Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2014

Vol. 859 No. 1

Banking Inquiry: Motion

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, pursuant to Standing Order 107E, shall consider the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges entitled 'Relevant report on the relevant proposal for a banking inquiry under Standing Orders and the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013', copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st November, 2014.

This report comes about under the Oireachtas inquiry system established by the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. The Act, and the Standing Orders which flow from it, give the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, chaired by the Ceann Comhairle, the responsibility for evaluating inquiry proposals, and making recommendations to the House. Such a report must be considered by the Dáil before the terms of reference are approved.

Given that this was the first time under the new Oireachtas inquiry system that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was called upon to evaluate such a relevant proposal, all steps were taken to be comprehensive in our approach. The committee met on four occasions to discuss the proposals and received expert advice and legal assistance in carrying out this function.

All too often some members of the media and some commentators like to play up the disputes that take place in the Dáil Chamber as a symptom of some problem with Irish democracy. All too rarely do these same members of the media and commentators focus on the productive work that takes place in the Oireachtas committees. In their work in Oireachtas committees, Deputies and Senators put aside their political differences to work together on legislation, on reports and on new initiatives such as pre-legislative scrutiny. I believe that, as a result of the reforms introduced in the Dáil, Oireachtas committees now play a more vital and central role in our Parliament than ever before.

All the members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, regardless of political background, approached this work in a professional way and engaged fully in the process. I acknowledge the work of all members of the CPP for that. The Chair of the committee, An Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Seán Barrett, was determined to make sure that the committee fulfilled it role under the Act and Standing Orders. The Ceann Comhairle, the CPP members and the Oireachtas staff worked with the appropriate legal and expert advice to provide the Dáil with a complete and detailed report.

Following its consideration of the relevant proposal of the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis, the CPP considers that the proposed banking inquiry should be conducted; it should be conducted by the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis, which has to date operated on the basis of consensus and has already acquired some expertise in regard to the matters proposed to be inquired into; it should be conducted as a section 7 inquiry under the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 - this inquiry could add significant value and increase the public's understanding of what went wrong and help to prevent a repeat of the failed policies that led the crisis; the draft terms of reference resolution for the proposed inquiry should be amended slightly to consider the impact of membership of the euro and allow for additional categories of witness; and the necessary amendments should be made to the Central Bank Act 1942.

The motion is an important next step in the establishment of the banking inquiry. It is only right that an Oireachtas inquiry review the different decisions, policies and systems that led to the bank guarantee and the financial crisis so as to make sure that we as a nation learn from the mistakes of the past and avoid repeating them in the future. I, and I am sure all members of the CPP and the Dáil, wish the members of the banking inquiry well in the task before them.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

The Government Whip referred correctly to the important work of the CPP in this matter. I pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis because I believe it, too, has worked effectively and cohesively to date. That is why Fianna Fáil will co-operate with the banking inquiry which is now being established by the Oireachtas.

We have stated all along that if the inquiry is to achieve its aim of a full examination of the events surrounding the banking collapse, it cannot focus solely on the night of the bank guarantee. It needs also to examine the lending culture which prevailed in the banks, the role of external auditors and advisers, the pressure brought to bear by the ECB not to impose losses on senior bondholders, and the decisions to establish NAMA and liquidate IBRC. We welcome the inclusion of these matters among its terms of reference and also the examination of the design flaws in the euro project itself as a factor in the subsequent difficulties Ireland and other countries endured.

However, we retain our view that the model chosen by the Government runs a real risk of providing an incomplete examination of these events. We have repeatedly stated that the Tribunal of Inquiry Bill 2005, if enacted, offers a cheaper, faster and more efficient method of investigating matters of urgent public concern where other private inquiry mechanisms, such as commissions of investigation, are inappropriate.

It is likely that the Irish people will not be satisfied with a parliamentary inquiry that cannot focus on individual wrongdoing and can only deal with institutional systems failure. It needs more than just a record and report summary. The potential of an Levenson-style inquiry, as in the United Kingdom, would allow a fully independent and public inquiry to take place. It is regrettable that the Government did not take our advice in this regard.

For a Government that repeatedly expressed a desire to get to the root of issues surrounding the collapse of the banks, it has shown a remarkable level of ineptitude in bringing this about. There is now a real risk that the inquiry timetable will clash with the next general election.

From having being central to the Government's re-election strategy, there is now a real risk that the inquiry will be jettisoned half way through its work in order to facilitate an early election which looks ever more likely. As well as identifying what happened during the banking collapse, deliverable proposals as to how to prevent a recurrence, building on the measures already implemented, could significantly enhance the work of the inquiry.

We know that at some point in the late 1990s and early 2000s a significant cultural shift occurred in the Irish banking sector, which caused some previously prudent institutions to embark on what proved to be a reckless lending spree. Bank of Ireland, for example, took more than 200 years to accumulate €100 billion in lending, yet within another four years it had doubled its amount of loans. The bank loan losses did not simply occur in 2008 - the problem had been in the making for many years, probably as far back as 1999.

Few, if any, bankers put their hands up and voluntarily assumed responsibility for the credit bubble, either to bank shareholders or to the public who ultimately carried the can for the losses.

Deputy Peter Mathews

Hear, hear.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

It is vital that we get an opportunity to understand the workings of the bank credit committees and what level of executive oversight of their work took place. Reports identifying responsibility for bank failures on the part of individuals and not just general systems failures have been prepared in several foreign jurisdictions and could serve as templates for an inquiry in this country.

Fianna Fáil fully acknowledges that the political background to this explosion of credit also needs to be examined, bearing in mind that at no stage, even during the debate on the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority Act 2003, did any political party call for the banks to rein in lending. In fact, at the time, the current Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton said, "IFSRA cannot be expected to ride shotgun with every bank. And banks have deep pockets to resource various wheezes. In the long run, only self-assessment will work, not trying to catch people out." That is very much at variance with what is being said today.

In terms of the role of the Central Bank, we must accept that unlike in other businesses, bank failures inflict widespread economic damage on third parties. That is the reason banks are licensed and regulated. The Honohan and Nyberg reports examined the performance of the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator. They concluded that there were serious failures of regulation and supervision, despite warnings about growing threats to financial stability. There were no calls from the political system to increase regulation or supervision, contrary to the attempts to rewrite history more recently. The Department of Finance was also judged in these reports to have acted in a way that was too little, too late. The reports assigned responsibility to institutions, rather than to individuals.

I wish to refer to the ECB in the little time remaining. Colm McCarthy said "The ECB, under its former president, Jean-Claude Trichet, consistently pursued policies that were helpful to bank creditors and unhelpful to taxpayers and sovereign bondholders." This policy position has now been effectively abandoned, both by eurozone politicians and by the leadership of the ECB. Any future bank rescues would be modelled on the Cypriot example with losses potentially being imposed on unsecured deposits.

All relevant correspondence between the Irish authorities and the ECB should be released to the inquiry. In addition, it would be appropriate for former ECB president, Jean-Claude Trichet, to appear before the inquiry to explain why the ECB set its face against the imposition of losses on senior bondholders, including unsecured, unguaranteed bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide even after the decision had been taken to close them down. The indication from Mr. Trichet that he will not appear and that instead Patrick Honohan will address the inquiry on behalf of the ECB is unacceptable.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Cuirim fáilte roimh an gcoiste fiosrúcháin seo agus na téarmaí tagartha atáimid ag plé chun déanamh cinnte go mbeidh seans acu déileáil le ceist mhór na mbanc agus an teip iomlán a tharla ar an gcóras airgeadais sa tír seo thar na blianta deireanacha. Guím gach rath ar an gcoiste sin mar tá obair mhór roimhe. I welcome the terms of reference of the inquiry and I wish the inquiry well. The committee members have a significant job in front of them. I do not think any of them have shirked so far from it. In some ways I wish them well and that they will have the time and the timeframe within which to carry out their work. On the other hand, I hope they do not because I want a general election as soon as possible. However, the issues before the committee need to be investigated, and the committee must reach findings of fact. We must learn very specifically from what happened at that stage to ensure the mistakes of the period are never repeated or heaped upon future generations.

I am concerned at the delay in getting to this stage. We are more than three years into the Government’s term of office, which got elected on a promise that there would be a banking inquiry. We would be a lot better off if the inquiry was put in place in the first year of the Government’s term of office, but it fiddled and fumbled along the way. However, we are where we are and we must deal with the current situation. Even though there is a tight timeframe, the public has a wish and demand for findings of fact to be made about what went wrong. The public also wish to see the wrongdoers brought to justice. That is not in the terms of reference; that is for a court and the authorities outside of this House to deliver on. We must ensure we do not set the expectations of the public too high. Nobody will be held to account following the inquiry, but findings of fact will be made and people will be able to draw their own conclusions. Perhaps those findings of fact would be useful in court proceedings in the future. Given where we are today, at the very least we must ensure that the breaches of regulations, the obscene greed that characterised that period of the property bubble among some in banking and property speculation in the State, is never replicated and that brakes are put in place. Those brakes can be legislated for in this House, based on the findings of the committee. Some of the brakes are in place but they are not enough.

There are serious constraints on the committee in terms of its workload. They will be in the bunker morning, noon and night for the next six months at least trying to extract the teeth of what went wrong from people who to date have not been as forthcoming as they should have been, and why there was a different approach to the Irish banking collapse than to other countries in Europe. Perhaps such information could also be gleaned. We must establish why it took so long to react, why the rules, laws and guidelines that were in place were ignored and continuously ignored and not implemented. Unfortunately, some of the arrogance that characterised that period has begun to creep in again. We, as politicians in this House, must send out the message that we will do our damnedest to ensure the situation does not reach the heights it gained previously and that we will put a brake on that type of speculation and gambling with people’s lives.

We know that €64 billion was put into the banks. One of the things we cannot fully quantify is the effect not only on people in Ireland but also on all of those who had to emigrate as a consequence. Many families had to go through the trauma of repossessions or very constrained financial situations. That is something I hope the committee members have at the back of their mind. I hope everyone who is called before the committee to give evidence will remember that their evidence covers a period that will have a consequence on the life of every man, woman and child in Ireland for many generations to come.

The committee members and those who will be coming before it will need to be honest and upfront and will need to endeavour to help society to learn the lessons from that period in order that we can be helped to frame a better future.

Deputy Shane Ross

I have no objection in principle to a banking inquiry to find out what happened during the critical period which this inquiry is examining as this could be very necessary and very useful in preventing it happening again. However, I have some serious reservations about this inquiry, its composition and its terms of reference. There are serious credibility difficulties attached to politicians investigating politicians. We have seen this in this House before on various issues where serious mistakes have been made, and I would hate to see it done again. I see nothing wrong with politicians carrying out inquiries into matters about which they can be objective, but the idea that politicians in this House, myself included, can go into an inquiry and suddenly throw away their political feelings and motivations and the fact that they are politically compromised when they go into this Chamber beggars belief and asks too much of those whose careers depend upon political patronage and favour and being members of a political team. I do not believe that this inquiry will fulfil that particular objective.

Bankers, auditors and, hopefully, nearly all the players in this sphere will appear, but there will be a completely different dynamic to this inquiry when the theatre opens and former members of the regime which sat at the time of the banking guarantee appear. It would be beyond human endurance or belief to expect members of the Government parties to appear in this inquiry and be soft, fair or objective towards the Fianna Fáil or Green Party players who were part of that scene.

Equally, it would be very unfair, or perhaps unrealistic rather than unfair, to expect the Independent Members not to score political points in this inquiry. We all know that is what will happen because it will be very difficult for them to resist and I suggest they will not. It is a pity the composition of this inquiry consists of politicians whose careers very much depend upon the fact that, at the very least, they should excel and their opponents should not excel in public performances.

The inquiry is flawed in that way and it is a pity that it will have a Government majority in its membership. With all due respect to the Chairman of the inquiry, who is in the Chamber, it would have been better if the Chairman was not a member of one of the governing parties. I have great respect for Deputy Ciarán Lynch and for everything he does but it would be better if it were not a member of the governing parties or any politician presiding over this inquiry. He will be seen so often, whether he likes it or not, as wearing his Government hat and this committee will be seen as a Government-dominated committee, regardless of whether the Whip is officially used or not. That is the perception and I am afraid it is also the reality.

It has taken a very long time for this inquiry to be set up as more than six years have passed. As everybody knows, memories are dimming all the time and many will plead they do not remember what happened, and with justification. The credibility of this inquiry also suffers as a result.

It would be helpful, and it has some helpful roles to play, if instead of demonising the Government and the players of the past, this were to be left to another theatre and to other people. We looked at the present and asked if the situation had been cured, whether we have learned any lessons so far six years later. It seems to me that we do not need an inquiry to decide that little riddle.

I refer to the boards of the banks and it seems to me to be quite extraordinary that one of the solutions produced for the problems of 2008, especially the night of the guarantee and afterwards, was the role of public interest directors. I pay tribute to and lament the death of Joe Walsh who was a public interest director. Public interest directors are still sitting on the boards of banks, drawing very high salaries and are neither answerable nor accountable to anyone. They do not have meetings with the Minister for Finance, they are not subject to re-election and they are doing God knows what.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I am pleased to contribute to this debate. The people have experienced extraordinarily difficult times in recent years. In large part the causes are rooted in the financial meltdown triggered by the failure of the banking system. Despite the trauma inflicted, we still have not fully uncovered the truth of what happened in the banking system. Until the source of this crisis is fully examined, the people will not have the security of knowing that there will not be a repeat of the trauma they suffered. It is like walking away in a daze from a car crash but not knowing who or what caused the crash. The people want to know, they are entitled to know and there will be a benefit from knowing. It may be that we cannot fully move on without knowing. For the sake of the nation and of the people, we need the key actors in the financial crisis to explain their roles in public and to speak about their roles during the period in question. The banking inquiry will be a watershed moment when this truth is fully uncovered. The people must be given the truth and they must see that their public representatives can get to the truth on their behalf. Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas are here because they want to carry out public service and to use their skills in this area. The committee members have the skills to deal with the technical issues to which Deputy Ross referred.

I was present in the House on the night of the debate on the legislation for the bank guarantee on 30 September 2008. The House was informed that night that the banks' assets were greater than the banks' liabilities by up to €100 billion. Despite this, the public ended up taking on board the banks' liabilities of up to €64 billion. We need to know why this happened. It is not sufficient to focus on the bank guarantee because we must examine the events that led up to the guarantee and the consequences for the people of the financial crisis afterwards.

I commend the Government on introducing legislation to permit parliamentary inquiries to take place with the benefit of investigation and compellability. My colleagues, under the chairmanship of Deputy Lynch, will show that it is the most efficient and appropriate forum.

It will get to the truth on behalf of the Irish people, who are entitled to no less.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Much work has been done by the committee in getting to this point. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges has had a number of meetings and has gone through the proposal and the amendments in considerable detail. One of the amendments, with regard to the euro project, is incredibly important. Deputy O'Donnell spoke about what led up to the guarantee and the euro project is central to it. It is important that it is part of it.

We must ask ourselves what we want from the banking inquiry and most definitely we need to learn lessons as otherwise we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. We need to do more than this; we must see how we can strengthen our hand with regard to our relationship with the European Union, particularly with the ECB. The ECB seems to want it every way. It wanted the benefit of low interest rates and big economies, flooding the banking systems of countries such as Ireland with cheap money, but it was very capable of breaking its own rules, particularly in permitting IOUs to be written in the form of promissory notes. We have been utterly short-changed in this regard, and I want to see major attention on this issue because much more on this could be played out if we, as a country, have the courage to do something about it.

There are downsides to the banking inquiry, including that those who will sit on it on our behalf will have to give it 100% attention. It will take a great deal of time and effort, and it will not be a question of being able to go in and out. We are asking them to do this in the run-up to a general election. This is a tall order for people who exist in a politically competitive environment and we should not underestimate exactly how difficult this will be.

Another concern is the length of time it will take. I know it has a tight timeframe, but there is a presumption the Government will last for the duration, or at least until the end of next year, but I do not believe this is all that certain. We can count the number of Deputies in the Labour Party and Fine Gael, but we are now in a much more volatile environment and how long the Government will last is not something one can predetermine. We will expend a considerable amount of taxpayers' money on this work and there is the potential of serious criticism if a general election is called before the work is complete. We are taking a risk by launching the inquiry at this stage.

There are lessons to be learned, but it is not enough merely to learn lessons. I stress the point that we need to pay particular attention to the European Union, in particular the ECB and what flowed from the Maastricht treaty. I wish those who will sit on the inquiry well. It will be a difficult task and not one without downsides.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I apologise to Deputy Sean Fleming, whom I should have called earlier.

Deputy Sean Fleming

I want to put on the record, for future reference so people will know what is happening here tonight, that we are discussing No. 18, a motion that Dáil Éireann shall consider a report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, entitled Relevant report on the relevant proposal for a banking inquiry under Standing Orders and the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. When we complete this another motion will be tabled, on the terms of reference of the banking inquiry, but no debate on it whatever will take place in the House. I want to put down a marker that when somebody asks whether the terms of reference of the inquiry into the banking crisis were debated in the Chamber the answer will be "No" because No. 19 will be taken without debate. Is this a good way to do business?

Deputy Peter Mathews

Shame.

Deputy Sean Fleming

Then, before we go home, No. 20 will be tabled. This is an amendment to the terms of reference of the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis, which also will be taken without debate. We will debate only No. 18. For the record, no debate will be held on the terms of reference of the banking inquiry, which people will find very strange, and there also will be no debate on the amendment of the terms of reference of the joint committee. The Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis has been established and it has produced a report. Until this point, its terms of reference have only allowed it to produce a report on how to get the business up and running. No. 20, a motion on the amended terms of reference of the committee, which begins on page 1902 of the Dáil Order Paper of today, will not be debated this evening. It is important these procedural matters are right in the interests of conducting the inquiry. I hope the fact no debate will take place will not in some way go against the inquiry down the road.

Everybody knows there is a need for a full inquiry and everybody I know supports it. Fianna Fáil will support it and will fully co-operate with it. I am speaking not only about current members of the parliamentary party, but also about former members, who will fully co-operate with this approach. We must ask ourselves about the genesis of the three motions before the House and it is very clear. The Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution (Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries) Bill went before the public by way of referendum in November 2011 and it was defeated. The people stated they did not want politicians in Oireachtas Éireann carrying out this inquiry. What did the Government do? It did not listen. It came back with plan B, which was to do it anyway regardless of what the people stated.

The Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 was passed in the Dáil on 3 July 2013. It is very important to state for the record and for anyone listening that the committee received no new constitutional powers compared to previous committees. The committee has not one scintilla more power over and above the famous Abbeylara inquiry. There has been no change to the Constitution and the Oireachtas has no more powers. No matter how powerful it is, the committee can make no findings which can impinge on the character or reputation of an individual. We are dealing with legislation for an Abbeylara-style committee, and all the talk in the Chamber about changing legislation does not change the constitutional framework under which we operate.

The Oireachtas has already shown serious bias when the Taoiseach spoke about an axis of collusion between my party and a particular bank. We have always said we believe the most appropriate way to deal with an inquiry is a Leveson-type inquiry carried out by an independent judge. We saw on our television screens that it worked very well in England. It is the best model. It is the model in which the public has trust. The public does not trust politicians to act fairly and impartially in this. That said, it is the only show in town to get some information, and for that reason Fianna Fáil will co-operate fully and thoroughly with every aspect of it. Another route should have been taken, but the Government chose not to do so.

The people of Ireland will rightly ask how much this will cost. The motion before us should have given an estimate of the cost to be incurred by the Irish taxpayer, and the Dáil should not give a blank cheque for the inquiry.

A financial motion should be attached outlining a budget and if it is exceeded they should at least come back on a later date.

I wish the inquiry well, but it only represents the Government's plan B. It was never its first choice and it is nobody's first choice. It is not the public's desired way of doing business. They said "No" to the Oireachtas doing inquiries in a referendum, but the Government is proceeding with its own Government majority and its own Government Chair. Despite all the shortcomings, Fianna Fáil will fully co-operate with that inquiry.

Deputy Peter Mathews

I wish the people doing the work here well, but we should ask a fundamental question. Whom is this inquiry for? It is for the people of Ireland. It is for the 1.5 million people whose lives have been ripped apart and turned inside out, 500,000 of whom are abroad.

The circumstances, the pathology of what happened, are very simple. We do not need to get expert lawyers or expert forensic accountants; plain balance sheet analysis will do it. Seven years from 2001 to 2008 explains it all. Our domestic banking system grew from three times national income to 5.5 times national income - that is a credit Ponzi scheme.

Who is in charge of all the banks, whether Irish banks or foreign-owned banks, in the domestic banking economy? The boards of directors are. We had a motion supported by Fianna Fáil, all other Opposition parties and Independent Deputies, stating that the terms of reference should start with a review of the balance sheets of the licensed deposit-taking banks from 2001 to 2008 and that the men and women who were on the boards of directors for those years should be asked to attend and just listen to the narrative of what the balance sheets tell us. They grew at a phenomenal, stupid rate. They grew because the funding was stupid. It is not possible to have stupid lending without having stupid funding. One cannot drive a car somewhere unless one has the fuel - that is the funding.

So we do not need esoteric and obtuse-type thinking. We need to be honest to the people of Ireland and get all those men and women, who were on the boards of the banks during those years, to just attend in an assembly, like a school assembly. We then need to talk them through the balance sheets of each of those banks with the auditors behind them in the assembly. It is simple.

On the night of the bank guarantee Merrill Lynch had given about six days' advice and it had already gone bust in America. So because the headed notepaper looked good the Government of the day was diddled into bringing in Merrill Lynch which had been forcibly taken over by Bank of America. There are facts here which if spoken out in a narrative will give the truth.

One hundred families tonight are in deep distress that will last for a minimum of ten years and perhaps 20 years because they have legacy mortgage debt from this credit pyramid Ponzi scheme. They do not have an escape. The Tánaiste had two hours hemmed in a car, which was awful for her, but they have 20 years hemmed in their houses because of the irresponsibility of the establishment.

Our motion in this House was voted down by a Government Whip. That motion would have allowed us to start the inquiry - like a triage - with those balance sheets, but it was not done. Again under a Whip system, NAMA legislation on 16 September 2009 was rushed through with half an hour of preparation. The legislation was still hot from the photocopying machine in people's hands. That is wrong. The IBRC liquidation legislation was again hot with the vote stupidly at 1 a.m.

Down on the desk of the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, there are €25 billion worth of prom bonds that should be cancelled. That would more than cover the €10 billion needed for restructuring, reconditioning and re-setting up the country's water infrastructure, including reservoirs, treatment plants and pipes, instead of trying to squeeze it out of an already mercilessly squeezed population. It is wrong.

Taking €10 billion from €25 billion leaves €15 billion which would leave a lot for other capital projects which would generate income, employment and the return of skilled people to carry out those capital works. It would also underpin the social protection for the vulnerable in society who for the past four years have been beaten up and steamrolled by taking away the basic allowances and supports they have. Twenty-six people - one from each county - should go down to the Central Bank and say, "Patrick, give us those bonds. We're cancelling them and we are telling Mr. Draghi why."

That is the story the people of Ireland need to hear and not an inquiry that will take up huge amounts in professional costs and get lost. Who here honestly read the Honohan, Watson and Regling, and Nyberg reports? I reckon it was maybe 2,000 people in the entire country. It is meaningless stuff because the balance sheets show that the credit boom here caused it all.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for the work they have done in examining the proposal over recent weeks resulting in tonight's motion. I also thank the Whips for accommodating the speaking time this evening.

Today is an important day. Later this evening when we agree the motion to empower the banking inquiry committee to conduct an inquiry under Part 2 of the new legislation, we will be putting in place a parliamentary inquiry that has been established to compel and bring members of the public and those involved in financial institutions and other areas before this House to give a public account of their role in the biggest financial crisis the country has ever faced. Once that parliamentary inquiry is established later this evening, it will have those powers and most importantly it will have the powers to make findings of fact.

While significant preparatory work has been carried out by the committee and the secretariat over recent months, we recognise the huge volume of work ahead of us. Although we are ready for that work, it is a challenging job, as has been mentioned in many contributions.

At this part of the journey it is fair to say that we still do not have a full picture of the events leading up to, during and after the crisis. However, at the beginning of this journey, the responsibility rests with us, as a committee, to put the pieces of the jigsaw in place so that a full picture emerges.

This will be the first time an examination of what caused the banking crisis and the decisions made at the time will be looked at in public. A key element is that the inquiry should and will be conducted in an open and transparent manner. This will allow for a first-hand account to be given by people involved in one of the major events in the history of the State. Most importantly, it will allow the people of Ireland to see and hear those called on to give their evidence in public.

With the committee going about its work, it is important that we do not just confine ourselves to learning lessons about the past, but we must also look positively to the future. This inquiry will enable us to do just that. This is necessary to ensure that the crisis is not revisited upon us again.

The people have waited a long time for this inquiry to be established. Today is just the first step on a journey of work which I believe is an opportunity to demonstrate that the Irish Parliament can hold a fair and balanced inquiry to find answers to many key questions that remain to be answered about the banking crisis. To do the job we have been given, it is necessary that we, the Members of the Oireachtas and the public, approach this inquiry with open minds.

Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom and no one should pre-judge the outcome of this inquiry. This inquiry is an opportunity to demonstrate an example of a Parliament at its best. It is an opportunity for us to leave our club jerseys at the committee room door and do an important job on behalf of the Irish people. God knows, they have waited long enough for it and deserve nothing less.

Question put and agreed to.