Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures Bill 2013

I thank the Government for introducing this Bill. Regardless of the outcome of the inquiries referendum in 2011, and judging by the number of Deputies who have spoken on this matter in recent days, I believe there is a strong public and political appetite for the proposed powers to be enshrined in legislation so as to ensure public representatives in the Houses can hold to account those who spend public money and who are involved in governance.

The public deserves an inquiry system that represents its interests, administered by the individuals it elects to represent it in the Oireachtas. It is not good enough to rely upon the media or legal system to carry out this function. Individuals in government are put on trial daily in the media. Although some brave and skilled investigations have been carried out by journalists over the years, it must be realised that the media comprise a commercial industry whose primary interest is to sell advertisements, newspapers, etc. The legal route, as we have seen with the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals, is far too expensive, costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro. It is far too time-consuming and not fit for purpose.

Needless to say, the result of the Oireachtas inquiry referendum was a disappointment for many of us who came to this House after the election with an appetite for reform and to achieve accountability on behalf of the electorate. The general discourse on political reform at the time was focused strongly on changing how the national Parliament worked in a meaningful way and on issues of national importance rather than local agendas. The referendum was a lost opportunity for the Dáil to make a real impact on some of the cornerstone issues, such as the banking inquiry, in respect of which our constituents elected us to fight on their behalf.

There were a number of points made on the referendum and the criticism of the Government’s attitude to the referendum. The Government set out to change the Constitution with the aim of holding to account those who brought down our banking system. It intended to do so behalf of our constituents, including those who were brought down by the system. A Government doing its job is not front-page news, however. Unfortunately, the referendum did not feature in many headlines and the “No” side set out to undermine the ability of elected Members of the Oireachtas to carry out the intended function.

There is a great deal of expertise and skill in the Houses of the Oireachtas and undermining its function is detrimental to the members of the public who elected us.

I pay particular compliment to the Chairmen of the various committees who have spoken yesterday and today. They do invaluable work on a daily basis in the House, which often goes completely unnoticed. The committee structure is where the vast majority of the work of the House is done, rather than in the Chamber.

The meaningful work that takes place in this building is not represented in the pantomime of this Chamber, but instead takes place in committee chambers. The committee structure best serves the national interest in the Dáil, often away from local political agendas, and is the most effective and functional aspect of the House which largely goes unreported and, often, unnoticed by the public. Deputies contribute to committees and examine issues of national importance such as legislation and public accounts, and the dedication and skill of the Members of this House are demonstrated every day through this structure.

On my earlier point on elections and political reform focusing on national issues, and at the risk of losing parish pump votes, undermining the function of Dáil Members or dumbing down the role of a Deputy would only guarantee a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fundamentally, the Government and legislators are people who decide where public money is best placed and it should be up to us to hold people to account if it is not used appropriately or outside the public interest.

In this regard I refer to section 10(2) of the Bill which outlines the power to inquire into the conduct of certain officeholders. This section outlines that a committee may record and report evidence and make findings of fact against those directly impugning the good name of a CEO of a public body which is subject to the scrutiny of the Committee of Public Accounts. However, it does not include commercial semi-States and organisations which receive less than 50% of gross receipts from public funds. Any organisation in receipt of funding from the taxpayer should be open and accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. I presume that will be the function of the committee that will be established as a result of the passing of this Bill. What is the point in dealing with a semi-State organisation which perhaps received 49% of its funding from the State, totalling €100, not being held to account? Such organisations should be held to account by the House. We should maximise the impact of this Bill on management and leadership in such organisations by holding them to account within the committee structure that will be set up.

This framework will only succeed if a committee can properly compel witnesses to attend. I understand legislative supports have been in place for committees which may wish to strengthen their ability to compel a witness, but in practice I am interested in how this has worked. For example, Homebond refused to come before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Deputy Broughan and I were particularly interested in that, given our involvement with pyrite in our constituencies. Homebond was established by statute and was heavily involved with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. A number of Deputies found it perverse that it was not compelled to come before the committee. There should be no opportunity, other than in exceptional circumstances, for any witness called to the House or its committee structure to refuse to answer.

In 2010, the Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs investigated the banking crisis. Neither Sean FitzPatrick nor Ernst and Young agreed to come before it. They were not compelled to do so on the likelihood that the High Court would refuse to issue such an order because of the fear of prejudicing an ongoing investigation into Anglo Irish Bank. It is the policy of the Minister and Government to provide for an inquiry into the banking guarantee via this Bill. However, if this is still the case will the inquiry be limited to former Ministers? If that is the case, it may turn into an exercise in obfuscation.

I would also be interested in hearing the views of the Minister of State on using Ireland’s relationship with friendly countries in which our citizens may live. Can we avail of their co-operation to extradite citizens, on suitable grounds, in order to compel witnesses living in other states?

This framework is a tool for Members of the Oireachtas to improve the service they provide to the public and hold those who spend public moneys to account, and is an extremely important function. As has been said on a number of occasions, this will be a resource-heavy facility and should only be required when absolutely necessary.

I wish to touch on points made by a number of Deputies, in particular Deputies Donohoe and Buttimer. There is an incredible wealth of expertise in this House which has been called upon over a number of years. People have proven themselves to be excellent inquisitors for the public good. I saw some photographs during the 2011 referendum campaign, where nameless but prominent first-term Deputies were pictured on the back of donkeys with the caption, “Do you want these jackeens inquiring into the public good?”. My answer to that is “Yes”, because they are the people’s representatives and were put here for a reason. They were put here by the public to scrutinise the function of the House.

I endorse the sentiments of numerous Deputies in ensuring that whatever committee structure is set up as a result of the passing of this Bill has the teeth necessary to perform its functions in the best way possible. I look forward to the speedy passing of the Bill.