposed to conduct the proposed inquiry in a single period or in phases;
(g) the changes, if any, to statute law, which are, in the opinion of the Committee proposing to conduct the inquiry, necessary to conduct the inquiry;
(h) a draft Terms of Reference Resolution, which shall state, inter alia, whether the Committee proposing to conduct the inquiry, in conducting it—

(i) proposes to make findings of fact, including findings of fact that may impugn the good name of a person (depending on the type of inquiry proposed), or in relation to relevant misbehaviour,
(ii) proposes to make recommendations arising from—

(I) its findings of fact, or
(II) the findings of fact made by another Committee in conducting another Part 2 inquiry if the terms of reference for that other Part 2 inquiry expressly state that its findings of fact may be used in other Part 2 inquiries,

(iii) proposes that its findings of fact, if any, may be used by another Committee in conducting another Part 2 inquiry,
(iv) has or is to have the power to send for persons, papers or records;

and
(i) such other matters in relation to the proposed inquiry as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges considers appropriate.

CPP consideration of relevant proposal
103D. When considering a relevant proposal made pursuant to Standing Orders 103A(2) and 103C, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall consider—

(a) whether a proposed Part 2 inquiry should be conducted;
(b) if it should not be conducted, whether an alternative course of action should be considered;
(c) if the inquiry should be conducted—

(i) the Committee by which it should be conducted;
(ii) the manner, under sections 7 to 11, inclusive, of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013, in which it should be conducted; and
(iii) the draft Terms of Reference Resolution for the proposed inquiry;

and
(d) such other matters in relation to the proposed inquiry as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges considers appropriate.

Relevant report and Terms of Reference Resolution
103E. (1) The Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall cause to be prepared a relevant report under Standing Order 103A(3) on any relevant proposals it receives for a Part 2 inquiry and shall, as soon as is practicable after its adoption of the relevant report, lay the relevant report before the Seanad, and a member nominated by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall table a motion to consider the relevant report and the recommendations contained therein.
(2) The relevant report shall make recommendations in relation to the matters contained in Standing Order 103D, and may include the draft Terms of Reference Resolution in relation to the relevant proposal, with any amendments thereto which are considered appropriate by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, for consideration by the Seanad.
(3) The Seanad shall consider the relevant report and the recommendations therein and shall neither pass nor decline to pass a Terms of Reference Resolution under Standing Order 103A(4) in relation to the relevant proposal until such consideration has been given.
Subsequent inquiry
103F. If a Committee conducting a Part 2 inquiry wishes to conduct a consequential inquiry not covered by the Terms of Reference Resolution passed by the Seanad, it shall give further notice in writing of an additional relevant proposal to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to which additional relevant proposal the provisions of Standing Orders 103A to 103E, inclusive, shall apply.
Part 2 inquiry reports
103G. Notwithstanding the generality of Standing Orders 85 and 86, where a Committee conducting a Part 2 inquiry makes an interim or final report, the report shall first be sent to the Clerk of the Seanad, who shall as soon as is practicable arrange for its circulation to members. Where members have been circulated with such a report by the Clerk of the Seanad, the Seanad may, where the report is an interim report, subsequently order that the report be laid before the Seanad and made public, and shall, where the report is a final report, order that the report be laid before the Seanad and made public.
Duty of member to uphold integrity of inquiry
103H. It shall be a general duty of a member to uphold the integrity of a Part 2 inquiry, including maintaining the confidentiality of deliberations and documents relating to the inquiry.'."

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, and with no disrespect to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kehoe, what business does the Chief Whip of Dáil Éireann have debating the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann? The Constitution mandates us to debate and decide our own affairs. I have a big problem with this. The Constitution is very clear that each House shall elect its chairperson and deal with its own affairs.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges held a meeting on this matter at which all the leaders were present and this was agreed. No later than this morning Senator Darragh O'Brien, the Leader of the Opposition, requested that the Minister of State would give more time to the House on this issue. I hope that explains it.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not at that meeting. I have a problem because I am a Member of Seanad Éireann and the Constitution requires that this House regulate its own affairs yet the Chief Whip of Dáil Éireann is coming in here and more or less giving us our riding orders on our own Standing Orders. That is a gross interference in the House. I think it is unprecedented. Standing Orders are a matter for us.

I do not propose to vote against this motion. It gives the lie to the idea that this is an independent inquiry by the Oireachtas. It is not. The Government is telling each House what to do. This is particularly acute in the case of the Seanad. There was a referendum last October in which the people voted to keep Seanad Éireann. They want it as a check on the Dáil. They would be absolutely shocked to see the Chief Whip of Dáil Éireann coming in here to tell us what to do. That is a constitutional-----

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, with respect------

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With all due respect to the person who is Chief Whip, it is not personal to Deputy Kehoe at all. The Constitution provides that we do this on our own.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been informed that the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 in relation to Part 2, inquiries and fair procedures, sets out that we have to do this in this way. The Order of Business was set this morning. We should proceed with the debate. I have noted what the Senator has said.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not querying the Bill. We are debating our own Standing Orders. The legislation does not require the Chief Whip of Dáil Éireann to come in to tell us what our Standing Orders should be.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Leader has informed us that the Senator's leader asked that the Minister of State would give additional time.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is not a party point. This is my personal point. Under Article 15.10 of the Constitution each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders and can protect itself and its Members against "any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt [I am not accusing the Minister of State of doing this] its members in the exercise of their duties."

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is here to inform-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Constitution requires that we do this without interference, under Article 15.10, and that is not happening.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is here as a courtesy to inform us. The House will decide on the Standing Orders. I propose that we proceed with the debate. I invite the Minister of State-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want it on the record that under Article 15.10-----

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on the record.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Article 15.10 of the Constitution is being fundamentally breached-----

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The House will decide.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----by this debate and by the presence of a Member of Dáil Éireann when we are deciding our own Standing Orders.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have noted the Senator's point. It will be in the Official Report.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013, certain new Standing Orders are required to provide the framework for an Oireachtas inquiry to be established, to operate and to report. These Standing Orders have been drafted in accordance with requirements of the Act. Their legal context has been considered in detail and they have been discussed and approved by the Dáil and are now before the Seanad for consideration by this House.

Enhancing the role and powers of Oireachtas committees is at the heart of the Government's reform agenda. Since taking office less than three years ago, the Government has established a new Oireachtas committee structure, encouraging more public involvement in law-making by introducing the pre-legislative stage at committee and giving committees additional roles in the budget process and with a post-enactment review of legislation.

The Standing Orders before the Seanad today make provisions in four areas, namely, the replacement of a chair of an inquiry committee, bias in regard to the subject matter of an inquiry, expanded terms of reference of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and a gateway mechanism which includes provisions on the consideration of inquiry reports.

The first change is to provide that where the chair of an inquiry committee is to be replaced, the House, not the members of the committee, will appoint the chair. The next change relates to the concept of objective bias. Addressing the issue of bias is vital to the functioning, fairness and public perception of any Oireachtas inquiry system. The CPP can consider any issue of bias and make a recommendation as to whether bias exists or not. The third change to Standing Orders expands the remit of the CPP, in line with provisions of the Act. The CPP will have responsibility for evaluating inquiry proposals and making recommendations to the House.

The CPP will act as an oversight committee where an inquiry is undertaken, including regulating issues of bias, approving requests for compellability and providing guidelines on conducting inquiries and other committee business where compellability is involved.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister of State referring to the CPP of Dáil Éireann or the CPP of Seanad Éireann?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will deal with that when I get to it.

The final proposed change to Standing Orders outlines how the gateway system will work. The committee proposing to conduct the inquiry will make a proposal to the CPP. The CPP will consider the proposal and make a recommendation. That report must be considered before any inquiry terms of reference are agreed.

An Oireachtas banking inquiry will, no doubt, be the first test of this new system. It is important for the Irish people to hear directly from those who made the decisions that brought about the economic collapse as to why they acted the way they did. An Oireachtas inquiry before Irish parliamentarians is the most appropriate system to achieve this. This is just the next step in an ongoing process of political reform designed to rebuild the public's confidence in our political structures.

When I refer to the "CPP" I refer to the Dáil CPP.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have made my point about Article 15.10. This is a very serious matter. The Minister of State would do well to go back to Government and to the Attorney General to discuss this because it causes a problem. This inquiry must be free from all outside interference and already the fact that the Chief Whip is announcing this debate breaches that constitutional requirement and the Seanad is allowing that to happen. It also creates difficulties further on. It is ludicrous in the extreme that after the referendum, when there is an independent Seanad, subject to the Constitution, the Minister of State comes in to talk about the CPP and it does not even relate to this House. He is talking about the CPP of Dáil Éireann. What reform is that? That is extraordinary. It calls into question the basis for these Standing Orders. These are not a creature of Seanad Éireann. They are not a creature of Dáil Éireann. They are a creature of Government Buildings. This is a clear breach of the separation of powers and in the case of Seanad Éireann, a clear breach of Article 15.10 of the Constitution. We are required by law under the Constitution to regulate our own affairs without interference from anybody. It is written down.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The CPP did.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not care about the CPP. I am a Member of Seanad Éireann and I am standing up for my rights and the rights of this House.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will explain it when I make my contribution.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not allowed to subjugate ourselves to the Dáil. We are not allowed to subjugate ourselves to Government. We must carry out our functions in accordance with the Constitution and the powers therein and we must do so independently. That is even more necessary in light of the referendum because the people said they want to keep the Seanad as a check on the Government but the Government is here telling us how to conduct our affairs on a very serious matter of public importance.

It is really important that the Oireachtas gets this right. We have got off on the wrong footing here. There is a very significant judgment in the Abbeylara case. That decision was not just a check on the Oireachtas. It was a criticism of certain Members of the Oireachtas who went beyond their powers at the time.

It places a significant check on the Dáil in the context of the latter overstepping its powers. The Abbeylara decision cannot be ignored and neither can concerns in respect of people's constitutional right to due process. Concerns were expressed across the board, including by those in government, about the conduct of certain members of the Committee of Public Accounts. There was no wrongdoing on the part of any member of that committee but some individuals were more than willing to milk the media circus for all it was worth. That is the danger which exists and I know everyone is conscious of it.

The Seanad has its own Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP. That committee should exercise its powers under the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House. I do not believe we have any authority to delegate its powers to the CPP of the Dáil. Standing Orders allow the CPP of the Dáil to consider any issue of bias. The Minister of State confirmed that and I would be grateful if the Chief Whip on the Government side in this House could also confirm it. Any issue of bias will, following consideration by the Dáil CPP, be put to a vote. Essentially, therefore, it is a political decision as to whether someone is biased.

That gives rise to a difficulty. Fianna Fáil has continually sought that someone from outside the political system, or even from outside the country, carry out a comprehensive and televised investigation into all aspects of this matter, be it in the context of political, banking or accounting decisions or in respect of the conduct of individuals in the banking sector. Of course, this was all done in the past. The only difference was that it was not done in public. There were a number of inquiries into the banking system and the recommendations and findings that emerged from them were extremely stark. They certainly did not flatter the previous Administration and were quite critical of the decisions that were made. The reports to which I refer have been allowed to gather dust. In fairness, however, there is a desire for this matter to be investigated in public. It is a pity the commission of investigation did not carry out its deliberations in public. Had it done so, many problems would have been solved. The commission met a large number of people and considered many documents.

Fianna Fáil has stated that it will take part in whatever inquiry is carried out and I certainly have no difficulty being involved. However, any inquiry must be fair. The inquiry will involve more than just those in politics. It will also involve civil servants, those whose names are well known, regulators and people in the banks whose names are not well known but which may come to public attention on foot of this inquiry.

I must restate my objection to the effect that the House is required, under the Constitution, to regulate its own affairs without interference. Unfortunately, the Government is essentially giving us our marching orders today. That is a clear breach of the Constitution and it will give rise to difficulties. I am of the view that the Government Chief Whip should check the position with the Attorney General.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For clarification, I wish to state that these amendments are being made to the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann relative to public business. Any reference to CPP relates to the CPP of the Seanad. I want the record to clearly show that this is the case.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was the Minister of State who caused that confusion. I only asked-----

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said that it relates to the Seanad CPP.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this matter. I wish to point out to my learned colleague opposite, Senator Byrne, that we are completely free of any outside interference. The CPP of the Seanad met - a gathering at which I was present - and recommended these new Standing Orders as being necessary. The most senior official of the Houses of the Oireachtas, another official and a legal adviser were all present and the members of CPP were able to question them before arriving at an agreement to put forward the proposals which are before the House.

The Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 makes provision for an Oireachtas inquiry to function within our political system. I am of the view that the Seanad will play an active part in the Oireachtas inquiries that will emerge as a result of the Act. The proposed new Standing Orders will present a framework for the forthcoming Oireachtas inquiry. The new system to which they will give rise will allow the Oireachtas to investigate issues of concern to the Irish public. The Standing Orders before the House relate to four areas already outlined by the Minister of State, namely, the replacement of a chair of an inquiry, the question of bias and how to deal with it, the expanded terms of reference of the CPP and the introduction of a system under which the CPP can review proposals and establish inquiries.

The first Oireachtas inquiry to be established will likely be that relating to the banking sector. Such an inquiry is long overdue. I would welcome a banking inquiry because it is time that the people who helped cause the economic collapse were brought before a committee of the Irish Parliament to explain their actions. There are many questions in respect of the economic collapse which remain unanswered. Government policy in the years before the economic collapse is one of the matters which should be assessed by the committee tasked with carrying out the inquiry. There can be no doubt that the mismanagement of our economy at Government level was a factor in the disaster that befell our country. The failure of regulation in the banking sector has had dire consequences and should also be considered by any banking inquiry.

Representatives from the banks should also be brought before the committee - along with the relevant accountants and auditors - in order that we might discover how and why the financial position in which those institutions found themselves at the time was not identified sooner. The events that occurred on the night of the bank guarantee are the darkest in recent Irish political life. Many people do not fully understand what happened on that night. It is time that this matter was brought before an Oireachtas inquiry in order that the true position in respect of the decisions taken on that night is fully outlined to the public. For over five years, members of the public have lived with the consequences of the actions and decisions taken at that time.

I welcome the new Standing Orders as the next step towards establishing Oireachtas inquiries, which are absolutely necessary. I am of the view that this is the best system to uncover the truth about issues of public concern. I hope that we, as Members of the Seanad, we will give these Standing Orders our unanimous support.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe. I am glad that the position regarding the two CPPs has been clarified. Should the Oireachtas, in its wisdom, decide that this House and its Members should have a role to play in respect of this matter, then I would welcome that.

I appreciate what Senator Byrne, who is a person with legal training, said. The Senator always places his experience in the legal field at the disposal of the House. I asked some friends with experience in legal matters to comment on the new Standing Orders and they indicated that they set a very high standard. For example, they stated that the standard is higher than that relating to members of the Judiciary being obliged to recuse themselves from cases, people on the boards of companies who might be obliged to absent themselves from meetings or university staff being obliged to absent themselves from examination boards if their sons or daughters were sitting particular examinations. The bar has been set extremely high as there would be concerns with regard to how the new system will operate. As the Minister of State indicated, we are learning as we proceed.

The new Standing Order 85A refers to circumstances where a "member is aware of anything in his or her own behalf which might lead to a perception of bias arising". It is suggested that we might consider those with a fair mind and informed perception in this regard because it will be very difficult to find individuals who, as Senator Paul Coghlan indicated, do not have some perception about what happened to the country. People have either spoken or written about this subject and it should be understood that individuals are fair-minded and have an informed perception. The new Standing Order 85C(1)(b) states, "The Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall, as soon as is practicable, consider the submission under paragraph (a), and give the member in question the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee in defence of his or her position, in such form as the Committee sees fit." I propose that in doing so, the CPP should have due regard to the seriousness of any allegation made under paragraph (a).

In the context of the proposed changes to Standing Order 90, subparagraph (f) suggests the insertion of the phrase "as part of its responsibility for overseeing procedure in Committees, consider matters relating to perception of bias in respect of a Part 2 inquiry, for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the Part 2 inquiry as it is being conducted by the inquiry Committee".

This relates to the perception of bias and what we may consider to be fair-minded and informed in that regard. I put the document to some learned legal friends.

We must try to avoid replicating some of the unsatisfactory events that have arisen in respect of the Committee of Public Accounts. It would be better if members chose not to give interviews on matters that are still in progress. That is a matter of general agreement between me and the Minister of State. It is, as Senator Paul Coghlan stated, a most important issue.

Ireland did not have proper procedures in place for the regulation of banks. The regulators were extremely slow to wake up to this and they, too, have a duty to face inquiries. What exactly were those employed by the State to regulate banks doing?

The case of DEPFA, a German bank operating in the IFSC, should be part of the investigation. This was the first event in the banking crisis and one which appears to have cost €100 billion, a much higher sum than the €64 billion we paid for the banking crisis. We did not have an early warning system in place. Germany paid the bills arising from the DEPFA case because it was a foreign bank. The case did not do our reputation any good, however, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has been trying to correct this. The DEPFA case should form part of the general inquiry.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe. I also welcome the legal clarification provided by Senator Bacik because it is important to ensure we get this issue right in as far as it is legally possible to do so. There is a strong prospect of a legal challenge being mounted to any banking inquiry. For this reason, we must seek to ensure there are no doubts or blemishes in that regard.

Senator Thomas Byrne raised some pertinent questions which have been partially answered and I am sure the Minister of State will confirm the legal position in that regard.

Some weeks ago, I expressed a view, which was brought to the attention of the Minister of State, that Senators should sit on any proposed inquiry. As the Minister of State noted, the Standing Orders relate to a banking inquiry of the Oireachtas. According to the constitutional definition of the word, "Oireachtas" means the Dáil and Seanad. It is important for taxpayers that the inquiry will be conducted fairly and impartially in the cold light of day by people who are not permanently looking over their shoulders to ascertain what is or is not popular. I am not canvassing for a place on the committee that will conduct the banking inquiry but, to use Senator Coghlan's phrase, many of my colleagues would be eminently suitable for such a role, having proved that both inside and outside the House over many years.

Taxpayers are funding the bailout and have suffered as a result of the problems into which we propose to inquire. We owe it to them to present the best possible inquiry team. The electorate has voted confidence in the Seanad. We have never had such a vote in respect of the Dáil. If Senators are not part of the inquiry team, it would make a mockery of the Government's intentions and the Minister of State's words that the enhancing of the roles and powers of Oireachtas committees is at the heart of the Government's reform agenda. While I presume the Minister of State will not be the final adjudicator on that issue, I ask him, on behalf of all Senators, to ensure the elected second House of the Oireachtas is allowed to play a full and constructive role in the banking inquiry.

I welcome the Minister of State's presentation to us. I welcome the required change in the Standing Orders. We have all been here before when Standing Orders were challenged and perhaps ended up needing to be amended further. Nobody ever has the perfect answer. Today, we are laying part of the foundation block for the banking inquiry. We must do it properly. We must try to get answers to the questions raised here today as fully and as quickly as possible. Senator Byrne advised the Government to seek the advice of the Attorney General. We are often politically fearful of double-checking such matters. If Senator Byrne feels that the Attorney General should provide a quick response to the questions he has raised, I do not think it would cause much political turmoil or upheaval to get any clarification that might be required. I suppose Senator Bacik is the nearest thing we have to an Attorney General in the House at the moment. Her welcome intervention, in which she provided some legal clarification, was helpful in that regard. I wish the Minister of State well as he tries to make progress with this matter. I ask him to give serious consideration to the constructive role that the Seanad and Senators could play in the proposed inquiry.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is always welcome to the House. It is good to see him. The changes to Standing Orders that have been presented are probably appropriate. One of the issues I have is that we are doing this half-blind. While we have heard certain comments, we do not have the full details of the composition or terms of reference of the proposed banking inquiry, which needs to happen. It seems from the Government's public comments that the remit of the inquiry will not extend beyond the night of the guarantee itself and will not include any reference to Anglo Irish Bank because of a court case that is in train as we speak. Can the Minister of State comment on that? I suggest it is nearly akin to having "Hamlet" without the prince.

We do not know how many politicians - certainly Deputies and possibly Senators as well - will be ratified by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on foot of these proposals. We do not know what quarter they will come from. I understand the issue with regard to bias that concerns those who have previously made comments on the banks. As Senator Barrett has said, it will be incredibly difficult to select people who have the requisite experience and knowledge to participate in this inquiry, but who have not commented in some kind of negative way on this country's banking system.

I would like to comment further on the whole issue of Anglo Irish Bank. I do not understand why one would want to pursue a banking inquiry without discussing Anglo Irish Bank, on the basis that the court case could take four or five months and further investigations will also take place. We will not be able to ask questions about the level of contact between the Minister of State's party leader - the current Taoiseach - and Matt Moran. We will not be able to ask why Matt Moran has been granted immunity from prosecution in the current investigations and the current court case. Questions need to be asked about the Taoiseach's level of contact with and knowledge of certain individuals. Previous Taoisigh also need to answer questions at the banking inquiry. I would like to know why Anglo Irish Bank, according to what I have heard, is being left out of this. Why are we stopping on the night of the guarantee? I suggest that the review and renewal of the guarantee 12 months later should also be looked into. It is crucial for this aspect of the matter to be considered, particularly in the context of the input made by the European Central Bank and the European Commission when we sought to review the bank guarantee. Such points are crucial.

I have no interest in the establishment of a banking inquiry that will be a political witch-hunt. The timing of this move is also curious. As this process moves forward, it could very well coincide with the next general election. It smacks of what it really is. Do we actually want to get to the truth, or do we want to have a Salem witch trial? I want to get to the truth of it, as I think all of us do. We are entitled to the truth. The Seanad should have a part in this process. Is it the case that Senators will serve on the banking inquiry? I cannot understand what relevance the banking inquiry will have if Anglo Irish Bank is left out.

Many questions need to be asked of the current Administration and its predecessor in relation to Anglo Irish Bank. I would like to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions some questions about the granting of immunity to a former senior official in Anglo Irish Bank who is well known to be well known to the current Taoiseach. Was there any political interference in that decision? These questions need to be answered. While we will support the proposals before the House, we would like to know more about the composition of the inquiry, its terms of reference, how long it will serve and what type of legal advice the inquiry members will get. Is it the case that the witnesses who will be brought in front of the inquiry will be allowed to avail of the services of lawyers but the members of the committee will not?

I will give these proposals as guarded a welcome as I can. Many questions remain unanswered. I suggest that we are getting no more than a piecemeal view of what the Government really wants to do on foot of these changes. I want to know whether this House of the Oireachtas - the Seanad - will be included. Regardless of whether it will be, the more important questions in this regard relate to what the members of the committee will be investigating, who will be called, what period of time will be covered and why the inquiry will not deal with events that took place after the night of the bank guarantee. I believe the first review of the bank guarantee is also crucially important. Anyone who was involved in the initial bank guarantee, including the current leaders of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and former Taoisigh, will have questions to answer at the banking inquiry. My party has put it on the record that it will ask anyone to co-operate with the inquiry. We want to make sure it is fair and it will get to the truth.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These proposals relate only to Standing Orders and not to anything else.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Standing Orders are about the establishment of the banking inquiry.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the view that has been expressed in this House regarding the composition of the proposed committee of inquiry. The Minister of State is fully aware of that view because, as I understand it, the Leader of the House has corresponded with the Taoiseach, and by extension with the Chief Whip, on the matter. There seems to be silence on this issue. There must be some sort of omerta in government because we are not being given any indication of who will chair the committee, how many members will be on it and what the terms of reference of the committee will be, etc. I appreciate that the motion before the House, which proposes changes in Standing Orders, relates to the functionality and the process involved.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important in that context for this House to be made aware of the Government's thinking in this regard. Nothing that has been said up to now by the Minister of State or any other member of the Government to give us an indication of how this will play out. I believe that following the experience of the tribunals of inquiry, there is no public appetite for a continuing inquiry process. I have had a look at the Act under which these inquiries will be set up. It is astonishing that, as I understand it, nothing in the Act in question imposes a time limit. I cannot remember whether the question of providing for a time limit was discussed in this House or the other House during the debate on that legislation. The imposition of a time limit will be vitally important when the Government is introducing specific proposals to set out the composition of the committee and its terms of reference, etc. If we are to narrow the focus of this debate to the night of the bank guarantee, how long will it take to keep asking the same questions? The reports of two inquiries that have covered this specific incident are already in the public domain.

I would like to comment briefly on the issue of bias. What will happen if members are obliged to excuse themselves because they believe they would be biased in their approach to the committee? I assume it would be a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or, more pertinently, for that committee's legal advisers. What will happen if, subsequent to the appointment of the committee, a lawyer is sitting beside a witness who points out that a member of an inquiry made a statement or an utterance or said something that suggests he or she is biased in some way? That member will have to be replaced. A succession of allegations could be made at the committee after the appointment of its members. This could lead to a change in membership. I agree with the analysis of Senator Darragh O'Brien and some political commentators that this is nothing more than a witch-hunt. It suits the Government that it involves nothing more than dumping on Fianna Fáil.

In fact, it would have suited it if it could have got this inquiry up and running before the local elections. However, I understand from explanations and clarifications given by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission that it is most unlikely that the hearings will take place before autumn at the earliest because of the terms of reference involved, the composition of the committee and the issue of bias, which is very important and relevant. Therefore, the Minister of State will not get his way on this one. It will not be an issue surrounding the local or European elections. However, there is a real danger that unless a time limit is placed on it, the Government could spin this out for as long as it wants and bring it forward into the advent of the general election if the motivation is political rather than finding the truth.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to correct the record of the House. I said the Dáil Committee on Privilege and Procedures, CPP, when I should have said the Seanad CPP as I am in the Seanad. This Act works for both Houses. If the Seanad is carrying out its own inquiry, the Seanad CPP will look at it and if it is an inquiry within the Dáil, the Dáil CPP will look after that end of it.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is nothing in the Act to preclude it being a joint inquiry.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is amazing how when I brought this same motion and changes to the Dáil, the only party that was totally opposed to it was Fianna Fáil. I come here to the Seanad and it is same situation. I am not sure if Fianna Fáil has something to hide.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely not.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We never telephoned Anglo Irish Bank or gave it information.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it has any information, we would like it to bring it forward. The changes to these Standing Orders, which I am presenting to the Seanad and presented to the Dáil last week, are the beginning of the process. Quite rightly, the composition of the committee has still to be decided. Let me assure Members that this is not a witch-hunt on anyone's behalf. They should cast their minds back to October and November 2011. We had a referendum on inquiries, which, unfortunately, was defeated. I assure Members that had it been passed, the banking inquiry would have been well underway at this stage. This is no witch-hunt on behalf of anyone. We reflected on the referendum result, as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform said he would. We brought forward the legislation last year, which was passed and enacted in the middle of 2013. The Taoiseach said in September 2013 that he would set up a banking inquiry. I understand what the party opposite has done over the years and perhaps that is why we are in the trouble we are in. It would have written this inquiry on the back of an envelope but we want to put the structures in place correctly to make sure we have strength, accountability and legal advice. We have sought legal advice and I trust and would not question the legal advice we received from the Houses of the Oireachtas in changing these Standing Orders. We will present the terms of reference to Fianna Fáil and everyone else. This is no political witch-hunt. Perhaps the Fianna Fáil Senators want to make out that it is one. Perhaps we would have that if they were on this side of the House.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is Anglo Irish Bank not included?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assure the Members opposite that this is not a political witch-hunt. We want to find out the political mistakes made in the past to make sure they are not made again.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is always about politics.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is about findings of fact. Perhaps the Members opposite will look up the definition of findings of fact. That is exactly what we want to do in this inquiry and we will do that.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Minister of State will tell me whether Anglo Irish Bank will be included.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very happy that this will be a cross-party committee and that everyone will have their say. I do not want to set any time-frame for any committee to carry out its work. We either trust the committee to do its work in an upright and forthright way or we do not. I trust the committee. There are many people in the Seanad and Dáil who have not issued biased utterances about bankers. I can assure Members of that.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister of State already investigated that?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps there are not a lot of them on the Senator's side because they wanted to remove themselves from the committee.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I ask the Minister of State to withdraw that remark.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very unfair.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to withdraw that remark. He has made a charge that there are Members and colleagues of mine who do not want to participate in this and have mentioned things to preclude them from the banking inquiry. That is incorrect.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator should read the record to see what I said.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know what the Minister of State said.

Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State, without interruption.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know what he said because I was sitting here listening to him. What he is proving by his comments, which he does time again when he comes into the Seanad, is that he has already made his mind up. He has proven that.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator should read the record.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister of State clarify what he meant when he said that the inquiry would be about the political decisions?

Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could we have the Minister of State without interruption?

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State said that. That was the first time we were told anything about the terms of reference of the inquiry.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The terms of reference for the committee will be worked out and the committee will be up and running before the local and European elections. We might not bring in any witnesses but I assure Members that this committee will be set up before the local and European elections.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not saying it would not be but the actual exchanges will not take place until the autumn.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are actively ensuring that this happens. This is no political witch-hunt. This goes back to when we brought this referendum to the people in October and November 2011. Unfortunately, the Government did not get the result it wished for. We said we would go back and reflect. We brought the legislation to the House and it was enacted in the middle of last year. The Taoiseach announced in the Dáil in September 2013 that he was going to set up a banking inquiry and this is where we are today in setting up this inquiry. This is part of the process of doing so. I commend the changes to the House and thank all Members on both sides of the House for their comments.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked some specific questions that are important with regard to the terms of reference of the investigation and whether Anglo Irish Bank will be included in it.

Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State does not have to reply.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He did not answer any questions.