Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

The inquiry conducted by Judge Murphy was a public inquiry under the relevant legislation established by this House, which is a public Act of the Oireachtas. I am a little sceptical of some of the Opposition speakers in this debate. The real objective appears to be to continue to use the banking crisis as a political football. That has been the consistent pattern of events in this House for 18 months, with the honourable exception of Fine Gael in regard to the giving of the original guarantee. The steps that governments all over the world have had to take to support their banks are deeply unpopular, extraordinarily difficult to understand and explain but essential to the economic well-being of all countries. The measures we have had to take are amenable to misrepresentation and susceptible to political mischief. Opposition speakers naturally will not lose such opportunities, but the truth is that political circuses in this House for the next year and a half will not secure the future stability of our banking system. It is clear that for some Opposition speakers the economy comes a poor second to this political circus and the pursuit of office.

We have a duty as a Government and as Members of the Dáil to ensure that the origins of the crisis are understood, that lessons are learnt and that international and domestic confidence in the banking system is rebuilt. A major factor in rebuilding that confidence has been the appointment of Professor Honohan as Governor of the Central Bank and Mr. Elderfield as regulator. Let us look at what Professor Honohan actually said in his presentation at the Oireachtas committee on 15 December. He said that the banking crisis was bigger and more complicated than one that could be accommodated by an Oireachtas inquiry. Those were his words to the committee. He went on the say the question would not be sufficiently answered by a judicial inquiry because one is not simply trying to find out what happened and the sequence of events. He said we should think in terms of getting experts, including experts in economics and social science and blend them with politicians and arrive at a panel somewhat like the US congressional panels which consider particular issues on an ad hoc basis. He said, "The crisis is not simply a question of discovering who did what and who knew what. Uncovering the deep roots of the crisis will require expertise and broad social scientific understanding more than merely forensic skills."

In the presentation made by Fine Gael and Labour, naturally the entire economic problems of this country are laid at the feet of a banking crisis. That is simply incorrect. This country had a completely inappropriate cost structure. That is a major reason we have had an economic crisis and that structure has been addressed in budgetary measures that have been consistently opposed by the parties opposite. Our adjustment in those cost structures has been widely welcomed in other parts of the world and recognised as clear evidence that the Government is taking decisive action to deal with the real economic problems of this country. The banking crisis has made a huge contribution to our difficulties.

The next issue, which was raised by Deputy Kenny, in a very fair-minded way, and by other Deputies, was the extent of Oireachtas involvement and supervision in any inquiry that will take place. Everyone agreed that there should be a scoping exercise. The details of the scoping exercise were announced today in the Government decision. It is clear that there will be scope, in the context of the scoping exercise for Members of the Oireachtas to identify the issues they want scoped. I say to Deputy Burton that I do not know what will be the reaction of various people in the context of the toxic triangle she believes existed between my party, the banking industry and the construction industry, for example. I do not know how they will scope that element into their work. Her comments in this House in that regard, which have been consistent for a long period, show how totally unfit she is to make judgments on this matter as part of an Oireachtas committee because it is clear that she has arrived at a pre-judgment on the very issues she invites the House to consider as part of a committee determination. That is the fundamental difficulty about having disputed issues of fact brought before a committee such as this, in that it is clear that one either has a sharp report between a majority government and an Opposition minority or else one has chaos and confusion. It is open to the Deputy to raise that issue in the context of the scoping exercise.

At the conclusion of the scoping exercise - I accept this was not made clear to the House - it is essential that an Oireachtas committee examines the documents prepared by those doing the scoping exercise, and we are open to Whips' discussions on this issue. It is not a matter of the Government devising terms of reference for the commission of inquiry in private or in secret, or without regard to the wishes of the Oireachtas. I would see an Oireachtas committee having a vital function in assisting in the formulation of appropriate terms of reference and with regard to where the inquiry goes at the conclusion of the scoping exercise.

Why opt for the commission of inquiry? We all know that if we establish a tribunal of inquiry under the 1920 Act, we might as well sign a cheque for several hundred million euro immediately on the floor of this House. The other option, advocated by Deputy Noonan and, I assume, by Deputy Rabbitte, is to see how far this House could go in examining these matters. However, there are severe constitutional limits, apart from the practical constraints on such an operation.

I conclude by noting that other questions were raised in this debate which I would like an opportunity to deal with. I will avail of that opportunity when I make a contribution tomorrow in the context of the Labour Party motion.

See this speech in context