Before the debate begins I remind members that two trials against former senior officials of Anglo Irish Bank are pending and that there remains the possibility of further charges arising from other aspects of these matters that are still under investigation. Members should, therefore, avoid comments which might prejudice the outcome of proceedings. It should be remembered that the Seanad is not a court of law and that questions of guilt or innocence are for decision by the courts. In their contributions, Members should also be mindful of the long-standing convention of the House whereby they should avoid criticising or making charges against a person outside the House.
Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act (Commencement) Order 2013: Statements
I thank Members for facilitating the debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss the new statutory powers in the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. The Act provides a statutory framework to assist the Houses in conducting inquiries into matters of public importance. On 19 September the Seanad passed a resolution approving the commencement order of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. A similar resolution was passed in the Dáil on 18 September. This procedure under section 1 of the Act respects the autonomy of the Houses by enabling both Houses to effectively trigger the commencement of the legislation.
As both motions have now been taken, I am in a position to sign the commencement order for the Act, which will come into force tomorrow, 25 September. This will enable the initiation of inquiries pursuant to the Act to get under way at the earliest possible date. The first such inquiry is likely to be the long-awaited banking inquiry. The Government strongly supports the initiation of a banking inquiry into the events that occurred on the night of the introduction of the bank guarantee and the systemic failures that led to our current economic challenges. I am confident that the legislation has put in place a legally robust framework that can facilitate such an inquiry. I see real potential with this legislation for substantial strengthening of the effectiveness of the Legislature. Inquiries of the type envisaged can not only help us learn vital lessons from past events but also identify the necessary reforms and policy changes essential to ensure that egregious policy errors are not repeated.
Any inquiry must be completed within the lifetime of the current Dáil and Seanad sessions. The Taoiseach indicated the Government's view that an inquiry should be modular in nature, given the scale and complexity of the issues to be examined. It is up to the Houses now to get this process under way. Under the Act, autonomy rests with the Oireachtas to determine the requirement for a formal inquiry, the terms of reference of that inquiry, the appropriate committee to conduct the inquiry and the procedural and organisational aspects of the inquiry. I understand that work is already well under way by the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service in developing draft standing orders and guidelines which are required to be in place prior to the commencement of an inquiry. These will provide the necessary foundation for an inquiry to operate and include a range of new rules and standing orders and guidelines to govern the establishment of an inquiry and to ensure the effective and efficient operation of an inquiry.
There are a few key steps required before an inquiry can commence. A committee proposing to conduct an inquiry must prepare a proposal for the designated person, which I understand will be the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, of each House in the case of a joint committee proposal. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges must then examine the proposal and prepare a report for the House, and may make recommendations to the House. Standing Orders will set out more fully the role of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but the Act specifically signals that the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges include whether the inquiry should be held and, if so, by which committee and in what manner. The House must then pass a resolution to establish an inquiry and confirm its terms of reference. It is crucial that the terms of reference for an inquiry be narrow and specific to ensure that a focused inquiry can be effectively conducted within the timeframe available. Used effectively, I believe that an inquiry constituted in this manner will facilitate the unfolding of the full narrative of events surrounding the near-collapse of the banking system in Ireland and the events leading up to and including the decision on the bank guarantee.
Given that the Act is in place, there is a strong onus placed on us as parliamentarians to use this legislation well and in a manner that is focused on furthering the public interest. It will require a disciplined approach by Members to ensure that inquiries are fair, balanced and effective. The public will judge us on that. I am confident that the statutory framework provided in the Act provides assistance in this regard by giving clarity to the Houses in relation to their powers and by setting out guidance in relation to matters such as fair procedures, avoidance of bias and so on. This legislation empowers parliamentarians to perform their role as legislators, to bring the full facts of the issue before the people and to hear from those directly involved in key decision making.
One of the best reasons to proceed with a parliamentary inquiry at this stage is that none of the other possible models has been successful at meeting the public demand for a full account of this issue. A tribunal of inquiry would not be a desirable approach given its potential to be a significant drain on resources and time. There was speculation that a Leveson-style inquiry should be adopted in this jurisdiction in relation to the banking crisis. I do not believe this would be desirable as it would most likely be an excessively costly and lengthy process. Furthermore, if one examines the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry, one will see that Part 1 specifies the making of recommendations in relation to matters of more effective policy and regulatory regimes. This type of approach would be permissible for an Oireachtas inquiry under the Act. Part 2 of the Leveson terms of reference relate to matters of unlawful or improper conduct; however, that part of the inquiry cannot commence until the current police investigations and any subsequent criminal proceedings have been completed.
We have already had a commission of inquiry via the Nyberg report, which, while offering a macro-analysis of events, has not given the perspective of the individual participants involved. A parliamentary banking inquiry has the potential to provide long-awaited answers for the Irish people, who need and deserve to hear an account from those directly involved. A banking inquiry will be held in public and will be broadcast, allowing everyone to witness the proceedings. I have full confidence that we as parliamentarians can rise to this challenge and conduct inquiries that provide vital answers to fundamentally important questions.
As I outlined during the passage of the legislation through this and the other House, there has been a weakening of trust in our politicians and political systems, and that is not a good thing for our democracy. The Dáil and Seanad are made up of experienced and capable Members motivated to act in the public interest. Our Deputies and Senators represent the people. The holding of an effective banking inquiry is an opportunity to prove that we can be trusted with this important task. It will assist in strengthening the effectiveness of the Oireachtas and enhancing trust in the political system. The Act provides the framework for that work to take place. It is time now for an inquiry to get under way.
I thank the Chair for his admonition at the start of this debate. It is important we adhere to that and that we also maintain complete fairness and impartiality in regard to this inquiry.
Fianna Fáil is looking forward to this inquiry. Towards the end of the previous Government, I as a backbencher called for such an inquiry. While I welcomed the establishment of the Nyberg commission of investigation, the failure to hold public hearings was a missed opportunity. The Nyberg commission looked at tens of thousands of documents relating to the banking collapse and while I would not expect any investigation to come out with different macro findings, the causes of the collapse and what went on are not well known.
I have some concerns about some of the language used by the Minister in his speech today in regard to the need to hear from people directly involved in the situation. In a criminal trial, the witnesses are there to provide information, but the key function of the trial and of any investigation is to get an end answer. There is a repeated emphasis in the Minister's speech on listening to the participants involved and my concern is that it is possible this could turn into a show trial. I do not understand why the Minister has repeatedly put the emphasis on that.
We are looking forward to taking part in the inquiry and believe it is important it takes place. The Minister has dismissed the suggestion of a Leveson type inquiry, but he did not deal with our principal reason for looking for a Leveson type inquiry, which is that it would be held outside of politics. The Leveson inquiry was run by a judge and we could conduct a similar inquiry here if we brought into force the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 or if we introduced a commission of investigation that could conduct public hearings. All of the commissions of investigation that have been held, excepting the Nyberg investigation, have been universally welcomed on account of their fact-finding. In fact, the conclusions of the Nyberg report itself are pretty shocking and embarrassing for those who were in government at the time. Therefore, I do not believe there was a whitewash in that regard. Many of the answers will be the same.
Whatever investigation takes place, I urge Members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who are present to ensure the Seanad is fully involved in this inquiry. I understand it will as it is expected it will be conducted by a joint committee of the Oireachtas, unless it is conducted by the Committee of Public Accounts, a Dáil committee. The Seanad should be involved and there should be a joint approach. I urge the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of this House to keep in touch with events in this regard and to put forward proposals. I urge it to participate in a joint proposal with the other House and suggest that members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform from this House, such as Senator Barrett, who has expertise and is a fair-minded person, and Senator Zappone who was on the committee at one stage and who is that type of honest, independent broker everybody would trust, would do well on such a committee in terms of getting answers.
I have concerns with regard to keeping Anglo out of the inquiry. I understand the reasons for that, but at the same time Anglo is central to everything that went on. It is not realistic for it to be kept out as it has been at the centre of discussion at political level in regard to this inquiry for some considerable time. The recent added impetus for the inquiry was the release of the Anglo tapes and the Taoiseach's shocking allegations about the Fianna Fáil Party and his so-called "axis of collusion". Therefore, we believe it is ludicrous to omit Anglo from the inquiry.
We need to look at everything. We need to look at the political system and at the night of the bank guarantee. However, we also need to look at what led to the banking guarantee. The banking guarantee was a policy response to a shocking lack of regulation and a shocking dereliction of duty of the regulators, Government, civil servants and the European Central Bank. The policy response to that came in the form of the bank guarantee. This needs to be fully investigated, but I wonder whether whatever committee takes on this inquiry will take the correct steps in this regard.
It is worth putting on the record that there has been much in the media over the past few weeks with regard to the Government's motivation for holding this inquiry. A very strong editorial in The Sunday Times at the weekend related to the reasons for it and a number of columnists have suggested the Government has political motivation for establishing this inquiry in the manner it is doing so at this time. These views have been published in respectable newspapers by independent commentators. The only way around this is to get a judge, à la Leveson, to conduct a public inquiry. That judge would have far more power, under tribunal of inquiry legislation or commission of investigation legislation, to get to the truth of what went on. He or she could be independent and hold people to account, whether people in government, banks or the Civil Service. Even at this late stage, we repeat our call for this type of inquiry to happen.
I welcome most of what Senator Byrne has said. However, I refute the charge of political advantage suggested. It is clear the Irish public wants an inquiry, but one that is cost effective and conducted properly by people who are elected and well capable of conducting it. We all spoke on this legislation when it was going through the House and welcomed it as an important step in the right direction.
I remember well the night the guarantee went through. I was on holiday at the time in Naples and the people there were shocked that the banks in Ireland were given a full guarantee. I found it ironic that even they were shocked by it. This indicates the level of international curiosity that followed that particular night in September 2008. The people of Ireland want answers and I believe this is a positive step in the right direction. I have utter faith in colleagues from all sides participating fully in this to try to establish the truth. I believe the Taoiseach's and the Government's preferred modular approach and tight and focused terms of reference are correct. We have all seen the mistakes of previous inquiries, particularly the ones that cost hundreds of millions. Those inquiries made recommendations and so on, but not taking from the work that was done, they were extremely costly. This inquiry will be focused, will have a clear time limit, will be modular in nature and will achieve results.
I agree with Senator Byrne that both Houses should be involved. We are very fortunate here to have somebody of the calibre of Senator Sean Barrett, probably the best transport economist in the country and one of the best economists in the country. He is very fair and he and others would have an important role to play in forensically examining the evidence presented at such an inquiry. I would like to see a swift move on this inquiry. The public clearly wants answers and it expects us, as political leaders, to get those answers. Lessons have been learned from past inquiries and we need to ensure that mistakes made previously are not repeated.
I do not have any questions for the Minister because I am fully confident of his personal commitment to this inquiry and he has always been transparent in politics. I agree with many of his views on political reform and see him as a champion who when he comes into this House speaks with authority and decades of experience. We are very fortunate we have a Minister of his calibre leading the Government charge on this and I look forward to robust engagement with the process and to its conclusion.
We all hope that on this occasion the people will find that the political system did not let them down and that the correct results, recommendations and conclusions were brought forward. It will be a very good day for politics if we are able to achieve this, as a united Oireachtas, for the people.
The Minister is most welcome. It is very useful to have this opportunity to clarify the provisions we are discussing. People throughout the country are eager to know what form the banking inquiry will take. It is a welcome development that this House is being used as a forum to allow the Minister to set out exactly what is proposed.
I echo Senator Thomas Byrne's comments on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is important that both Houses have a role to play in this investigation. It is also important that we play to the strengths and capacities of individual Members. It may be necessary to set party membership considerations aside and consider individuals' qualifications to participate. We all must keep in mind that our efforts in this area are for the benefit of the people.
I welcome the proposed modular approach and the timeframe that has been set down. All too often we have seen inquiries that dragged on for so long that their original purpose was eventually forgotten. However, while being mindful of the requirement to keep the inquiry tight and focused, we must also remember that we have a responsibility on behalf of the citizens of the State to find out as much information as we can. Senators Sean D. Barrett and Katherine Zappone who were singled out by several speakers for their economic backgrounds would certainly offer an expertise in these matters. I have no doubt, however, that other Senators and Deputies from various professional backgrounds also have qualities and capacities which would make them suitable for inclusion in the inquiry.
I welcome the Minister. Although we discussed the legislation in question at some length when it was brought before the House, it is useful, given the level of public interest in the format of whatever banking inquiry is established, to have a further debate today. The Minister's proposals have already been described as a farce, with various faults and failings identified. This level of concern is not surprising, given the universal public desire for accountability. There is a strong belief certain people took decisions which were flawed, faulty or negligent, or even politically motivated or dishonest.
Whatever the reality, the desire for accountability must be met, even though such is often very difficult to obtain. One might well imagine that establishing and managing an inquiry is easy, being simply a matter of bringing a group of people into a room and asking them a lot of hard questions. However, as somebody with long experience of investigating and asking difficult questions, I am aware that it is, in fact, the most difficult thing in the world, not least because certain individuals might, for instance, have left the country, died or simply refused to attend the hearings. Documents might be missing or have been shredded. People might have faulty memories, something to which we are all susceptible. I am sometimes convinced I have left an item on my desk only to discover it in my car. We all have incredibly deficient memories when it comes to all types of experiences. Even with the best will in the world, matters do not progress as smoothly as the public which is rightly angry and anxious for accountability might like.
The Minister and his Department had the unenviable task of finding a way to proceed on this issue. Many have been very critical about the supposed delay in bringing forward proposals, claiming the Government should have rushed in on day one to establish an inquiry. It certainly could have done so, but any resulting inquiry would have had the wrong format, cost too much or gone on too long or not long enough. As the person who became known as the "beef tribunal girl" because I was allegedly responsible for the establishment of that inquiry and the cost thereof, I can speak quite eloquently on the point that inquiries usually end up being other than what they were intended to be. Everybody who demanded a tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry was sincere in that desire but went around it in slightly the wrong way.
As a result of my past experiences, I am probably more cautious than others in these matters. I like to see that people have taken time and consideration, as I am confident the Minister has done in this instance. As he outlined, we now have a strong statutory framework that will guarantee an effective inquiry. We will never, of course, achieve a perfect inquiry. There will inevitably be people who will refuse to answer the questions they are asked or will employ their lawyers to avoid answering those questions. The idea that parliamentarians are not the right people to ask questions is one I refute. There are many Members of the Oireachtas with the capability to do so and can set aside their party hats. Unless we step up to the plate and start to take responsibility by doing this type of work, we will never be able to look the public in the eye or ever again ask people to trust us. We must stand up and say it is our time and we will do this. Those of us who are involved in the inquiry will undoubtedly be under enormous scrutiny and anybody who appears to be partisan in his or her questions and queries will be singled out very quickly. After all, this will all take place in public.
All of that is welcome and this is our moment to take action. Having taken the time to get everything right, we will have a better inquiry. Senator Martin Conway said he would like to see us proceeding as quickly as possible. I look forward to seeing the format of the committee, whether it will be established expressly for this purpose and so on. On a previous occasion I raised with the Minister the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions and whether it, given its power of scrutiny in the public service, could or should have a role in this particular inquiry. That committee, of which I am proud to be a member, was set up as part of the Government's reform process and has engaged in some very interesting discussions. It might well have a role to play in this debate.
I welcome the Minister's proposals, while sharing some of the concerns expressed. We would all like the inquiry to be as extensive and powerful as possible, but the reality is that we must also have regard to such issues as cost. We must settle on the format that is the most feasible from the available choices. I am confident the Minister's proposal represents the most feasible and applicable option.
I thank the Minister for his detailed statement on this matter. It is important that we have a proper legislative structure for this inquiry, as provided for in these provisions. I come from a legal background and was active in that profession in the period from 2000 to 2010 when so many changes took place. It is clear that the banking sector was effectively left to run wild as regards how it gave out money. Some of the activity that took place was frightening. Banks were giving people money to purchase shares in the bank itself. The same bank was giving money to different people to bid against each other at the same property auction. There seemed to be no form of accountability that might have seen an upper limit imposed on any property that came on the market. As we all know, the banking collapse that eventually came saw the Government of the day having to give a guarantee to underpin the entire sector.
It is important that we proceed with this inquiry as soon as possible. The Government is already halfway through its term and the time remaining is short. The inquiry will take time; it is not something that can be done overnight. We must allow it the opportunity to get answers to as many as possible of the issues that remain, including those that are not even in the public domain. A great many poor decisions were taken for which nobody has been held accountable. That is the case not only in the banking sector but also in the realm of the accountancy and legal professions. We had, for instance, situations where property was being bought without deeds of transfer being given, where the vendor became the mortgagor and where no stamp duty was paid. Many such practices were above board within legislation, but-----
No, they were not. I refused to facilitate those types of transfers.
So did I, but they certainly took place and, unfortunately, were allowed to continue in the absence of adequate checks and balances.
I happened to be in China in 2005 meeting an Irish lawyer based in Hong Kong who talked to me about the collapse of the property market in 1997 in Hong Kong, when property prices decreased by 70%. The interesting point is that the number of legal practices in Hong Kong decreased from 6,000 to 2,000. That happened in 1997 but we did not look at how it could happen in Ireland. We did not see the warning signs and we had to wait until the last day when it was too late to take remedial action. An inquiry like this is welcome and it gives the opportunity for questions to be put. Hopefully we can get some answers at an early date. I thank the Minister for his work in the area and I wish whoever sits on the committee every success in trying to get reasonable answers to the questions put.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to discuss the item of legislation that provides for the banking inquiry. We must remember that the banking fiasco wiped out so much individual wealth in the country and left people on the breadline. Members of the Oireachtas see this on a weekly basis at constituency clinics. I am on record as being opposed to the banking inquiry being held in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I was fearful, in the first instance, of politicians grandstanding on the issue. That would not do any justice to the Houses of the Oireachtas or a banking inquiry.
Furthermore, the tapes released from Anglo Irish Bank contain overwhelming evidence to form part of a criminal trial if needs be. As a Member of the Oireachtas and a member of one of the Government parties, I support the decision to proceed with the inquiry. If I get the opportunity, I would like to play a part in it.
I also welcome the cost savings in having an Oireachtas committee deal with the issue, compared with the tribunals that took place, the hundreds of millions of euro they cost and the years they took. It made multimillionaires of a number in my profession, the legal profession, and I have a difficulty with it as it came at the expense of the Irish taxpayer. However, the Oireachtas will now carry out the fact-finding function and I ask the Minister to ensure the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform will be adequately resourced. I have no doubt it will be but I must stress the point.
We must ensure the full co-operation of all State institutions. Those not co-operating, whether State institutions or individuals, should face some sanction. Some individuals will not be co-operative and there may be elements of mistruths in evidence. Given the provision in the Act that there can be no adverse effect on the reputation of individuals, it ties our hands.
The focus of the committee must be on the recklessness of lending. We need to unearth the reasons that changed the old conservative moneylending regime in Ireland to one of aggressive moneylending. We must know whether international best practice in banking was used and why decisions were made to enlarge commercial property lending and to offer 100% mortgages on tracker rates. We must find out whether strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, SWOT, analysis was carried out by bailed-out banks, whether due diligence was done in many instances and what risk analysis was undertaken. It seems it was limited in the extreme, given what has befallen the country. We must also ensure that not only are members of the banks' boards interviewed but also all members of various credit committees within the banks. They should have the opportunity to be examined by Members of the Oireachtas at the inquiry. We must ask why the regulator, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance were asleep at the wheel while this was going on.
We must also watch out for bias within the Oireachtas. Politics is full of opinions and a number of us in politics are here because we have strong opinions. However, I worry that an inquiry in the Oireachtas could be biased and unfair. We need only look at the fact that there is always political partisanship and patronage in much of what happens here. It would be remiss of me not to mention it. That should be left at the door in the interests of getting the truth out to the Irish taxpayer and to those of us who are here to clean up the mess as a result of what went on in the past number of years.
I continue to support the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act and I welcome it as a first step of Government accountability. I commend the Minister for his work in this regard and for bringing it to the fore at the first opportunity. We must ensure the inquiry is carried out quickly but not with undue haste. I thank the Minister for attending the Chamber and providing us with a good submission in respect of his thoughts.
I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome what he said. I note what Senator Thomas Byrne said and his words of caution must be taken on board. The Minister is proceeding with caution and I commend what he has done. We want to go speedily but caution is necessary. Terms of reference are vital and I like what the Minister said about the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in each House. There is less possibility of grandstanding by Senators than by certain Deputies. When the Committee on Procedure and Privileges deals with this, the point will be ironed out. I welcome that the Minister is involving both Houses of the Oireachtas because accountability and transparency are vital.
It is essential the terms of reference are tight and confined. We have learned what can go wrong from inquiries in the past. The DIRT inquiry is held up as a great inquiry but the committee was lucky because it had the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General as a book of evidence. There will be nothing like that in this case, although the Nyberg report and the report of the Governor of the Central Bank will be helpful as a backdrop.
The Minister stresses impartiality, fairness and a balanced approach. That goes without saying and is a sine qua non. To get at the matter properly and the people involved, we realise there are three cases in process and we must have regard to them. I am inclined to agree with Senator Thomas Byrne on the point that Anglo Irish Bank cannot be excluded. However, the modular approach must take care of it. With a careful and cautious approach, this matter can be handled sensitively and properly. We are all approaching it that way and we want to be careful. We realise that when this happened on the famous night, a gun was put to the head. We must learn to get behind that. We do not know as none of us was there. I look forward to the inquiry proceeding with caution. The Minister has taken on board all of the lessons that must be learned in approaching this matter. I am pleased it will happen and I look forward to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in each House getting stuck into it and taking the advice of the Minister and the experts on how to go about it. Hopefully, we can learn something.
I thank all Senators for making a contribution. It is no secret that this legislation was not the first option. In the lead-up to the last general election, I wanted a constitutional change to enable a different type of inquiry system to be available to the Oireachtas, analogous to systems elsewhere where findings, including findings of culpability in confined circumstances, can be made. However, I lost that argument with the people and the people made a decision. This Act has delayed the inquiry because the people determined that we must have an inquiry within the constraints of the Constitution.
The people are wise and they are also sovereign. We have taken very great care to design this legislation within the confines of the Constitution but learning from all the court cases, the questions of bias and the questions of constitutional entitlements. It is also predicated on a general principle I hold and about which I have always held strong views, namely, that Parliament actually has to do the people's business and we cannot always off-load to someone else. This person is usually a judge who may have been an active politician but who becomes a judge and suddenly, automatically, any notion of bias or party affiliation evaporates from him or her magically. In my view, politicians are absolutely capable of doing the people's business fairly and impartially. The problem now is that we have the challenge to do it. We have to measure up to the requirements of the Constitution and the requirements of the law. In my view, whatever group of parliamentarians from whatever House or Houses will measure up fairly to that challenge. If they do not, they will be excluded from it.
I wish to comment in reply to Senator Byrne's commentary. I agree with the vast bulk of his argument. However, I disagree with some aspects, for example, the issue that we will need, yet again, to off-load the inquiry to a judge or someone else. Senator Byrne took exception to me underscoring that we must hear first-hand from those involved. This is not a trial; there is no pleading that a person will not give evidence against himself or herself. This is simply a process to unveil the truth. I honestly believe there will be no participant who will not want to tell his or her story.
Senator O'Keeffe spoke about people's memories and I know even from reading political memoirs, that people have gone through the same experience as I have but with quite different recollections of events. I do not say that their recollection of events is contrived but rather it is different and that is all. This is what happens occasionally. However, it is important that what we are about here is not a trial but rather it is simply to do the people's business. The people want to know how it came about that this country faced an economic collapse. They want to know what we need to learn to ensure it does not come about again and what robust measures are needed to be put in place.
I also disagree with Senator Byrne about the motivation of the Government. Senator Byrne may recall that two and a half years' ago we were knocking on doors. I suspect his experience of that was even more searing than my own. The people made a number of basic demands. They wanted to know what happened and they wanted someone to be held accountable. That is part of the process. The criminal process is a separate and distinct accounting process which must follow its course without interference from here. However, we need to have our own accounting process because the vast bulk of what happened is not criminal. Some of the actions might have been wrong, negligent or foolish - all sorts of other words - but not criminal and it will never be unveiled in any criminal process. However, people need to know how it happened, who was involved and who gave it advices.
Senator Conway spoke about a focused inquiry involving both Houses. It is a matter for the Houses now. I deliberately crafted this legislation and recommended it to these Houses and to the Government on the basis that the Executive would not make those choices, not only in the case of the banking inquiry but for any inquiry and that such a choice would be for the Houses to determine, such as the nature of the inquiry, the terms of reference and so on. The work of the oversight committee was raised by Senator O'Keeffe. That was part of the construct of having a constitutional change where the oversight committee would determine what committee would do the work. By design, an Opposition Member was asked to chair that committee for that very reason in order to take away the notion of bias. However, the people determined that this should not be the type of process. It will be a matter for the Houses to determine the clearing house person or committee. It is my understanding that this will be the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but that will be a matter for the Houses.
Senator O'Keeffe made a very strong point which I reiterate. Much has been written externally to criticise an inquiry before the inquiry is up and running. Many have said it is a failure before we start. If we were not to hold an inquiry the same people would be saying it is outrageous not to hold an inquiry. Paper never refused ink but there will be a requirement for the system to measure up to the demand. That means all of us must measure up.
Senator Burke spoke about the remaining time in this Dáil and Seanad session and the issue of accountability. The rule of the world is that we are doomed to repeat our own mistakes. People at the time argued we are not Hong Kong, Japan or Sweden and we will not have a property bubble, that we would have a soft landing as opposed to a crash landing. In truth, the only way we will succeed in not repeating the mistakes is to put in place robust systems. Part of the work on the banking union and the work on the required oversight and the achievement of a fiscal union, is to ensure that we cannot fall into the political trap into which every political party has fallen, namely, to spend in a profligate fashion running up to an election and then to tighten the belts afterwards. We need to have a rational spending profile and to be able to foresee an issue like a property bubble well in advance of it happening.
Senator Higgins referred to her changing view. She said she was jaundiced about the political capacity to hold an inquiry in an impartial manner. I talk to lawyers all the time. I am always taken by lawyers who regard the legal system as the only way and that they are the only people who are, by definition, trained and expert in being impartial. In my view, there is quite an amalgam of talent in these Houses, Members elected by the people who can bring all types of talent sets to this work.
The issue of bias is important. Although the legislation does not allow for conclusions to be drawn that have adverse consequences, it certainly allows for consequences to fall on the heads of people who are obstructive or who give false information. I refer to section 82 of the Act which reads:
82.—(1) A person who provides information to the committee which is false or misleading in a material particular, knowing the information to be so false or misleading or being reckless as to whether it is so false or misleading, is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €500,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or both.
Robust penalties are in place for anyone who sets about obstructing the legitimate work of the parliamentary inquiry.
Senator Paul Coghlan referred to the fact that the most famous inquiry was the DIRT inquiry which was successful because it was grounded in the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I agree that the grounding work done by Nyberg is very extensive and it should be the grounding documentation for the inquiry. It will not be necessary to go over in the same detail all the work done by Nyberg as this will be encompassed as one of the base documents of whatever inquiry is in place. I imagine that will be the approach taken by the inquiry. I will have no input into the inquiry nor will I be a member of the inquiry. I do not suppose anyone else here can say that with certainty. I look forward to the commencement of the work. I am confident that in its first outing the inquiry into the banking situation will prove a milestone inquiry that will be talked about for a very long time to come.
There will be all sorts of challenges and difficulties, as well as various required disciplines. There will be hiccups along the way but getting this right will set the template for future inquiries and strengthen the role of the Oireachtas as a result.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Ar 10.30 a.m., maidin amárach.