John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is fair to say that most people in this House turn to professionals about the law because it is intricate, complex and relies on all sorts of older law to define the newer laws and vice versa. In our work on this committee, we often come face to face with the failure of that law and we wonder why and how we can improve the law that we have. The work of the commission is very important because it informs us and so on. This exchange is the opportunity for us to test the layman's view of this against the commission and its view of the law.

Senator Paddy Burke raised a point regarding Jonathan Sugarman. We can mention his name because it has been publicly aired here. He abided by the law and said that he was obliged to tell the Central Bank, which he did. Had he been listened to, we might have had a different outcome. We cannot say that we would have, but we might have. The biggest law that was broken was that approximately €65 billion of taxpayers' money had to be put in to rescue the banks. Arising from that, many people of the country were forced into poverty and legal exchanges with the banks to save their properties, which they thought they would never have to do. We will not get specifically into Jonathan Sugarman's case but when we pursued the Central Bank about it, it said that, by law, it could not tell us what actually happened, if anything, to the complaint made by Jonathan Sugarman. I would say one measure should be to take that law and change it. The Central Bank should be allowed to name and shame in the context of the outcome of a complaint process against the bank. That is the first thing and I think it is simple. It is perhaps will not be so simple when the witnesses get at it but it is simple enough from a layman's perspective and gives transparency.

The law states that once the Garda has an investigation, this House cannot discuss the particulars of that investigation. It may be an investigation about how public money was spent.

All an agency, a Government Department, the HSE or whatever has to do if it has been accused, and an investigation is undertaken here, is inform the Garda. Once that is done, game over, we cannot pursue our work. The law has to be changed in respect of giving the public information about issues relative to investigations or the investigations themselves. There is a need to give some sort of comfort to the people involved that the investigations are ongoing, we know about them, we are conducting them and there will be an outcome. One issue that was being dealt with by the Committee of Public Accounts has gone on for 15 years. We are told it is being investigated but I have no idea whether it is. That is unfair. They say it is because the law prevents them from telling people anything. This all feeds into the public perception of the mainstays of the State such as the Dáil, the Seanad and the Garda. It is creating a difficulty and respect is being damaged. I am suggesting that these minor things might change it.

I refer also to accountants and their profession. Their titles are displayed after their names and we can see if they are members of certain organisations. This information is displayed to give them some standing and show they are okay. It is the same with solicitors and barristers. They are members of groups that give them a particular standing and give comfort to the client. However, it sometimes happens that the legal representative and the accountant come together with a client, who relies solely on them, and go to the bank manager to ask for a loan, whereby they misrepresent the figures in order to attain the biggest loan possible. The customer then complains to these organisations for barristers, solicitors or accountants and nothing ever happens. A great number of farmers are now saying to us they wanted to get €500,000 for a milking parlour or whatever and put forward the cost of a litre of milk at 29 cent, say. The accountant told them that would not work and suggested that using a figure of 35 cent or 40 cent per litre might get them their €500,000. That is not a victimless crime; the victim is the client applying for the money. I cannot understand why no one is held to account when that is exposed. There must be a law somewhere that needs to be tightened or updated.

It is the same as what Deputy Pearse Doherty said about the tracker mortgages. The banks must think we are all really naive to believe that on the same day in every bank, the decision was made about trackers and that it was just coincidence. Whatever laws are controlling all of this have to be modernised in recognition of the fact that people are given an incentive to give out money, ignore real figures and be dishonest, knowing full well they will all get paid while the customer, who is the victim at the end of it, will have to carry the can. Is there not a way of looking at all of these laws, not in isolation, in respect of how they impact on the perception of the general public? We should examine how they can be tightened and modernised for our times. A lot of what happened in the banking crisis is beginning to happen again and no one seems to mind.