Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

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 states:

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.