Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 2013

Vol. 809 No. 3

Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2013: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and are being taken together.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 12, line 40, after “device,” to insert the following:
“including a record of phone calls to and from a landline or a mobile phone,”.
-(Deputy Sean Fleming).

The Minister reported progress and therefore I call on the Minister.

We were concluding these two amendments. I wanted to give assurances to the Deputy and to the House that the import of what he wanted is fully captured, and I have rechecked that with the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General. In fact, the advice is that if we try to expand it in a specific way we may exclude things we would like to include. It is better to have the definition that is all-inclusive, as I have indicated. I do not know whether there are Deputies present who were not here last night in terms of reading it again but they can be assured that records of phone conversations or any electronic data, as well as any written documentation, will be subject to access in this definition.

We will not waste any time. My views are well known. I expressed them last night. I am pressing the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 12, line 40, after “device,” to insert the following:

“and includes a transcript of phone calls to and from a landline or a mobile phone,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 16, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“6.—A committee conducting an inquiry established under this Act shall consist of a minimum of forty per cent of members of the current Government party and a minimum of forty per cent of members of the opposition.”.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 4. These amendments get to the heart of what this legislation is about, namely, the fairness and impartiality of the Oireachtas in carrying out an inquiry. My amendments No. 3 states specifically that the committee conducting the inquiry shall consist of a minimum of 40% of members of the Government and a minimum of 40% of members of the Opposition. The purpose of that is to ensure there is equality across the Chamber. If the Government has a big majority it allows for it to have the majority of members on the committee but at least the Opposition to the Government would have a minimum of 40% of members. On Committee Stage I suggested a 50:50 membership but that may be too high and therefore I have refined it to a more reasonable percentage, and what I propose in amendment No. 3 is reasonable. If the Government cannot agree to this amendment and allow the Opposition 40% of the membership it is a poor look-out in terms of the way any Oireachtas inquiry would conduct its business. If the Government does not accept this it will lead to what I call institutional bias in terms of any future Oireachtas committee of inquiry.

My amendment No. 4 specifically states: "A chairperson of any committee established under this Act shall be a member of the opposition." That is similar to the long-standing practice of, say, the Committee of Public Accounts or our current Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. That has always been a good practice where the Government has a majority, in this case a big majority. If the Government does not accept amendment No. 3, it is not allowing the Opposition have even 40% of the membership. If the Minister does not accept this amendment the Government will be saying, "No. we will want 70% of the membership", If the Minister rejects the amendment on an Opposition chair the Government in effect will be saying that it wants 70% of the membership of this committee and that it wants to chair the committee. It is immediately in the territory of institutional bias at that stage in terms of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The kernel of the issue that people will appreciate is whether this will be a fair and impartial inquiry. As the Minister is well aware, we are here dealing with this legislation because he proposed a referendum to amend the Constitution to enable the Houses of the Oireachtas undertake full inquiries and overview of the proposed system of Oireachtas inquiry. The Minister put that question in a referendum to the people in November 2011. We will not fight that again but it was lost. It could have been won but the actions of individual members of the Government resulted in it being lost.

On 12 September 2011 the Minister's Department gave us an explanatory note on the reason that referendum was necessary. Obviously, it dealt with the Abbeylara case with which the Minister's Department will be familiar because he drafted it. We are here today confined by the Abbeylara judgment. That is the essence of what is before us. The purpose of the referendum was to broaden the scope of inquiries beyond the Abbeylara judgment. That referendum failed and therefore by definition we are here with plan B to try to work within the Abbeylara judgment.

The briefing the Minister's Department gave us on the Abbeylara judgment referred to the issue of objective bias. We all understand the issue of objective, that is, if individual members of a committee making a determination at the same time make comments in the media which indicate that they had prior strong views or fixed opinions, a situation of objective bias could arise. I would be surprised if there is a Member of this House who has not expressed a prior strong view on the banking situation. In a court of law, and this legislation will end up in the Four Courts before any inquiry proceeds or witnesses are called to give evidence, it will be difficult to find the required number of Members of this Parliament who have not expressed a strong prior view. That is one hurdle this legislation will have to overcome. The Minister's legislation for a banking inquiry is doomed to failure because of the actions of his Government, particularly in the past week or so.

The second aspect of the Abbeylara judgment dealt with bias. I quote from the Minister's explanatory note to us on 12 September 2011 when the Supreme Court referred to the issue of institutional bias. The explanatory note states: "Institutional bias refers, in summary, to a situation where, irrespective of the circumstance of a particular case, it is argued that a specific body [that is, the Oireachtas or the Oireachtas committee] may, of its nature, be inherently biased and cannot, therefore, be relied upon to assess evidence and form judgments in an objective and unbiased fashion." They did say that it is not necessarily the case that the Oireachtas suffers from institutional bias. If that were the case we would not be allowed deal with impeaching a President or a judge, and that was the follow-on note in that document, but the question of institutional bias does arise in regard to committees of inquiry.

I suggest that the statement by the Taoiseach last week on foot of the revelations in the tapes from Anglo Irish Bank executives demonstrated institutional bias on the part of the Head of this Oireachtas. He is the elected Taoiseach and leader of this Oireachtas and he said they had to look into the issues of collusion. Collusion is a fraudulent, illegal, undercover arrangement in place between people. The Taoiseach has come in here and said that in relation to the Anglo Irish Bank affair, those tapes raise the question of fraudulent collusion between individuals in the then Government and Anglo Irish Bank.

This indicates that the head of the Oireachtas has formed a strong prior view that an issue of collusion arises. It was the Taoiseach who raised that issue. I am of the view that the conversation in which we are engaging now will be played out in the courts before an Oireachtas inquiry comes into operation because some witness who does not want to come forward will take a case regarding the bias of this institution. That prospective witness will use the words of An Taoiseach to demonstrate the institutional bias referred to by the Supreme Court in the Abbeylara case.

The matter does not stop there. The main party in Government has been producing and circulating to all its members documents relating to the roles played by Fianna Fáil and the former Anglo Irish Bank. This demonstrates that Fine Gael and, by definition, all of its members - some of whom will serve on the committee of inquiry - have been influenced by the Taoiseach's approach in respect of what he refers to as collusion between Fianna Fáil and the former Anglo Irish Bank. We entirely refute the idea that there was such collusion. The relevant tapes have subsequently shown how furious were the people in the former Anglo Irish Bank with the then Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan Jr. This shows that there was anything but collusion. Since the Taoiseach made his comments, he has sent out his minions to appear on several national media programmes to restate the position that there are charges to be answered by Fianna Fáil. This shows that a bias exists. Inquiries must examine the facts and people are not brought before them, charged with wrongdoing and made to answer for what they have done. Members of the Fine Gael Party recently appeared on national television and indicated that there are charges to answer. They also restated this view in the House in the past day or two.

The actions of the Taoiseach and his party should be a source of concern to the Minister. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, contributed to scuppering the referendum on the previous amendment to the Constitution in this regard by his display of arrogance. Now Fine Gael, led by the Taoiseach and supported by his minions, is talking about collusion and the fact that there are charges to be answered. In my opinion this demonstrates not only subjective bias on the part of individual Members but also an institutional bias on the part of the head of this Oireachtas. Whatever chance the Minister had of having an objective inquiry carried out in respect of the banks has been damaged by the Taoiseach and other Fine Gael Ministers. I have not been following everything that has been said by members of the Labour Party on this matter and I accept that I am singling out the Fine Gael Party.

The Minister would, if he could accept these amendments, be in a position to put up some small defence when a case is brought before the courts regarding why this legislation should not be used in respect of the holding of an inquiry into banking. Regardless of what the Taoiseach stated, we are prepared to accept the committee of inquiry being chaired by a member of the Opposition. That is the basis of amendment No. 4. Despite the personal and institutional bias the Taoiseach, as leader of this Parliament, has demonstrated in respect of any future banking inquiry, we are of the view that a minimum of 40% - the Minister could opt for a higher percentage - of the membership of that inquiry should not be from the Government parties. If the Minister were to accept my amendments, he would be showing the courts, the public and those who might be called to give evidence that the proposed inquiry will not be tainted by either institutional or personal bias. As I have already stated, the Taoiseach's comments - which demonstrate personal and institutional bias on the part of Fine Gael and its members - are going to remain on the record. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment to the effect that the inquiry should be chaired by a member of the Opposition and that 40% of its membership should comprise those in opposition, then he will also be demonstrating bias. Not only will he be insisting that the Government should have a huge majority on the inquiry, he will also be insisting that it should control the Chair.

It is not acceptable to state that this is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide upon because the Taoiseach controls the Oireachtas. We witnessed what he did yesterday when members of Fine Gael defied the Whip and voted against the Government. We had not even left the Chamber when e-mails to remove those individuals from Oireachtas committees were issued from the Office of the Government Chief Whip. That is how the Government and the Oireachtas operate at present. If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, this will show an even greater level of institutional bias than that demonstrated by the Taoiseach.

I recognise the intent behind Deputy Sean Fleming's amendments. For the purposes of underscoring inclusivity and putting paid to any concern relating to the Government delivering a ready-up in the context of the membership of a committee of inquiry, it would be useful if they were included in the Bill. I think we are all clear on the fact that in the context of the legislation before the House, we must work within the existing constitutional and legal framework. As a result, we cannot make adverse findings of fact. There is, of course, an issue of bias and there is an attempt to cater for this in the legislation. However, I cannot accept Deputy Sean Fleming's narrative in respect of what has transpired recently with regard to any potential inquiry into banking. By definition, when an inquiry - whatever its format - is under way, it will examine what happened in the banks and a very legitimate public question that will arise will relate to the interaction or otherwise between the political system and the banking system. I do not believe that raising this issue represents bias, it merely acknowledges one dimension of what was, in some ways, a very complicated turn of events.

I am not even sure that this is the right place in which to engage in this discussion. However, I could not allow the Deputy's commentary to pass without stating that for its part, my party recognises the limitations - by definition - of any potential inquiry into banking. The latter will simply reflect the legal position. I am also of the view, however, that a methodology can be found to ensure that bias can be offset. In such circumstances, the inquiry will have to be very structured and focused and I believe this is possible. I do not buy the Fianna Fáil line that this endeavour is doomed because the Taoiseach has hurt the feelings of that party by making a legitimate political charge against it. Not so long ago, Deputy Sean Fleming was very much in favour of an Oireachtas inquiry into banking. At that time there was some tension between the Committee of Public Accounts and the joint committee on finance on the issue because people believed an inquiry would be a good thing and they all wanted to be involved. Let us not back off holding a legitimate, properly structured, disciplined and functioning public inquiry because as such it is politically awkward. People should not make charges of bias, either individual or institutional, unless they are based in fact. Neither should they make charges of bias against any potential inquiry simply because such an inquiry would be politically uncomfortable. Making such charges is dishonest.

I thank Deputy Sean Fleming for putting his finger on the kernel of the problem. I do not agree with everything he said but the issue we must debate and decide upon relates to the composition of the inquiry. This is the most controversial aspect of the Bill. Nobody in the House doubts the need for an inquiry and everybody has been seeking such an inquiry. If, however, we proceed with the composition proposed in the Bill, then it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the inquiry to reach any conclusions.

There is no proposed composition in the Bill.

I apologise, the composition proposed in the amendment. I do not agree that there should be a 40:40 split, that the Chairman should be a member of the Opposition or that a Government Deputy should hold that position. I am of the view that this matter is no longer suitable to be examined by a committee of inquiry comprising Oireachtas Members. I say this for a specific and obvious reason, namely, that I cannot think of any Oireachtas Member who has not already stated quite categorically how he or she feels about the underlying issues relating to this matter. Neither can I think of one who has not made statements about bankers - such statements are almost always in the negative - which will provoke those witnesses who are going to be called at a later stage, namely, bankers and civil servants, into going to the Four Courts. It is common knowledge that bankers and well-off existing and former civil servants are already equipping themselves with well-heeled lawyers as they prepare to injunct this inquiry.

That is what will happen and what will delay it for a considerable length of time.

It may mean this inquiry goes the way of other Oireachtas inquiries such as the Abbeylara, the mini-CTC signalling project and the Callely inquiries. Oireachtas inquiries have a very poor record of coming to any conclusion because they end up down on the quays in the Four Courts. This inquiry, whatever about the other ones which have preceded it, will inevitably end up in the courts and it may be stalled or stopped. That will be particularly true because of its membership. This issue has reached a point where it is impossible to find any Member of the Oireachtas - I do not know if it is possible to find one who has not spoken about the banking issue - who has not given hostage to fortune and it will end up in the Four Courts which may mean the inquiry comes to a sticky end and ends in a fiasco. That is a real difficulty we have here.

While Deputy Sean Fleming addressed the issue by going 40:40, he was wrong to accept the premise that will somehow produce a fair result. This issue is deeply politicised at this stage. It is an open goal for many Members of the Oireachtas to be on this inquiry and to kick their opponents in the political solar plexus. We know that is what will happen, that there will be a Government majority on this inquiry and that it will dictate the terms of reference, the result, the tone and so on. It will be impossible for the Oireachtas to hold what is suggested will be an impartial inquiry.

I agree with Deputy Sean Fleming that the statement by the Taoiseach last week was the height of irresponsibility and that it actually torpedoed this inquiry in one phrase. "Axis of collusion" was a clever phrase and a good soundbite and it went down very well, but it said that this inquiry will look at Fianna Fáil, the Green Party and others and that it will connect them automatically with what happened. The Taoiseach may well be right but he should not have said it because it immediately turned this into a massive political football.

As night follows day, it is inevitable that the day this inquiry opens with whatever number of Oireachtas Members are on it, there will be grandstanding. We will all do it, if it is necessary, in front of the cameras. People will accuse their political opponents of one thing or another. If the Taoiseach is called before the inquiry, of course, the members of Fianna Fáil will put him under extraordinary pressure and if a member of Fianna Fáil is called before the inquiry, as will happen, the Fine Gael and the Labour Party members will put him or her under enormous pressure. They should be put under pressure but not by their political opponents. That is the real danger of this inquiry. It should be taken out of the political arena if it is to have any credibility at all.

Oireachtas Members are unsuitable for this type of inquiry because of their very nature. They deal in the currency of attracting votes and media attention. They are elected to advocate and legislate but not necessarily to use a very important issue of this sort to batter their opponents. It has already been politicised by the Taoiseach.

I am also worried about the timetable of this inquiry. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, said it would take two years, which would be particularly close to an electoral timetable. If this is to be to the advantage of anyone, because of not being in power, the Government Members will benefit from this. That may well be fair but to time this to coincide with the next general election is deeply suspicious and I worry about that.

I worry about this simply being a political trial of political opponents. It is no good to say findings of fact, which are adverse, cannot be made. The terms of reference might be designed in such a way that it looks suspiciously like turning out to be a kangaroo court. That is not what we should have and it makes me doubt whether people are really serious about finding out the facts and that they see this as a powerful political vehicle and nothing else.

If we are going to restrict its terms of reference up to the night of the guarantee, and as we are looking into banking and how it is practised, why can we not look into how it is practised today and not just under one Administration? What happened under the last Administration was indefensible but what is important is that this Administration also comes under scrutiny, if it is to be fair. Serious questions need to be asked as to whether the banks have reformed in any way since the night of the guarantee in 2008. The question the Government is asking here is a legitimate one but there are equally legitimate ones as to whether it has reformed the banking system and the relationship between Government, senior civil servants and the banks in the way it should have done by this stage.

I want to know what happened and how decisions were made about the liquidation of Anglo Irish Bank. I was here on the night, as were many other Members, and it was chaotic. I do not know what happened that night and how decisions were made but anyone who was here will realise-----

The Deputy was on the wrong side of the debate.

The Minister is very good at interrupting. He might listen for a little while.

I have listened for 20 minutes.

There were many people involved in that who were not aware of what was going on or how decisions were made. Those of us who went to the Department of Finance that night - it had echoes of 2008 - were very puzzled by the fact so little information was given to us, that it was given to us half an hour before the Bill was debated and that the civil servants could not explain the relationship between the Government and civil servants at that time. Let us have an extension of the terms of reference - the Minister can shake his head all he likes - to his own stewardship of the banks and not just that of the last Government.

It is very hard to listen in silence to some contributions.

The Minister should do his best though.

I will do my very best. We have been working on this Bill for a considerable length of time - since the rejection by the people of the referendum in 2011 - to structure a framework for the holding of constitutional inquiries. One or two Deputies opposite seem to be under the illusion that this is a measure to set up a particular inquiry into one particular issue. It is overarching legislation which will structure how inquiries are to be conducted by this House and by the other House in the future, including inquiries in regard to the impeachment of judges, the impeachment of the President, should it ever arise, and inquiries into legislation and on the gathering and presenting of facts. It is not legislation designed for one impending inquiry. I know people are motivated to focus on things because of the latest news cycle, but that is not what is intended here.

I want to deal with the specific amendments which we debated previously and which have been slightly amended since Committee Stage.

In essence, the argument is that 40% of any inquiry group within the House should be drawn from the Opposition and by law the chair shall be a member of the Opposition. We imbalance the proportion of time allowed in normal debate in the House in favour of the Opposition, which is right and proper, and it has always been like that. Many Deputies are disadvantaged, particularly when there is a very large majority, as they are unable to voice opinions. I am of the school of thought that believes every Member is equal in this House, although some groups demand the right to be disproportionately involved in everything. If the normal balance of the people, or the votes cast in the last election, are reflected, it is seen by these people as somehow crushing their democratic right to have their voices uniquely heard. That even applies to those Members with platforms elsewhere who have vented their views very clearly.

I dealt with the issue in amendment No. 3 on Committee Stage, and I perfectly understand the Deputy's intentions with regard to the composition of the committee of inquiry. In section 19 of the Bill, it can be seen that we have addressed this as far as is practicable. In essence, the reasoning behind the Bill is for committees of inquiry to be determined by this and the other House and not to be dictated by the Executive. Section 19(2)(g) states, "to the extent practicable, achieving a balance between committee members as regards their respective political affiliations", and that is captured as part of the Bill's proposals.

Similarly, with regard to amendment No. 4, it is not appropriate to dictate in legislation that forever more, every single inquiry to be conducted by the House under any of the provisions of the legislation, either into the impeachment of a judge or any matter of fact, should have a chair from the Opposition, even if it is demonstrably suitable for a member of the Government parties. That is wrong and it should be a matter for the House to decide. The underlying principle of the Bill, in so far as it is possible, is to confer on the Houses the autonomy to regulate and manage the conduct of inquiries. The House is the determinant of who should chair a committee and the balance to be had on that committee. All through the debate I have argued that it is inappropriate for a Whip system to operate with regard to Part 2 inquiries under this legislation. Each member of an inquiry team is obliged to find individually, with findings appropriate to the evidence heard. It is the same process as that carried out by a juror.

Neither of the amendments is appropriate. We can be myopic and seek to focus on the likely first inquiry, trying to craft legislation to suit it as opposed to what is intended in this Bill. The Supreme Court Abbeylara judgment made a very clear requirement on the State to lay out rules for inquiry. I was at the Supreme Court and the High Court and one of the big criticisms was that we did not set out clearly the procedures to leave citizens sure that there would be safe and constitutional channels dealing with inquiries.

Deputy Fleming made much of the notion of institutional bias. In the Abbeylara judgment, the Supreme Court indicated that the Houses can conduct a legitimate inquiry and rejected the idea that, intrinsically, because of the point referred to by Deputy Ross, politicians are somehow institutionally biased because that is the nature of the trade. That has already been rejected by the Supreme Court as untrue. Inquiries of the Houses allow Members to be involved in this type of investigation as long as they are on a sound constitutional basis. We have set out in this legislation the constitutional pillars allowing for inquiries. In her Supreme Court judgment, Mrs. Justice McGuinness stated:

Members of the Oireachtas have been given highly important constitutional duties; they have been elected by their constituents to fulfil these duties. If whether under Statute or otherwise they have been properly mandated to carry out an inquiry, I consider that they cannot be disabled from so doing by an automatic assumption of objective bias.

That is a clear provision.

I absolutely reject the contention of Deputy Ross that somehow this particular Parliament is so uniquely infirm that it cannot do what every other Parliament does as a matter of course. It is a poor judgment of Members of this and the other House if the Deputy truly believes that. This House can be as forthright, clear, objective, thorough, professional and parliamentary as the House of Commons, the Assemblée Nationale in Paris or any other parliament that does this work as a matter of routine. In the Westminster model, people make clear differences between what goes on at Prime Minister's question time with its associated rough and tumble and the nitty-gritty work of inquiry that goes on in committee rooms. People there would not make the sort of assertions that have been made here on these matters.

I agree with much of what Deputy McDonald said and there are net issues to be inquired into. With the referendum, we sought to allow conclusions to be adduced by a committee on the basis of evidence given. The people did not accept that proposal so what is not acceptable is the assigning of culpability with regard to any matter that is not the proper remit of the Oireachtas under the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court. That still gives us enormous scope.

We can deal with the banking inquiry as it is likely to the be first up. The people of Ireland did not need any editorial comment to come to their own conclusions on the evidence of the tapes presented. I will not say too much about a banking inquiry as I do not want to stray from the generality of our provisions. People want to know the facts in a banking inquiry and there is no need for politicians to come to a conclusion, assigning guilt to a person or persons. They want to know what happened, and the facts can be put into the public domain by calling all those involved in the run-up to the debacle of a decision made in 2008 to explain the circumstances. I do not want to be drawn into that debate in the short time we have as we can have that discussion when there are proposals to establish an inquiry. I am anxious that it should be done and there is an historic requirement for this and the other House to prove themselves capable of doing that kind of investigation and the people's work. They have risen to the challenge in the past. With this legislation we are crafting an overarching Bill designed to allow us a variety of types of inquiry, and it sets out the scope, terms and rights of people involved in this.

Deputy Ross made two other points, with the first related to the timeframe and how long would be the process. I do not know and the decision is not for me. When it comes to shaping any inquiry, the thrust of the legislation is to hand the authority to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Oireachtas can be assertive in these matters and determine the terms of reference, the membership and the chair. There should be some debate about that. There will have to be proportionality in respect of it in accordance with the terms of this Bill. I know it is another nice handy sound-bite but there is no question of there being a kangaroo court. We saw posters about that the last time. There will be no kangaroo court because culpability cannot be assigned in respect of any matter. Those are the confines within which an inquiry must work under the Constitution.

In respect of the two-year period, since a committee can only have a horizon of the duration of this Parliament, that would be the horizon. I hope any committee established to look at the banking situation would have different modules of work to do.

In respect of extending the scope of it to the current situation, I am sure another article will come out about that. That can be done at any time by the current Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of current banking oversight. There is a need to get on with that. It should be the normal bread and butter of any finance committee's work. It could hear from the Minister for Finance, who would be delighted to attend, and the Governor of the Central Bank and anybody else the committee wished to ask any questions about. What we need to do is have robust legislation that expands as much as it can but lives within the confines of the Constitution to enable this Dáil to have inquiries into matters of public concern and to stand the test of time.

I will be concise and to the point. The Minister's final remarks let the cat out of the bag about this inquiry because he was responding to the remark about what happened after the night of the guarantee. He said it was up to the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to do that at any stage. The implication was that he, as a Government Minister, and this Government would not allow the Oireachtas to do that if the Oireachtas so chose. The Minister said it is a matter for the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. Clearly, he does not intend for it to be done by the inquiry committee. Leaving it to the Oireachtas committee means the Government will dominate it.

I agree with the Minister about institutional bias. Of course, we can impeach a President or a judge. We are not inherently biased except that the Taoiseach demonstrated inherent bias and abused the privilege of this House by essentially making criminal charges and allegations of collusion. If he believes there is collusion and that criminal charges should be brought, he should refer the matter to An Garda Síochána for investigation. I was very much in favour of this Oireachtas undertaking a banking inquiry until the Taoiseach started showing the true colour of this Government in respect of its sole function regarding what an inquiry is about.

I will finally move on to remarks made by Sinn Féin, whose spokespersons said we were offended by this. I am putting this on the record because I have refrained from saying it before in connection with the remark about us being offended by our relationship with Anglo Irish Bank. I will take no lecture from any member of Sinn Féin about how to deal with banks. It is a party whose associates carried out several armed robberies in this State and the Six Counties. Their associates raided the Northern Bank, robbed post offices and killed members of An Garda Síochána in the process. I will never take a lecture on how to deal with a bank from any member of Sinn Féin in or outside this House.

I joined this debate because I have concerns that if we are talking about trying to get to the truth of the matter - the Minister says the first inquiry will probably be the banking inquiry, which is the obvious one of public interest - and if it is the Oireachtas that decides these things, it is the Oireachtas and not the Minister or anybody else which decides which inquiry will be the first one. I assume it will be in the context of what we are talking about. There will be inherent bias in it. Let us be very clear. The reason the Irish people rejected the Government's amendment in 2011 was because it believes it will be impossible for this Dáil and Seanad, as presently constructed, to have impartial investigations that can come to conclusions, find fact and report. They do not trust the current situation with political partisanship shown on a continual basis. I spoke against that referendum for that specific reason. I do not believe that one could find and record fact because we are inherently partisan in our commentary here on a continual basis. I can assure the Minister that there is no Deputy on any side of this House who has not made utterances that would prejudice their views in the context of an inquiry. The Minister referred to what former Supreme Court Justice Catherine McGuinness said in her response in the Abbeylara case. The Minister should know the Abbeylara case very well because he was a central character in the judgment.

The bottom line here is that if people are mandated to inquire, the difficulty is that one must go to the people to seek a mandate. We are now establishing an inquiry halfway through a Dáil term and will be in a position where we could as an Oireachtas be inquiring into very serious matters of public importance and the inquiry then falls because of the holding of an election. For the next two years plus, we could be discussing the banking inquiry, going through the whole process, bringing in witnesses, using the available information in the context of the Nyberg and Honohan reports and bringing in all the central figures involved. Then the Labour lads walk out the door and bring down the Government and the entire inquiry falls. It is perplexing. If there was a fixed-term Parliament, one might have some chance. However, we will have modules and, obviously, the political modules will be first. That will take us up to a certain period of time. After that, we will have other characters that will be central to any proper, thorough investigation. However, when a Parliament falls, that is the end of the inquiry. The inquiry cannot even finalise the report because there is an election.

That is an inherent flaw in this legislation and if nothing else, the Government should look to see that there are some obligations somewhere along the line that a report must be finalised at a certain period of time. We do not have fixed parliamentary terms. Other European jurisdictions and the US have fixed parliamentary terms. This inquiry system could lead to people being brought in and certain slants put on it from a political perspective and there might not be an opportunity for a person to present themselves because an election has been called. That is inherently unfair and wrong.

The Irish people were very clear in their decision on an amendment sponsored by the Government. The Minister does not even have faith in this legislation and the reason why he has no faith in it is because he is already saying that the Government might revisit the constitutional referendum put forward previously. If this is the belt and braces inquiry the Government is talking about, why is it even talking about the need to have another referendum? It is because this is false and failed in the sense that it would not uncover the truth in respect of any investigation, not just the banking inquiry.

Could I ask the Deputy to confine himself to the amendments before the House?

We will have two years of a banking inquiry and then have an election and the inquiry will probably not even report. That is how flawed this legislation is. If the Minister could give me an answer on that I might be able to see how this could work.

I call Deputy Cowen and ask him to confine himself to the actual amendments.

I will seek to do so but I am prompted to speak having listened to the Minister's response relating to the proposed amendments. In his response, he made general remarks about this Bill and the potential of any further inquiries emanating from it. We understand the Bill creates the ground rules under which inquiries may be set up in the future. We appreciate that and respect the fact that the Government spent the first year in office preparing for a referendum that it did not win. We respect the fact that it spent the next 18 months preparing this legislation, which the Taoiseach has put in jeopardy by virtue of what he said to this House last week. We respect the fact that there is a large scope involved.

The Minister said we were directed in our utterances and contributions by the recent news cycle. His obvious reference was to the Anglo Irish Bank tapes. This is disingenuous of him.

The sentiment of all Members of the House is that the Office of the Taoiseach is one of privilege and great honour is bestowed on the holder by the House and, by association, by the people democratically. It is quite distinct from the role of leader of Fine Gael. The Minister's reluctance to elaborate on the specifics relating to any such inquiry which may be established to pursue the banking question seems to indicate he does not agree with what was alleged here last week when the Taoiseach stated there was an axis of collusion between those in my party who held office in government and Anglo Irish Bank.

I ask the Deputy to confine himself to the actual amendment which is on committee chairperson's-----

I understand this, but I prefaced my remarks by referring to the generalisations the Minister made in his response to the specific amendments proposed by Deputy Fleming.

There have been wide-ranging speeches on both sides.

It is only right and proper that we be allowed to respond in this regard. I respect the role of the Acting Chairman.

Does the Minister agree with what the Taoiseach stated? If so, does he have any evidence of this being the case? If such evidence exists, which I am sure it does not, is it not the duty of the Minister, the Taoiseach or the Government to go to the local barracks - if they can find one which is open - and present any such evidence? If they have no such evidence, the allegation made should be withdrawn and an apology should be made. I ask the Minister to respond to this.

If we were to adopt the definition of bias as enunciated by some here, we would never get to question anyone because we are on the record on many issues, such as the HSE and virtually every public service throughout the State. Very often our questioning has a political charge to it because we are carrying out a representative function. We must be very careful how we define bias and what damage it could do.

If anyone were to stand up in the House, our friends in Fianna Fáil included, and criticise this legislation and any inquiry which may emanate from it on the basis it is too limited, he or she might have a point. It is a great shame Oireachtas committees cannot make findings of fact, but the people made their determination on this issue and so be it. I think it a great pity that Cabinet confidentiality could create complications with regard to information and documentation we might require. We are all mindful that nothing we do in any inquiry can cut across criminal proceedings and the authority of the courts. That is how it is.

Let us remind ourselves that whoever is on any would-be bank inquiry and whatever its terms of reference, we simply legally cannot make findings of fact. I wonder why the Fianna Fáil benches are so animated on this subject. It strikes me it does not come from an objective analysis or the limitations of the legislation or any inquiry, but that members of Fianna Fáil are using this opportunity during this short debate to grandstand because their feelings have been hurt on the basis of a political charge made by the Taoiseach. To try to use this to scupper the legislation or any banking inquiry I consider to be utterly dishonest on their part.

We support the legislation.

One would never guess so.

I wish to respond briefly to what the Minister stated. I am sure he heard the Director of Public Prosecutions at the weekend-----

Yes. At the weekend the former DPP, James Hamilton, made comments on the effect this inquiry might have and that it might prejudice upcoming trials.

Exactly. I hope the Minister will comment on what the former DPP stated because it came from a non-political source.

It is absolutely self-evident from the debate that we as a House, group and individuals are intrinsically biased. I echo what Deputy Kelleher had to say. It is quite obvious the banking issue and inquiry are already political footballs, whether we like it or not. We have made the case well here this morning for taking it elsewhere to a group of people or a judge who are self-evidently not intrinsically biased. The Minister states there is no automatic assumption of objective bias when he speaks about the former Supreme Court Justice, Catherine McGuinness, and the interesting word is "automatic". On this issue there is a proven political bias by what everyone here has already said on the issue. To suggest in the nitty-gritty of committee rooms Members of the Oireachtas suddenly become media shy is, I am afraid, unrealistic. The committees have all become politicised. Even the Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member, has, unfortunately, been patently politicised in recent weeks. This is the nature of politicians whether the Minister likes it or not.

The Taoiseach did not make any criminal charges against anyone that I heard. He made a political charge on the Order of Business. As I instanced, it is a normal expectation that such cut and thrust would be made during Prime Minister's Question Time and the notion this would impact on the British inquiry system would not arise. I do not want to go into the inquiry on banking which, as the Deputy rightly pointed out, is a matter for the Houses to determine and we will see what comes of it.

With regard to Deputy Kelleher's analysis of the referendum, after the referendum 58% of those who voted "No" wanted the power to inquire vested in the Oireachtas, which is interesting.

Was there another ballot?

We asked Behaviour & Attitudes for a complete analysis and presented the findings to a public expenditure and reform committee which had a very robust debate. It was important to look behind why people made the decision, particularly if anybody was thinking of running the referendum again. My judgment on this is that we must prove the House capable of doing the normal work of Parliament. I have again heard people ask that a judge do it, or the bizarre notion of having the inquiry done by a jury of 12 men and women good and just. We have a responsibility. This is what parliaments do. They hold governments and the institutions of the state to account. We must step up to the mark on this and this is the framework within which we can do it.

Deputy Ross spoke about the heart of our democracy. Not only was our economy broken in 2008 but our polity was also broken. People's confidence in these places to do their business must be restored, and we are well on the way to doing this. The legislation on whistleblowing, which I published today, is part of this.

With regard to the comments of the former DPP, I do not accept we cannot have inquiries. In the interview he instanced the risk that people would use it to grandstand. We must have the discipline and regulation to ensure this does not happen if we are to ask people to have faith in the capacity of Parliament to hold the institutions and the servants of the State to account in the future.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 16, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

“(2) A chairperson of any committee established under this Act shall be a member of the opposition.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are related and amendment No. 8 is an alternative to amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 23, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“(5) Notwithstanding any rules referred to in this section, one quarter of the members of a committee shall constitute a sufficient number of committee members to deem a proposal to have been proposed by a committee.”.

I will discuss amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The amendments have two intents. The first is that in committee, a minority of committee members may refer back to the Dáil the request for a committee of inquiry to be set up. The wording is not perfect. We do not have access to the Attorney General’s office. However, let us say if on the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, of which I am a member, a minority believes a committee of inquiry should be set up, a minority vote is enough to send the matter to this House so that it can decide. A minority of committee members is enough to ask the Dáil to consider setting up a committee of inquiry. That is the first intent.

The second intent is that when the Dáil does consider a committee of inquiry, be it a request from a committee or at its own instigation, that if pushed to a vote, a minority of Members of the Dáil would be sufficient to instigate a committee of inquiry. As the legislation stands it requires a 50% vote. The Minister stated in committee that it is his advice that it would be unconstitutional to do that.

Right. As we are aware, no amendments ever get accepted on Report Stage anyway.

That is not always true.

It has been true in the two and a half years I have been in the House. The point is a relevant one. I appreciate that the proposal might not be constitutional and that a referendum might be required. Several are planned.

The point is a very important one. As the Minister is aware, this is common practice in many European parliaments. Seven European parliaments have in place a system whereby between one quarter and one third of their parliament is sufficient to instigate a parliamentary inquiry. In Germany it is just one quarter. I have Article 44 of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany which states the Bundestag shall have the right, and on the motion of one quarter of its members, the duty to establish a committee of inquiry which shall take the requisite evidence at public hearings. I think it is important. We know it is common practice in some well-functioning democracies. For the Germans it is 25%. As I said to the Minister on Committee Stage, I am not hung up on whether it is 25%, 35% or even 40% but I would not go above 40%. Listening to the previous debate on the banking inquiry and inherent bias I am all the more convinced that something of that nature would be very useful in order to instil some public trust that these kinds of inquiries are being set up for the right reasons.

The Minister made a comment that the Oireachtas can do whatever Westminster does. We have seen some excellent inquiries there, for example, the Leveson inquiry, among others. The Minister said we have to prove this House capable of doing the normal work of parliaments. Unfortunately, due to the stranglehold which the Fianna Fáil Cabinet had for years over the Dáil, and which the Fine Gael and Labour Cabinet now exerts over the Dáil, this House cannot do the normal work of Parliament. Let us look at what happened in recent days. On an utterly non-political issue of deep conscience-----

It was deeply political.

It was not party political. The X case legislation is one of deep conscience.

Where was Deputy Donnelly last night?

I was on parliamentary business in Turkey.

What does the Minister mean?

Why was Deputy Donnelly there?

I was representing the Oireachtas at the annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

I must inform the Minister that this is not relevant to amendment No. 5 which is currently under discussion.

I was one of only two Members left when the Government called home its Deputies for a show of strength. It was a total waste of money.

That was outrageous.

Yes. It seemed pretty silly to me.

Deputy Donnelly stayed in Turkey.

This House cannot do the work Westminster does. Let us look at what happened when four Government Deputies said they could not vote with the Government on an issue of conscience. In Westminster they would not have lost the Whip. They would not have been thrown out. Deputy Mathews would not have got thrown off the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. Last year in Westminster Government MPs voted against the Government 40% of the time and they did not lose the Whip. This is the only parliament in the democratic world that is run like this. There is a consensus among political scientists – the Minister scoffed at the point on the previous occasion when I made it in committee that we would look at the opinion of experts – that Dáil Éireann is the most controlled parliament in the developed world.

I put it to the Minister that I would like the Dáil and the Oireachtas to be able to do some of the stuff that can be done in Westminster, but until the Government relinquishes the obsessive control over its own backbenchers we will not be able to do that. It is reciprocated. The Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform has just set up a sub-committee to examine taxation loopholes, at my request. It will be important work. At our first meeting only one Government Deputy showed up. When Government Deputies show up on Committee Stage they are not allowed to speak or table amendments against the Government. They are not allowed to say what they want. Therefore the public does not trust us. The latest Bertelsmann study on the public’s trust in elected representatives shows that we have one of the lowest levels of trust in the developed world because so much control is exerted over party Deputies.

I do not for a second suggest that there should be no Whip. Of course there must be a Whip to do the business of politics but not the way it is applied in this House. Therefore, these amendments are important because they say that even if one has a Cabinet controlling up to 60% of the Dáil, there are still enough Members of Dáil Éireann who can instigate a committee of inquiry. That is why this is important. Based on what I have seen happen in this House yesterday, today and this morning in this debate, it is all the more important.

I wish to speak to amendment No. 8. I tabled the amendment because of my concerns. The Minister outlined the concerns people have on the basis that 58% of the people who voted “No” to the referendum wanted the Oireachtas to have the power to inquire into issues. Everyone across the House agrees it should have such power. One of the main concerns, as highlighted by Members on this side of the House during the referendum campaign, and it is highlighted in the poll results, is that the inquiries could be seen as being politically motivated and orchestrated by a Government to have, in effect, political show trials.

Amendment No. 8 is an attempt to try to ease that situation, in that it provides that a proposal for an inquiry to be held would not pass unless two thirds of recognised Opposition Deputies supported it. This would provide a safeguard against the Executive dominating the establishment of inquiries in the House.

The Minister's responses to the other amendments were interesting. He constantly referred to the Oireachtas being able to do what it wanted. However, the fact of the matter is that it cannot. The Executive controls the House. The Executive decides what goes on the Order Paper, what is discussed and whether something is guillotined. It governs the House's workings. There may be 113 or so Government Deputies, but only 15 of them have any power in the House. This is the problem, and is what the people saw when they considered the potential risks in the referendum. The Bill can get us over the problem if amendment No. 8 is accepted so that, if a majority of Opposition Deputies are in favour, an inquiry can go ahead. This amendment should be taken on board.

This is an important matter, as the Oireachtas should be able to inquire into the issues in question in the same way as obtains in Westminster and elsewhere. Our inquiries should be quick, strong and reach findings. We and the people need to be able to see that inquiries are fair and not controlled by the Executive. In the parliaments of seven European countries, a small number of members can ensure that an inquiry is held.

Regarding constitutionality, the legislation provides in section 13 that the House shall make rules and Standing Orders on voting in inquiries. Amendment No. 8 is in line with that section. For this reason, it would be constitutional and should be taken on board.

I support the spirit of a lower threshold to trigger and sanction inquiries. If the Minister accepted some or all of these amendments, it would offset concerns about majoritarianism in the establishment of inquiries. In other parliaments and assemblies, a trigger of one third is deemed an appropriate level to give impetus to the establishment of an inquiry. There is merit in this proposal, as nothing would fall captive to the mathematics of a particular Chamber or committee.

In amendment No. 5, Deputy Donnelly is proposing that one quarter of the members of a committee should constitute a sufficient number to deem a proposal by a committee to have been passed and to cause it to come to the House.

Only when the committee asks for a committee of inquiry to be established.

It is an extraordinary proposition, if one thinks about it. A quarter of the members of a committee could overrule three quarters and have a motion tabled in the House.

I have a number of reservations about this proposal. These inquiries will not be routine matters. They will demand resources and deal with matters of significant substance. Most of us believe there should at least be a case compelling enough for the majority of members of a committee to believe that there should be an inquiry into those matters.

I have a degree of experience in the Houses on a number of issues. For example, and as Deputy Pringle would know, I campaigned for a long time for an inquiry into policing in Donegal. Subsequently, we had the Morris tribunal. There was significant resistance from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Oireachtas of the day. The then Government had a narrow majority and voted it down.

In any issue where there is sufficient public demand, the House must yield to it. It will not be a matter of a Government denying the clamour of the people. It would be an extraordinary situation if a quarter of a committee - if there were eight members, one quarter would be two members - could overrule the other six members.

Is the Bundestag an extraordinary situation?

I am not familiar with the Bundestag. I do not know how it works. However, this is an extraordinary proposition. Whatever about majoritarianism, a dictatorship of the minority would be an interesting concept to debate. There are issues in respect of which a minority should be able to trigger actions and I am not ruling that out in all instances.

In amendments Nos. 6 and 7, Deputy Donnelly is proposing that a vote of one quarter of the Members of the House would be sufficient to pass a resolution in respect of an inquiry. As he rightly stated and as I mentioned on Committee Stage, Article 15.11.1° of the Constitution requires: "All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, [it is not a rule of the House-----

The Constitutional Convention cannot make its own rules.

-----but the House's rules cannot overturn the Constitution itself] shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member." The Constitution is clear that a majority of Deputies are needed to pass a resolution of the House. A quarter of the Members of the House overruling three quarters would be an extraordinary proposition.

In amendment No. 8, Deputy Pringle proposes that a vote in favour of conducting an inquiry shall pass if no less than two thirds of the designated Opposition vote in favour. This is unconstitutional for the reasons that I have given. Even were this proposition constitutional, I would reject it. I have been longer on the Opposition benches than I have been on the Government benches in this House. There is almost a flavour emerging that, somehow, the Government side is inherently political and would act politically and the Opposition side does not act politically. I have served long years on both sides of the House. My experience is that the temptation to act politically is not the universal prerogative on either side.

In terms of what is right, we must respect the vote of the people and their democratic decisions.

Deputy Donnelly gave a dissertation on the role of the Whips. He is a new Independent. I entered politics because I was interested in a political party. Originally, I did not expect to be an elected Member, but I subscribe to the views of the party and we debate vigorously within it. We are not sole traders. I do not stand in the Chamber as a sole trader. I must argue my case within the confines of the parliamentary party first and, ultimately, within the confines of the conference of my party, which makes policy. The notion that we are all sole traders and that everyone can amble in here as he or she pleases is not how political parties work. It is not normally the way for Fianna Fáil. Except when the exigencies of the situation, shall we say kindly, require it to be otherwise, Fianna Fáil normally requires the consensus view within the party to prevail. If one is a member of any organisation, one can have a vigorous democratic debate, but once the majority decides, that decision becomes the organisation's policy. We are not sole traders. I understand that it is difficult for people outside the political party system to understand that. If the day comes when one cannot live with this situation, one walks away.

It is too hard for me to understand.

This is how it works. Parliament needs it. Consider what this Parliament has needed to do in recent years. The notion that every difficult budgetary decision could be a free vote, the pressure on everybody-----

Nobody suggested that every vote should be free.

May I speak as freely as I allowed the Deputy to speak?

I thank the Deputy.

-----and I will interrupt the Minister as much as he interrupted me.

I do not think I interrupted the Deputy, but maybe I did. If so, I apologise. The Deputy did not say that there should be a Whip on everything.

A Whip on conscience? I have to determine if child benefit is a conscience issue or only a sectionally related issue of conscience. We are in a very difficult area if we are going to say to people that they should determine what is a matter of conscience, and that takes it outside the norms of politics. We all have consciences. I did not get the opportunity to speak in the debate but I find it jarring when people say they are going to vote with their conscience, as if not everybody in this House has a conscience or reflects and makes determinations in light of their experiences, beliefs and ultimately their consciences.

Deputy Donnelly talked about the Executive's control over the Oireachtas. The most vigorous debate happens within parliamentary parties and that determines what happens here. The rows, clamour and strenuous debate that happen within the Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil parties determines that discourse. I understand that a lot of this is alien to Independents who can determine their views-----

The Minister should attend a Technical Group meeting.

I find the notion that they are Independents in a group to be perverse. I do not expect a Technical Group to have a consensus because they are all, by definition, independent.

Independent of what?

Independent of each other, I think, which is fine.

We need to ensure that we have effectiveness in parliamentary decision-making. By definition, politics is the art of compromise and we compromise on many matters.

I do not accept Deputy Pringle's commentary about show trials. If we look at every issue that has been inquired into in this House - in so far as we could do so before the Abbeylara judgment - it was done objectively, with restraint and within confines. That applied even to very political issues like the fall of the 1994 Government. I was a witness at that, with some insight into what happened. It was chaired very fairly and impartially by a Fianna Fáil Deputy.

No conclusions were reached.

It was done without this legislation.

Absolutely, but this legislation has flowed from events since then, when we had an instruction to shape what should happen.

There is a slightly precious view that somehow the Opposition is pure and less base or politic than the Government side. By that definition, therefore, the minority should be able to overturn the view of the majority. That is something I just do not accept.

No doubt we will continue to debate this matter. However, it is a bit like coming to a meeting of the flat earth society. One comes in here and everybody says, "No, it has to be done this way, it couldn't possibly happen any other way". When one says that it happens successfully in this "impossible" way in other parliaments, we are told: "No, it couldn't possibly work. There'd be chaos. All the debate has to happen within the parties and away from the public."

Heaven forbid that in our national parliament Deputies in the same party would be allowed to disagree with each other. The reality is that the current rules, which give an Irish Cabinet more control over Parliament than in any other developed country, suit whoever comes into power. The Minister spent a long time in opposition and railed against a lot of these things. The programme for Government aimed to get rid of the guillotine system, but once in power the Government chose to keep it. In fact, it is being used three times today because it is useful. They use it on all the sensitive Bills because it is useful. When a Government gets into power, Ministers consider that this level of control is pretty useful. They quite like it and want to keep it.

On national radio recently, the Government Chief Whip described the Government's efforts at political reform as deplorable. The result is that nobody trusts us. The Irish people trust us less than virtually anyone else in the developed world trusts their politicians. That is because they know, when they are listening to Government Deputies, or Opposition Deputies in parties, that they are not necessarily hearing what those people believe. On radio and television, and in here, I have debated issues with good Government backbenchers. I have listened to them discuss points, although before the debate they have told me they do not agree with them. Yet they have to toe the line and say that I am completely wrong. That is the way it is. They know they are not representing their own views. The people are not stupid and they know it as well.

The Minister's argument is that the Government will do the right thing if there is an overwhelming demand from the people, but what happens if there is not an overwhelming demand? What happens if it is a really important issue that we in the House know should be investigated, but the public do not really care about it because it is boring and technical? The Government will not investigate these things.

We will have this debate again. Grandstanding happens. We had a debate which took up time this morning on guillotining this Bill, although we had open-ended discussion on Second and Committee Stages without a guillotine. There is no new substance in this.

There are new amendments.

No new issues that we have not already skirted around. That is part of the political process and I perfectly understand that. In essence, Deputy Donnelly is saying that if there is no public clamour for it and if there is no majority for it in the Dáil, it should happen anyway because he knows, or a minority knows, or some people who are clearly superior to the mass-----

Or you know, Minister.

-----determine that this is important. They think they have the right to play a golden card that overturns the majority in Parliament. I do not accept that, however.

Does the Deputy wish to reply?

They are all talked out. Does the Deputy wish to press the amendment?

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed with amendment No. 5.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 23, to delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute the following:

“(a) subject to subsection (3), the one quarter of the members of the House have, in accordance with the rules and standing orders made by the House pursuant to subsection (2), voted to pass the resolution in respect of the inquiry (in this section referred to as “the terms of reference resolution”) specifying—”.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 7 has already been discussed with amendment No. 5.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 23, to delete lines 21 to 23 and substitute the following:

"(b) if the committee is a joint committee, one quarter of the members of each House vote to pass the resolution with identical terms passed in each House.”.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 8 has already been discussed with amendment No. 5.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 23, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:

"(4) Each house shall make rules and standing orders referred to in subsection (1) (a) that shall provide that a vote in favour of the conducting of an inquiry shall be deemed to pass if no less than two thirds of the designated opposition deputies vote in favour of the conducting of the inquiry by a committee.”.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 85.

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Browne, John.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Thomas Pringle and Aengus Ó Snodaigh; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Amendment declared lost.

As it is 1.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 123; Níl, 11.

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Browne, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Collins, Joan.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Shane Ross and Finian McGrath.
Question declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share