Last year, the Government brought forward the House of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill after the people voted down a referendum in this regard the previous autumn. The Bill was agreed by the Oireachtas and during his Second Stage contribution, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform outlined passionately the process of clarifying the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in securing accountability through investigations into matters of significant public importance. He stated:

This Bill will enhance the effective functioning of our modern parliamentary democracy by facilitating such inquiries and it is our duty as public representations to use our constitutional powers appropriately and responsibility and for the benefit of wider society and the economy. Used effectively, I anticipate that the framework established by this Bill will facilitate focused, constructive political discourse that will enhance our parliamentary system.

Those were the Minister's words this time last year when he brought forward the Bill to establish the banking inquiry.

By any stretch of credibility, what has happened over the past number of days has brought not only the House and the Seanad into disrepute but it has also brought the banking inquiry into disrepute. It is undermining the inquiry's credibility before it even starts its work.

Hear, hear.

My party from the outset has said it will co-operate fully. We said we would like a banking inquiry and we also highlighted the need for it to be impartial and without bias to ensure we could all leave the House knowing such an inquiry would go about its business and come to conclusions without political interference. Every Member knows this will not be the case.

Three years ago we were promised a democratic revolution. The Government parties swept into power with a massive majority and we have had nothing since but autocracy in terms of how they deal with the Parliament.

Ask a question please.

The proposal to add two Government members to the committee because the Government did not get its way in the selection process in the Seanad simply undermines the vestiges of credibility that it has left. The Tánaiste should take note that only two weeks ago the public was emphatic about the conduct of the Government parties. However, one would think that in their two remaining years in office, they would like to have an inquiry that has the support of the House and the people and will come to conclusions in which everybody will have confidence.

The banking inquiry should not be about trying to get at individuals.

A kangaroo court.

It should be about trying to find the truth to ensure things will not happen again that may have happened previously and to find out exactly why we ended up where we were and how we got through these difficult times. The Tánaiste said that he wanted to find out the truth.

The Deputy is over time.

However, the Taoiseach's conduct in the House when he sat in the same chair two days ago leaves an awful lot to be desired regarding whether I can believe the Government parties are interested in the truth.

I am not sure where the question was in that statement but the Government wants a banking inquiry to be established and working-----

Under its control.

A Government inquiry.

Contrived.

-----and getting to the bottom of what happened to the banking crisis in this country.

The Government wants to predetermine the outcome.

I am disappointed at what has happened over the past number of days regarding the appointment-----

About the ineptitude of his own-----

Will the Deputy please stay quiet? He can leave the Chamber if he cannot do so.

I am disappointed at what happened in the past number of days in respect of the appointment of the Seanad members of the banking inquiry.

The Government did not get its own way.

Why is the Tánaiste disappointed?

My understanding was that the intention was that two Seanad Members would be appointed to the inquiry-----

Anointed.

-----one from the Government side and one from the Opposition side. It appears that what happened was a bit of slick parliamentary footwork was performed-----

It was Government Members.

Government Members could not be bothered to show up.

It is called a vote.

It is called attendance.

Will Members please stay quiet and listen?

-----and we ended up with two Opposition Members proposed to be nominated as the Seanad members of the inquiry. If the Government had come in either to this House or the Seanad and had pulled a stroke like that-----

The Government is trying to do that now.

By adding two members, the Government is doing the same.

Why not add four while it is at it?

------to produce two Government nominees and no Opposition nominee, we would have a lot of noise from the Opposition about it.

The Government has learned nothing.

We have.

Fianna Fáil has forgotten everything.

Empty vessels.

The leadership of Fianna Fáil should use------

We will take no lectures from the Labour Party, which is on 4%.

Will the Deputy please take his tablets?

Cyanide is what the Deputy needs.

-----its good offices to ensure the membership of the banking inquiry - we have decided the Dáil members - drawn from the Seanad should be representative of the Government and Opposition as we normally expect.

That is democracy.

Hear, hear.

That is what balance is about.

It is up to the Government Members to show up.

It is evident that the Tánaiste has not taken note of what has happened over the past number of weeks regarding this issue.

Neither has the Deputy.

The Taoiseach stated in the House that the Government wants a majority on the inquiry committee to set the terms of reference. The committee should set the terms of reference, not the Executive. Deputies opposite should read the legislation. This simply is jackboot politics at its best. The Tánaiste is trying to stand over the Government not only setting the terms of reference but also the outcome. That is effectively what it is doing.

It is called democracy.

If that is democracy, I have great worries for this place.

Perhaps the Deputy will put a question.

The point we have made consistently is that the Oireachtas should set the terms of reference. The Government opposed the addition of a Member-----

Will the Deputy put a question? He is over time.

Why did the Government oppose the extension of the number of members on the committee? The Government parties stated it should be a tight committee comprising nine members when it was proposed that Deputy Mathews be added. They said it could not happen and the committee could not have any more than nine members. They had all the reasons there could only be nine members a few weeks ago.

Tell us why Senator MacSharry should be on the inquiry.

That is democracy.

Deputy Kelleher should resume his seat.

Let us be clear. Does the Tánaiste agree that the Government has undermined the credibility of the banking inquiry and the authority of the banking inquiry to call witnesses?

Fianna Fáil has undermined the country.

The composition of the banking inquiry committee was intended to be a chairperson, three Members of this House from the Government side, three Members from the Opposition side and two Members of the Seanad, one of whom was to be from the Government side and one from the Opposition side.

Who decided that? Was it handed down on a tablet of stone?

That is the proposed membership of the banking inquiry committee.

That is the Tánaiste's hypothesis.

Will the Deputy stay quiet?

What happened was that Fianna Fáil and others participated in a parliamentary stroke in the Seanad to end up with a situation-----

We prevented the Labour Party Senator from attending a meeting.

-----where the two Members of the Seanad would be from the Opposition side of the House.

Why have an Oireachtas?

Frankly, that is playing political and parliamentary games with the establishment of an inquiry which the public wishes to see up and running as quickly as possible. Members opposite should cop on to themselves, work with the Seanad, have the members of the inquiry team appointed, have a balanced committee as intended and let it get on with its work.

Talk in the Dáil about the good name of the Seanad is not doing the name of the Dáil any good, particularly with behaviour such as shouting and roaring across the Chamber.

You are quite right, a Cheann Comhairle, with the deputy leader of the State behaving like this.

Please refrain from shouting across the Chamber.