Hilary Grubb
Staff Writer
The proposed amendment to the Constitution as regards Oireachtas inquiries was rejected by the Irish people in last week’s referendum.
The necessity for the referendum arose after the Abbeylara case where the Supreme Court held that the Oireachtas did not have inherent power to conduct inquires. Dr Eoin O’Malley of DCU, at the ELSA (European Law Students Association) conference on this topic last week, noted that the Oireachtas should have never been allowed to “make a finding of fact about an unlawful killing.”
This referendum proposed to give the Houses of the Oireachtas (the Dáil and Seanad) express power to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person’s conduct.
One of the aims of this was to conduct inquiries at a fraction of the fee of past tribunals, which have been infamous for their exorbitant costs. Although decreased costs are a desirable objective, it was argued that the amendment, if ratified, would give the Oireachtas too much power leading to an infringement on civil rights. Additionally, as O’Malley pointed out, it is “too easy for Parliament to be controlled by Government”. He stated that Oireachtas inquires would “generate a lot of heat but not an awful lot of light”
Not only was the substance of the proposal in severe doubt, but the procedure by which the referendum was being composed was questionable. Overshadowed by the presidential election, discussion of the referendum lacked the scrutiny of media attention. Dr. Eoin Carolan, a constitutional law expert from UCD had said he had “serious concerns” over the manner in which this referendum was being composed. He said that the “right was removed to publish for and against” the referendum, leaving students without any guidance on the matter.
Leader of the Green Party Eamon Ryan admitted that there were “myriad failings” in the Tribunal system, and that there was a call for a different process. He stated that there were ways of changing the process without constitutional amendment, praising the Nyberg Report into the financial crisis, stating that this was quick and cheap.
Overall, the general consensus amongst the student body, in law, was that the Constitutional amendment should not be passed and they commented that the proposed amendment was poorly drafted, and that it would give the Oireactas far too much power.
