Sir, – Your Editorial “. . . amend in haste, repent at leisure . . . ” (“A flawed amendment”, October 20th) is the latest in a series of misleading statements about the constitutional amendment to provide the Oireachtas with powers of inquiry.
It is simply nonsense to suggest the measure is rushed and flawed.
Rather, the Abbeylara judgment has since 2002 acted as a major impediment to meaningful parliamentary inquiries. Its implications and proposed solutions have been analysed exhaustively over an extended period of time culminating in the recommendations of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution – in turn informed by the views of authoritative legal and constitutional experts – which form the basis of this proposal.
This newspaper has rightly fulminated against the lack of accountability regarding the damage done to this State and its people by events in recent years. To oppose this proposal to enhance accountability is a contortion of logic.
The fundamental purpose of the amendment to confer full powers of inquiry on the Oireachtas as part of the programme of political reform that the Government is embarked upon to strengthen and enhance the role of the legislature vis-a-vis the executive.
It is integral to this objective that the Oireachtas should be able to inquire into matters of general public importance which relate to the core functions of our parliamentary system – legislation, oversight of public administration and public expenditure and securing accountability from all the major institutions in our State, on behalf of the electorate.
The only possible objection to the proposal can be that it is presented as an attack on individual citizens’ rights. This clearly is not the case.
The Editorial refers to legal experts taking issue with my assessment which is based on the categorical advice of the Attorney General that the exercise of inquiry powers by the Oireachtas – in particular as they relate to constitutional rights to fair procedures – will be subject to oversight and supervision by the courts. Yet on your Letters’ page (October 20th) the eminent constitutional expert Prof David Gwynn Morgan endorses the Attorney General’s view. The proposal does apply another test – the public good – which would have to be considered by the court in making any determination to intervene, but in light of our shared experience in recent years including the huge legal costs incurred by the tribunals, the onus is on the Government to put in front of the people an inquiry mechanism that can be effective, responsive and meets the legitimate requirement of citizens for public accountability in relation to major systemic failures that have taken place in Irish society.
The Government is not seeking to confer extraordinary or unusual powers on the Oireachtas. As you accept the powers of inquiry proposed for the Dáil and Seanad are widely available to parliaments in the EU and elsewhere. What is altogether absent from your analysis is the critical consideration that the focus of Oireachtas inquiries will be into matters which are serious or exceptional in nature and where significant public policy benefits can arise from holding an inquiry.
In highlighting the risks of political abuse of the proposed inquiry powers, you choose ignore the long-established track record of the Public Accounts Committee and other Oireachtas committees that have in a strictly non-partisan, determined and professional manner investigated serious matters of maladministration, financial waste and mismanagement and wrongdoing. These proposals, so partisan that they are supported by well over 80 per cent of the Dáil, seek to build on this expertise by designing an inquiry system strongly based on the highly successful and equally significantly cost-effective Dirt model.
While a constitutional amendment is essential to ensure that individuals in senior positions of authority in the major institutions of our State – outside of the public service – that would not otherwise be amenable to Oireachtas inquiries can be made more accountable, it is simply and regretfully inaccurate to characterise the amendment as an attack on individual rights under the Constitution. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – David Gwynn Morgan’s views might carry more weight (October 20th) if he took the trouble to quote correctly Article 35.2, on which he rests his argument on the judicial salaries amendment. That Article states “All judges SHALL be . . .” and not “SHOULD” as Prof Morgan states. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Politicians appoint the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Army and judges, and now they want investigative powers for themselves. Obviously they don’t trust their appointees! Being judged my politicians, God help us. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I find it astounding that David Gwynn Morgan (October 20th) fails to acknowledge that the caselaw he cites to reassure us “horror fantasists” was decided under the Constitution as it stood at that time. It is not a given that these challenges would have had the same outcome if they were brought under the new Constitution that is proposed in these referendums. I would have assumed that, as a “constitutionalist”, he knows that a constitutional challenge is decided based on the wording of the Constitution.
Niall Ryan (October 20th) is also voting Yes to both, preferring that politicians rather than bankers not be answerable or accountable for their conduct. The inquiries he refers to in other jurisdictions do not have the sweeping powers that this amendment would hand over to government. Mr Ryan's PhD need not be in Latin to understand the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
For my part – not being satisfied that the implementation of any country’s Constitution should be contingent on the better nature of the government of the day – I will be voting No to one, and perhaps both of the proposed amendments. – Yours, etc,