Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the members for their very pointed questions, which are very important, and I thank our witnesses for the replies. A theme that came up again and again was addressing issues after they had happened. The theory would be that we try to prevent them. This was the theme of the replies. I was a member of the DIRT inquiry more than 20 years ago. Banking practices in the country at the time ended up in an sworn inquiry. We felt they would tend to undermine credibility and the integrity of the banking system if they were allowed to continue. When we had concluded the inquiry, we were told that in future this would not happen. There was a promise of good fiduciary practices, good governance and alternate accountancy in terms of visiting accountants to ensure the books had not been deliberately swayed or skewed in a particular direction. There were promises on transparency, accountability and reliability, which were all issues that were sworn into at the particular time. We felt we were on the right path and that this would not happen again. However, it did, and that is the problem that I see. This is the theme of the questions raised by most members. We had the awful experience during that period and then we had the financial crash where some of the same practices we had identified previously were carried on, almost as soon as we had gone around the corner. With the best will in the world we go through the performance again and again.

Incidentally, the members of that committee, who were public representatives, were not very popular because of the inquiry we carried out. Some of us almost lost our seats in the subsequent election and others did so, unfortunately. We felt it was necessary to do our duty because of what happened. Unfortunately, what happened ultimately was that each and every member of the public was severely punished by virtue of non-adherence to the promises made. Some of those members of the public are still suffering ten or 12 years later and will continue to suffer for some time. I am not laying the blame for this on the witnesses. I am merely suggesting that it happened and everything possible must be done to ensure it does not happen again.

I know we have provisions for fines, criminal responsibility and accountability. I know we went through in great detail at that time the concepts of malfeasance and misfeasance. These are all issues that are very pertinent to the context of this debate. We have not learned our lessons from then. By "we" I mean all of us involved, including the institutions and public representatives. We were blamed for allowing it to happen but we did the job that had to be done, unpopular though it made us. Nobody else took it seriously. In fact, that report was ultimately treated with contempt. Approximately €1.2 billion was recovered for the taxpayer and that was fine. I still worry.

The banking system in this country seems to have become depersonalised. We have had the closure of branches all over the country and less contact with the customer. Who suffers at the end of the day? It is the customer, the economy, the general public and national and international confidence in the banking system, which is hugely important in this country. I am not attributing any blame to the witnesses. I am merely saying these things have happened before and the remedies have been introduced before and the questions raised by committee members this evening are along the same lines. There needs to be a dedication to the application of the principles contained in the Bill, and maybe more, to ensure we do not find ourselves at this juncture at some stage in the future.

My next point is not necessarily relevant to this debate but I should warn the witnesses about it. Some banks are leaving the jurisdiction at present. I have noticed that some are retaining an interest thereafter for one or other purpose. They have sold off their bad debts but they have retained some particular interests or have indicated they will do so. I hope this is not for cherry picking purposes. It would be seriously detrimental to the whole question we have been discussing here if any lending institutions were to be able to maintain a cherry picking interest in our finances thereafter.