Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

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, àla 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.