Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

The mechanism for conducting an inquiry was passed by this House. We recognised a way of doing that so that we could protect the constitutional rights of people and their reputations, which are strongly protected by our Constitution. We must recognise the situation. The commission of inquiry legislation and the report suggested by the Government provides us with a mechanism in which individuals can be cross-examined and adverse findings against those people can be laid before the House. At that stage, when the reports are published, Members of this House can clearly point to certain people and institutions. We can bring those institutions before the House and put it to them that the report of the independent statutory commission, under an Act enacted by the Oireachtas, has made certain findings against these people and their institutions. As politicians and public representatives, we can make them publicly accountable on foot of that investigation. As politicians, we could not do that if we were to start out with an Oireachtas inquiry. That is no disrespect to anyone in this House. I see my constituency colleague, Deputy Noonan, in the Chamber. It has been suggested that Deputy Noonan should head this inquiry. He would carry out a very effective and efficient inquiry but we need someone who can do so armed with a statutory report of a statutory body based on an Act of the Oireachtas making the findings that we want to make as politicians but cannot make. Let us accept the reality we are faced with and try to create an effective mechanism by which we can tackle this problem. The proposal of the Government is to engage international experts, including the Governor of the Central Bank and an international bank expert, to collate the material and provide it to a commission of investigation, including someone of very high standing, which can then bring in the sort of people we cannot bring into this House even though we would like to. This method will get the questions and answers we want. Under such a process, they can compel answers to these questions. As Deputy Rabbitte knows from other inquiries, Members cannot do so.

I also had the privilege of chairing the Committee on Child Protection examining the circumstances surrounding the CC case. We examined what lessons could be learned to ensure that such a situation would never arise again. The same advice was available to us, namely that individuals who we may wish to question cannot be brought before an Oireachtas committee if it involves impugning their integrity. That is the reality of the situation and we must work within that. The Government's suggestion is an initial engagement with experts and that such experts should come before the Oireachtas so that Members can suggest the road we want to go down, the questions we want to ask and the answers we want to receive. We can then ask for a report to be prepared on that basis and for the report to be handed to the independent statutory commission of inquiry, with all the powers such a committee has to seek the answers. At that stage, we will have our own political and public accountability. That is the most effective and efficient way in which it can be done. The Labour Party has suggested that this proposal is a recipe for kicking this issue beyond the next general election. The timeframes are set down in the Government's motion. An initial report will be produced by the end of May and laid before the relevant Oireachtas committee. The members of the committee will tell the experts who come before them what they want to arise from the commission of inquiry. That commission will produce a report by the end of the year. The process, which will take 11 months, is cost-effective and efficient. It represents a way of getting the sorts of answers we want. I commend to the House the Government's proposal to establish an effective and cost-effective commission to examine the banking scandal.

See this speech in context