Sir, – John A Murphy (September 20th) takes issue with the tone of Donncha O’Connell and Estelle Feldman’s opinion pieces regarding the upcoming referendums (Opinion & Analysis, September 19th), accusing them of a misplaced lack of trust in our elected representatives. Perhaps, however, this lack of confidence in politicians’ ability to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry is justified by the facts.
The perception of institutional bias has tarnished the history of parliamentary inquiries in the United Kingdom for over a century. Ever since the Marconi scandal broke in 1912 – in which members of Asquith’s government, including Lloyd George, were accused of insider trading, but acquitted by a select committee of their own party – the appropriateness of political investigation of public misconduct has been in serious doubt. This was reviewed by the UK government of the day in 1966, but the Salmon Report concluded that a return to such methods of inquiry would be a “retrograde step”. Lord Salmon stated that, although select committees were useful, and even indispensable, for many purposes, “the investigation of allegations of public misconduct is not one of them. Such matters should be entirely removed from political influences.” Lest we be tempted to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude towards our British brethren, it should be remembered that it is a short 18 months since the government vetoed debate on an independent Ombudsman’s report on the Lost at Sea scheme. Following this undemocratic act, the relevant government-dominated committee then voted the report down. The Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, described this as representing “the biggest threat to the existence of my office since Charles Haughey attempted to undermine it in the 1980s by starving it of funds and delaying Michael Mills’s reappointment”.
These are the people we are asked to trust with inquisitorial powers, unlimited in scope and with no guarantee of judicial oversight. I look forward to casting my “No” vote. – Yours, etc,