New powers for Dail and Seanad to strengthen democracy

Lost in the chaff of the personality politics that has characterised the presidential election, the choices voters will have to make in the two referendums on judges' pay and strengthening the powers of the Oireachtas has been somewhat overlooked. It is only in the past couple of weeks that the media has begun to focus on what is at stake here. The referendum on cutting judges' pay and on granting greater powers to Oireachtas Committees to hold investigate matters of public importance are both significant changes to the constitution. The referendum on judicial pay, if passed, will give the State power to reduce the pay of judges proportionately if the pay of public servants is being reduced. Importantly, the independence of the judiciary will not be compromised by the proposed amendment. However, it is the other proposed amendment which has seen the more vigorous debate. Civil liberties campaigners have called on voters to reject the proposals to beef up the power of TDs and senators in parliamentary inquiries, and the numbers in the 'no' camp have been growing in the past couple of weeks as the wisdom of giving so much power to politicians is scrutinised and questioned. The referendum Bills to amend the constitution have been passed rapidly by the Oireachtas, faced relatively little opposition and, some might argue, inadequate scrutiny. This week, the Irish people will be asked to allow members of the Oireachtas to carry out investigations on key issues of importance in a parliamentary forum as an alternative to the lengthy and costly tribunals which have heretofore cost the country's taxpayers millions of euro and taken an inordinate length of time to investigate. Its proponents argue that that passing of this referendum will mean such important investigations will cost the State much less, be conducted in a quicker manner and be more transparent. Probes will be conducted using the cross-party system of inquiry to ensure the public interest is properly served. Ultimately, these will be parliamentary investigations as opposed to government hearings. Since the 2002 Supreme Court decision in the Abbeylara case, where civilian John Carthy was shot dead by the garda's emergency response unit, the national parliament has been forbidden from conducting inquiries into matters of public importance. This judgement found that there was legal doubt regarding the power of the Dáil and Seanad to carry out inquiries. The government now believes this needs to be addressed to ensure proper accountability in public life. The change will allow, for instance, major issues of public importance, such as the banking catastrophe that has brought the country to its knees, to be thoroughly examined in public in a timely manner. This system would provide a transparent alternative so that those who are found responsible for failures can be held to account. It would effectively strengthen the power of the country's parliament to ensure there is accountability where major systemic failures have been identified. Passing the referendum would also bring the Houses of the Oireachtas into line with other countries. Our parliament is virtually alone in not having these powers of investigation, depriving it of an important function in any democratic society. In the US in 2008, within weeks of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bank's CEO was brought before a Congressional Committee to answer questions to which the American taxpayer was demanding answers. In the UK, a parliamentary enquiry was responsible for investigating the phone-hacking scandal at the now defunct News of the World and which ordered media mogul Rupert Murdoch to appear before it. Three years after the implosion of Ireland's banks, there has yet to be a public investigation of any kind into this scandal. For far too long, those who have let this country down have not accounted for their actions. On the other hand, we must ensure we do not get a kangaroo court. We must ensure that such Oireachtas investigations will be carried out with fair procedures and natural justice while at the same time introducing accountability and transparency. One argument against the proposal is that there is a danger individual reputations could be trampled upon by grandstanding politicians. Those in favour insist inquiries will be conducted fairly and within clear parameters where the constitutional rights and liberties of the individual will be rigorously safeguarded. The procedures will be governed by law and subject to review by the country's courts. Voters will have to make up their own minds on whether the balance struck under the proposed amendment is the right one. To all intents and purposes, it does appear that the arguments in favour of this amendment are the more convincing.