I thank the members. Apologies have been received from Deputies Fleming and Finneran and Senator Higgins. The minutes of the meeting of 26 May have been circulated. Are they agreed to? Agreed.
On correspondence, there are a number of items to be considered. We have agreed to defer the matter of IFSRA publications until later.
To what have we agreed? I cannot hear the Acting Chairman properly.
I apologise. Is it agreed that we defer the matter of IFSRA publications until the end of the meeting? Agreed. Is it also agreed that we defer the matter of statutory instruments until the end of the meeting? Agreed. There is correspondence on Maynooth College Chapel. Is it agreed that we defer the matter until the end of the meeting?
I propose that we defer it to our next meeting.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are a number of items of correspondence on recent events at the AIB. At its last meeting the committee agreed to invite Ms Dorothea Dowling to make a more detailed submission to it on issues to which she had to draw our attention concerning credit protection insurance products sold by the AIB. She has now provided further information. I propose that the committee note her reply for the moment. The AIB, IFSRA and the Irish Bankers' Federation have been asked to comment on the issues raised by her. I propose that we await their replies and reconsider the matter at that stage. Is that agreed?
I raised this issue the last day. The committee, perhaps at the end of this meeting, should discuss arrangements for inviting Ms Dowling to address it. She is a person of high repute in the business world, particularly in insurance matters. Given the fact that she took it upon herself to write to the committee to draw attention to the series of questions she wanted asked and as I certainly do not want to delay Mr. Hurley, perhaps at the end of the meeting we might arrange a definite date by which she would be invited to explain her significant and important communication. I am particularly concerned that in her email she referred to the practice known as churning, that is, turning an old product into a new one in the process charging a hefty fresh fee. I had understood that this practice had effectively been outlawed. It is important that we arrange to meet her to hear in some detail about her concerns.
I support Deputy Burton's case for a meeting with Ms Dowling whose further missive by email is very interesting. She certainly expands on her last communication on the issue of insurance on loans, specifically top-up loans and the practice of applying insurance premiums to the additional sum lent. As this further missive invites many questions, I formally second the proposal that she be invited to attend the committee where the best opportunity can be availed of.
Is it agreed that an invitation should be issued? Agreed.
The general secretary of the Irish Bank Officials' Association has written to the committee about the association's concerns arising from recent developments at the AIB. The letter is dated 18 May but was only received yesterday. The association offers to meet the committee if it considers this appropriate.
I propose that we issue an invitation to it.
I formally second that proposal. As a former member of the IBOA, I think it would have a valuable contribution to make. We should ensure everyone involved is given an opportunity to address the matter.
Is that agreed? Agreed. We will issue an invitation to the general secretary of the IBOA.
A reply has been received from the chairman of the AIB to the committee's invitation to him to reconsider the bank's position on an early meeting with it. Essentially, he supports the position taken by the bank's chief executive not to meet the committee until the investigation being undertaken by Mr. McDonnell has been completed. Before inviting members to comment on the letter, I draw their attention to the fact that the advice of the parliamentary legal adviser on the issue of compellability has been circulated to them. The legal adviser is in attendance and the committee will hear from her shortly in private session. Do members wish to comment at this stage on the reply received from Mr. Gleeson?
At our last meeting it was the proposal of the Chairman, Deputy Fleming, which I formally seconded, that we write to Mr. Gleeson as chairman of the board of AIB Group. Following on the responses to the committee's invitations to Mr. Michael Buckley to attend which have been set aside on the basis that it would be more appropriate to meet us following the completion of the investigation, on-site inspection or whatever, I am disappointed that Mr. Gleeson has not taken a different perspective than the group chief executive. While we accept that he will be involved with senior management and others in considering the recent reports submitted to IFSRA and, as he states in his letter, "getting a full perspective on the Foreign Exchange charges issue...", with all due respect this is not something that takes an undue length of time.
This is the third rejection of the committee's request for officials of the bank to appear before us in the light of recent and, apparently, ongoing revelations about matters at the AIB Group. This must be a source of great concern to the customer base in the first instance as well as to those employed in the group, whose representative body, the IBOA, we have just decided to invite. I have no doubt that this is feeding in to a very negative impression of AIB's willingness to co-operate with a joint Oireachtas committee comprising of Members of both the Dáil and Seanad. I am deeply disappointed, and one wonders where we can direct further communication other than to record this committee's disquiet at this series of postponed opportunities — to put it in the most favourable terms that I can offer.
The letter states that Mr. Buckley has been pursuing the goal of guaranteeing the highest level of ethical behaviour for some time, but I would expect that this would be something to be pursued at all times. It should not be a new idea or something recently embarked on by AIB. I must record my deep disappointment. The group chairman's endorsement of the CEO's position, as already advised to this committee, is a further rejection of a very simple and, I would have thought, worthwhile opportunity not only for this committee but for AIB to come here and properly address the issues before an Oireachtas committee.
This further letter will feed into a general view that AIB is not prepared at this point to face further public scrutiny. I suggest that we record our disappointment at Mr. Gleeson's position, as advised in his letter of 1 June 2004, and I propose to the committee that we respond in blunt terms. This is the third rebuke this committee has received from the AIB. It is unsatisfactory, and it is not in the interests of AIB itself or the financial services sector.
I said last week in regard to Mr. Buckley's replies that I felt that, in the long term interests of the bank, it was unwise to issue such a clear rebuff on two occasions to a committee of the Dáil, which is elected by the people. For that rebuff to be joined now by a third rebuff by Mr. Dermot Gleeson is particularly ill-advised and short-sighted.
In his letter, Mr. Gleeson makes reference to good corporate governance and says that it would not be part of his good corporate governance if senior management were put in a position where they were obliged to share AIB's consideration of these important topics before the board of AIB has an opportunity to consider them. We made it very clear on the two previous occasions when this matter was discussed that we were not trying to second guess or replicate the inquiries underway by IFSRA. What we sought was a discussion with the senior management of AIB about general corporate governance and ethical governing issues.
In his letter, Mr. Gleeson refers to the 88,000 shareholders in AIB. There are also 25,000 workers in AIB, and many more working in the financial services sector as a whole. It is vital that public confidence in the integrity of the financial services sector, particularly in regard to AIB, should be restored.
Since our correspondence commenced, AIB issued an extraordinary three page public statement last Thursday acknowledging its offshore vehicle, Faldor, in which five of its most senior executives and former managing directors were connected. Two of the people named as being connected issued public statements. One of the statements told a tale similar to that of the little old lady in Macroom or the farmer in Mitchelstown who, many years ago, went into AIB and was directed to have an address in London and an account. We now find that the unfortunate wife of a former managing director was directed in 1979 to unknowingly put money into an investment vehicle which somehow found its way into Faldor in the British Virgin Islands, an offshore tax haven. If this does not cut to the heart of corporate governance and ethics, I do not know what does.
This is beginning to read like a Victorian three-volume novel. We may now have to write again to AIB. The committee is perfectly capable of discussing corporate governance and ethical banking issues with the board or with representatives of AIB. In AIB's own interest, it should seek and be happy to come here to give clarity, not just to its shareholders but its customers and employees and because of the important position it holds in the banking industry.
I am reluctant to have the committee producing a novel of letters in the mode of Jane Austen, but we will have to write again to AIB saying that in the context of what has happened over the weekend, we are very anxious to discuss the question of good corporate governance. One of the key objectives is to make whatever changes are needed in the culture and organisational practices of AIB. Mr. Gleeson's letter emphasises AIB's commitment to guaranteeing the highest level of ethical behaviour. That is a bit like "Casablanca," when people professed to be shocked that there was gambling.
The position of AIB is absurd. Mr. Gleeson is stonewalling, and we should write to the bank in strong terms to say that we find his reply disappointing and unacceptable and that we reiterate our request that the bank should come before the committee to discuss these issues of good corporate governance and ethical behaviour. While it is good to know that these are apparently at the centre of AIB's concerns, we would like to discuss mattes with the bank.
I share the disappointment that AIB is not coming before the committee but I cannot share the surprise. Let us not forget that we are talking about a series of instances where the law has been broken. There have been breaches of consumer law and, allegedly, had misselling practices, which are certainly dishonest. These are offences, although a lawyer would be required to explain them. There are issues of tax evasion, which constitutes an offence, and I suspect there are questions over the establishment of offshore companies and the purposes for which these were established.
Let us not pretend that these are not serious issues in which the bank is being scrutinised by enforcement agencies of the State. Obviously we would like to be relevant and in the thick of examining these issues, but we are not an enforcement agency and we must draw a distinction between our role and the role of the agencies that the Dáil has appointed to do that work. I can understand our anger at the refusal of AIB to appear before the committee and our justified belief that the reasons proffered are weak. However, it is understandable that if a body like AIB is being investigated in respect of law-breaking, it would want to deal with that prior to appearing before this committee, which will deal with the long-term public policy implications. That is not to diminish the importance or seriousness of the issues with which they and the enforcement agencies are dealing.
Public policy issues that are our concern are not just a short-term reaction to what is happening. They are a medium term issue that we need to consider. We need to get the outcome of these inquiries and to adapt the law where it is necessary. As this unfolds, we need to look at whether the enforcement agencies are up to the task. We also need to look at AIB to see if it is putting in place the necessary ethical and corporate governance requirements.
We ought to take a more prudent view of this and wait to cross-examine AIB and the other agencies when more of the facts are available to us. The briefing notes refer to issues such as the right not to incriminate oneself. We could not have a discussion of some of the public policy issues without straying into the offences of which we know. While we are disappointed, we need to note what has been said, move on in our investigation and maintain the pressure for a timely report on these issues, both from IFSRA and then from AIB. That is the approach we ought to take.
It is extraordinary, when all these issues are breaking, that the Government is pushing ahead to complete all Stages of the IFSRA legislation. It wants the train to leave the station with that legislation as the final word of the Oireachtas on enforcement. The public policy requirement of this committee is partly being constrained by the Government's determination to push ahead in this regard. We need to take a balanced view and wait for AIB to come in and account for the significant issues that need to be addressed, but not to do it while overlapping with the inquiries concerned.
I seek the guidance of the Chair. As I have declared on a previous occasion, a daughter of mine has worked, since 2002, in junior to middle management in AIB. If anyone feels that I should not participate further in these discussions as a result, I am happy to withdraw. This matter raises wider issues of public interest which go beyond AIB, but this is an ethical grey area and I would like some guidance as to whether I should participate or if it would be better for me to withdraw.
Advice can only be given by the committee on Members' Interests but the member is entitled to make his own decision as to whether to stay and contribute or to withdraw.
My own decision will be influenced by that. If any of my colleagues has an objection, I will withdraw.
What has emerged, mainly relating to one bank but not exclusively so, is of deep interest to the entire country because a healthy trusted banking system is vital to every aspect of economic and social life in this country. There is a need for AIB, in particular, to take steps to re-establish confidence in the total integrity of its dealings. It seems that without prejudice to particular investigations — it would be in the best interests of AIB to be at the forefront in making sure that every aspect of its dealings with the public, its board, etc., are fully in order — the chairman of the board of AIB could have appeared before the committee where he could have entered caveats about certain aspects which he was not in a position to discuss. This could have performed a valuable function in terms of rebuilding confidence. I would appeal to him to reconsider that decision. The issue goes far beyond the type of incidents that have come into controversy. This is, in the legal sense, the Bar of the nation and it would be appropriate in these circumstances for him to come before the committee at the earliest possible opportunity, not to wait behind different inquiries and different committees.
I would be inclined to go down the route outlined by Deputy Bruton. I do not always agree with the Deputy but AIB has been quite reasonable with this committee. It has said it will attend at the most opportune time. A man of great eminence and importance, Mr. Lauri McDonnell, is involved in working on the investigation.
There is, uniquely, a plethora of enforcement organisations in place. It reminds me of industrial development when the country was on the rocks a few years ago and we had approximately 70 agencies trying to create jobs, yet none were being created. The Central Bank, which will be represented by Mr. Hurley this afternoon, has done an excellent job for a long number of years in policing the banking authorities. We have established IFSRA. There is the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Director of Consumer of Affairs, the Competition Authority, the Department of Finance, the Dáil and the Revenue Commissioners, and now Ms Dorothea Dowling enters the mix.
Despite this plethora of agencies looking after the financial services, they have failed to watch the situation and pick up the problems. We have created so many agencies that the structure is beginning to unfold. The agencies are watching one another rather than keeping their eye on the ball.
I am glad that Mr. Hurley, a fellow Corkman, will come before the committee today. Both he and the Central Bank have had a history of success in this area. I feel guilty about the creation of so many agencies in the past five to seven years because the Government to which my party belongs was part of the system. If we do not merge them we will never have a success.
This was brought about because a number of years ago intermediaries were taking investments from people and abusing the system. We set up investigations and put in place commissions. We came up with excellent ideas but they have not worked. Some of these intermediaries, who I do not want to name for reasons best known to my colleagues and because it is unfair to do so, write articles in the newspapers telling us how consumer affairs should be run.
If we do not tidy up this area and have one organisation dealing with the financial structures and institutions, we will go nowhere. I remember many years ago counting 70 agencies established for job creation and no jobs were being created, except in the agencies. This is what we are doing here, with one agency followed by another.
Deputy Burton made the point that AIB has 88,000 shareholders. According to the stock market figures at the end of the 1 o'clock news today, there is still confidence in the financial institution despite what the members are saying. The company's share position has improved. I hope this is not because of a threatened takeover. The last thing I want to see is Irish banks falling into the hands of foreign ownership.
Deputy Burton also pointed out that AIB has 24,000 employees. I share the concerns of those employees because they are now experiencing a tough time. People are angry with them and are making inquiries about their charges and other issues.
There is a substantial network of branches around the country giving a great service in rural Ireland. I do not want to see much change in that, given what is happening in the post office area. There is a lot at stake here, with much to be lost and won. We must get one agency to look after the affairs of our financial institutions and have only one regulatory authority. The Revenue Commissioners should do their own jobs in their own way as they always have done.
I heard the director of corporate enforcement this morning on radio. From what he said I was not sure if he was going to open an internment camp. The Competition Authority is also looking at this. Let us, for God's sake, tidy up this business. As a representative of the Government side of the House, I appeal to the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance to look at this and have one agency regulating the system.
I agree with Senator Mansergh that it would be in the best interests of AIB to come before the committee and reassure the public about the banking scene, which has been brought to a low point, principally because of the activities of senior executives at a very high level in AIB. It is odd that Dermot Gleeson, as Chairman of AIB, is writing to us suggesting that the bank would be unable to defend itself before the committee. Dermot Gleeson is a former Fine Gael-appointed Attorney General. He is well able to handle himself in courts of law throughout the country. He defended Larry Goodman in the beef tribunal with great aplomb, which was a very difficult cause to defend. It is surprising that Mr. Gleeson finds it difficult to defend or answer questions before a Dáil committee when he was very able to defend some very famous clients over the years, both commercially and otherwise.
In his letter to Deputy Fleming Mr. Gleeson has given us good reason why we should have him before the committee. He says that a key objective of Michael Buckley since becoming CEO in the middle of 2001 has been to make whatever changes are needed in the culture and organisational practices of AIB. He states: "Let me emphasise that we are committed in AIB to guaranteeing the highest level of ethical behaviour."
It is within the remit of this committee to bring Mr. Buckley before it to discuss those measures that he has taken as chief executive that do not precisely relate to the current controversies regarding the bank but deal with the attempt to ensure the highest ethical organisational and cultural practices at AIB. That would offer reassurance to the public, including depositors and those who borrow from the bank, that the highest practices are being enforced and that the change needed in the organisation at the highest level is, and has been conducted since the middle of 2001. It behoves Mr. Buckley to come before the committee and explain matters. We would at least have some understanding or appreciation that the bank was addressing its own difficulties and problems associated with ethical and cultural issues to do with the organisation and practice within it.
There is a doubt in the public mind when one of the largest banks and, up to now, a bank perceived to be well run is now exposed not to be so well run. There are questions over practices, though not, it is important to point out, of the ordinary bank teller or member of staff. It is at the very highest level of the bank that strange practices have been uncovered.
This is not unusual. The bank has been in trouble before. The Fine Gael and Labour coalition Government had to bail it out in the middle 1980s over the ICI crisis. When I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts the bank got into trouble over its exposure on the bogus non-resident accounts. In my own constituency in Tallaght there have also been issues regarding overcharging and mortgage protection policies. Now there are foreign exchange difficulties and questions about executives having offshore arrangements of one kind or another.
That is an enormous catalogue of mistake and errors at a very senior level, not among junior or middle ranking bank managers. The people who must be called to account in all of this are the very senior management within this bank. It would benefit them to come before this committee and allay public fears about precisely what Mr. Gleeson has referred to as a huge work priority of Michael Buckley since he became CEO. He should come here and explain exactly what his work has involved since then.
In his letter to the committee Mr. Buckley says he has been working on changes that he considers necessary since he became CEO of the bank. If changes have already been made within the bank we are entitled to hear about them. I do not refer to changes made as a result of the latest revelations but changes already in train. If people on the committee or within the bank are concerned about referring or responding to current controversies, Mr. Buckley can say to us that he cannot respond to this or that matter because it is under investigation.
There is a big problem in terms of the relevance of this committee. My understanding is that the inquiry by Lauri McDonnell may take much longer than we have been led to believe. It will not be a simple case of only having to wait a month before we are here again.
The habit with these controversies is that when one revelation tumbles out of the box there are more to follow, and the more that is it discovered the more investigating and probing is required. We could be here for months, or even a year, without getting to speak to AIB, therefore, it behoves the bank to speak up and come before the committee.
Like Senator Mansergh I would like to declare an interest. I have already declared it in the House but should also record for the record of the committee that my wife is an employee of AIB and operates at junior management level, although she is currently on a career break and is grateful for the distance that provides her and I.
In regard to the issue at hand, I agree with both Senator Mansergh and Deputy Conor Lenihan. The last two sentences in the letter from Mr. Gleeson to the committee are curious. They alone form a basis for the senior executives of AIB to make a presentation to this committee. The second last sentence states: "Let me emphasise that we are committed in AIB to guaranteeing the highest level of ethical behaviour." The last sentence states: "Michael Buckley has been pursuing this goal for some time and has my full support, and the support of the Board in progressing this work into the future."
The second last sentence seems to indicate that the highest levels of ethical behaviour do exist, or that a guarantee is in place to that effect. The last sentence seems to indicate that this goal is being pursued by both the chief executive and the bank. Is it the guarantee that is being worked towards or the highest levels of ethical standards? This is a central question to which members of the higher echelons of AIB can respond. Do they feel that such high levels of ethical behaviour exist in their bank, and, if not, why not? If not, what do they intend to do to ensure that they are put in place?
On that general question alone there is much for the committee to address, especially given that AIB is the largest bank in the country in terms of its customer base and the role it plays in terms of international confidence in financial services in this country. If there are particular problems with issues that are currently being investigated, both by State agencies and internal investigations in AIB, let them be declared at the time. However, the general question about where stands AIB in terms of ethical standards must be responded to quickly.
As the other members of the committee have already said, the response given to date is unsatisfactory. From AIB's point of view, it is not the most ideal one in terms of getting its best case into the public arena, not only in regard to the recent incident being described in this correspondence, but what has followed since. On all those grounds, to say that the excuse for not appearing before a committee like this is upholding the standards of good corporate governance is risible. The committee should take the opportunity of expressing its concern that the bank is not even taking the opportunity of coming here at the base level and answering the widest public concerns that exist on this issue, and then we all most work together to deal with the individual areas of concern which the bank's revelations have brought out in recent months.
We should not be guided by the morality of the stock market in determining how we should investigate these issues. We should respond to public morality and ethics. The position of the individual bank account holder is what we, as elected members, should be striving towards improving. On those grounds there are a great number of questions which should be put in an arena like this seeking responses in what is a democratically convened body of the elected chamber of this country. We should express dissatisfaction to AIB Group for not engaging in a positive way along those lines.
Some of what has been said today reiterates my feeling last week that we might have jumped the gun a little on this issue by inviting AIB to come before the committee. From what has been said, it looks like we will have a number of meetings with AIB, rolling out over the next 12 months. If we pursue the line we are taking at present, we will ask AIB to come in to discuss its cultural changes since 2000, then delay that until we see the result of the investigation and bring them back on the investigation on the foreign exchange overcharging. If we continue along this line, it looks like we will be bringing in AIB every two months to discuss some issue of its workings. The financial regulator states it does not have difficulties with AIB coming in, but there will be a systematic bringing in of regulators, the Competition Authority and the banks.
We should step back and look at our own role. There does not seem to be any obligation on AIB to come before us. AIB and its officials feel that their responsibility lies with its shareholders and with the board, as is coming through clearly in this letter. Unless we have some form of legislative authority to compel people to come before this committee, we should ask ourselves seriously why we are bringing people in. We should leave this issue for four or five months and get a full report on it. I do not know what we are doing here. It is certainly making no sense, bar playing to media to some degree, because nothing has come of the last two weeks' meetings of this committee.
May I make a brief comment, Chairman?
Be brief because there seems to be a consensus and there are people waiting.
There is the proposition to respond to and that is almost unanimously supported. Deputy Twomey is worried about our having to engage with AIB on a constant and continuing basis. The problem this committee has is that it cannot engage with AIB at all. We are trying to get that opportunity which, let us remind ourselves, was to allow this committee to conclude the report on fees and interest charges which we had already set upon. We have met with AIB and other financial services institutions. With the revelation of the abuses which have now been shown, it became apparent that we could not conclude the report without further engagement.
I thank the parliamentary legal adviser, Ms O'Hegarty, for circulating the brief on compellability powers, but there is only one way this committee can go if it is to be continually snubbed as the AIB Group has chosen to do on three occasion, that is to pursue the compellability approach if, from our engagement with Ms O'Hegarty, it is deemed a project with which we can succeed.
I concur with what Senator Mansergh and Deputy Lenihan have said. The replies we received, both from Mr. Buckley and now from Mr. Gleeson, seem unwise. It possibly indicates that there is far more to come out in AIB and for that reason the chairman and the board are unwilling to come before this committee.
I reiterate that this committee should not, nor does it wish to, replicate the inquiries being undertaken by IFSRA. That is not our job and we did not ask to do that. We set out to have a running inquiry into banking in the context of price and interest rate reductions not being passed on to consumers.
A senior manager in AIB came before this committee some months ago and told us about how transparent AIB was. AIB has already been before this committee to make a statement. A series of cascading recent events show that AIB is, in effect, in a morass due to an unfolding series of revelations and potential scandals. The point on which the Oireachtas and this committee are legitimately entitled to require and encourage their presence is the fact that banking is such an important sector in terms of the economy and impacts on most individuals and on every business. It is our job, as an Oireachtas committee, to try to ensure a fair enough deal for customers and transparency.
AIB is choosing not to engage. How much more do they have to hide? If the chairman and the managing director of AIB wish the discussion to be within the parameters of corporate governance and ethical banking, a sub-committee of this committee can easily devise a response to such a request to make it clear that we are not trying to go over territory that is being deeply inquired into by IFSRA. However, the overview point, which is about reassuring the public, the business community, the employees and indeed the shareholders of AIB that somebody has a grip on what is going on in AIB, is a perfectly legitimate request by an Oireachtas committee.
I do not want to delay the meeting with Mr. Hurley any longer. Perhaps we could agree in principle, if the members of the committee are so minded, to renew our approach to AIB and provide at a later stage for a discussion of the lines of that renewed approach. This response is fairly arrogant and unwise.
Much has happened and unfolded since our meeting last week. I do not like the witch hunt that is being carried out in the media on the people who have been named as committing offences. I do not know the precise number of people who are employed by the financial services industry in Ireland but from top to bottom the employees of the banks must be feeling demoralised by the witch hunt on the radio and in the newspapers. It is undermining the International Financial Services Centre. I am talking from the point of view of the confidence and reputation of the country. The media are portraying Ireland as if it were like Rhodesia and Mr. Mugabe is becoming clean in comparison. It is easy but unjust to conduct a witch hunt in this political business and to accuse people.
I am not saying that there should not be a proper investigation. I said last week that the chief executive of the bank should come before the committee. I accept what Deputy Ó Caoláin has stated, that we pass legislation that people should come before this committee because we are looking after the public and the consumer. The committee must ensure that people come when they are asked.
However, it is easy to destroy the lives of people and their families. I would prefer to take a more measured approach for the sake of all the employees of banks and of Ireland's international financial reputation. What is going out in the newspapers is projecting Ireland in the international media as if it were Rhodesia or somewhere like that. It may not be popular to say so but I am giving my honest opinion.
Deputy Bruton is the spokesperson on finance of Fine Gael and Deputy Burton is the spokesperson for the Labour Party, and that is their mandate. With elections coming up, it sounds like good political cliché to frighten the public. We were all frightened when we heard about what was going on in the Catholic Church. We are suffering because the church has been brought to its knees by what happened but it did not mean that everybody in the church was guilty. Our approach should be much more measured. That is my bottom line. I am not exonerating anybody but for the sake of our country we should not accuse people when the case has not been proven.
This is our third meeting and it is the same song we all are singing, perhaps with a little change in the wording. There was the successful DIRT inquiry conducted by the Committee of Public Accounts, the Abbeylara inquiry which encountered legal difficulties and the inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Instead of talking about inquiries, why can we not set up our own inquiry? What right have we to compel witnesses to come before the committee? It is obvious that we will get a number of reports, including the internal report from AIB.
The DIRT inquiry, which was carried out by politicians with advice from civil servants, was very successful and did great work. It was a cost-effective inquiry. There was little cost involved.
There are inquires and tribunals taking place all over this town placing a huge burden on the taxpayer. These kinds of committee inquiry structures exist in other parliaments throughout the world and I cannot understand why we cannot do that. I want an opinion from the people at the top table on what can be done in that area to initiate our own inquiry and get people to come before us.
The first phase of the DIRT inquiry, on which I served, was voluntary, in other words banks voluntarily came before it. Then it went into a compellability mode. The first thing we must achieve, to be practical about this, is to get the bank in question in here on a voluntary basis. At present, they are not doing so and they should not be dragged here screaming and kicking. They should come willingly. That is what we need to determine. We have a letter in front of us and we should respond to it.
We will shortly go into private session to deal with the compellability aspect and we should leave that discussion until then.
On a point of order, we have invited a guest, the Governor of the Central Bank, to the committee and we are spending a long time on a piece of correspondence. We should deal with our guest. If this issue cannot be quickly resolved by you now, Chairman, we should put it off until later in the meeting and proceed with our guest.
I think there is a consensus that we wish to reply to AIB outlining our disappointment that they are unwilling to co-operate and come before the committee at this stage. I propose that a letter be sent to AIB and that we would now go into private session to hear from the parliamentary legal adviser. Is that agreed?
There is also consensus that there should be a renewed request that they come in to discuss the issue spelt out in Mr. Gleeson's letter regarding organisational changes that they have already got under way on the ethical front.
Perhaps later we could have a discussion about the broad lines of our further communication, but I agree we should not delay the meeting further.
I propose that we now go into private session in order to get——
I must leave the meeting for another meeting abroad. This is the third letter of the same nature being sent to AIB. They have stated they will come before the committee and in natural justice that is fair.
I asked if this committee, on a select basis, can carry out an investigation similar to the DIRT inquiry. Deputy Conor Lenihan made the point that the DIRT inquiry began on a voluntary basis but I have not yet heard of anybody going to an inquiry on such a basis.
We should proceed with our guest from the Central Bank.
I am in the hands of the committee. Is it agreed that we postpone the giving of information by the legal adviser to a later meeting? Agreed. I thank the Oireachtas legal adviser for coming along.
