Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

In the debate immediately preceding this one, Deputy Mulcahy, on the Government side of the House, said that shareholders - people who had invested in the banks - wanted and were entitled to an inquiry. He said that taxpayers also wanted and were entitled to an inquiry. We all want an inquiry, but the three key words missing from Deputy Mulcahy's contribution were "open and transparent". A closed-shop inquiry is useless. We know what will result: absolutely nothing. We accept that if there are sensitive pieces of evidence to be presented, for example, the committee could go into private session by agreement. There is no question about that as applied to an Oireachtas all-party committee. We accept fully the need for preliminary evidence to be produced, similarly to a book of evidence in a court case; that is standard practice. Whatever our aspirations for an inquiry by a commission, we can get some indication from the Government amendment of what is likely to be established. The first paragraph of the amendment contains the type of proclamation that is liable to appear:

[The Government] commends the ongoing programme of actions being taken by the Government to restore banking stability and restructure the financial sector, including the recapitalisation of the two main banks, which will facilitate increased access to funding for SMEs and for first-time home buyers as well as offering protections for existing homeowners in arrears;

SMEs cannot get a red cent from the banks. We all know that from listening to their representative organisations and listening to their owners in our constituency offices and in our social spheres. Yet we are being told the policy being implemented by the Government is excellent. That is exactly the type of nonsense that will come back from any commission report. We are also told about the wonderful work done in recapitalising the two main banks. However, they will need to be recapitalised again. Several billion euro will have to be given to each of those banks in order for them to function in any meaningful way - that is, if they are not to be nationalised by stealth. Here we have evidence of the Government bringing nonsense before the House, in contrast to the very well crafted motion from Deputy Pat Rabbitte of the Labour Party, which I commend.

While the Government's amendment refers to protection for homeowners, one need only read the newspaper reports on what is happening in the courts. The continuing and growing level of repossession of people's homes is an absolute scandal. However, the amendment would do justice to Shakespeare, John B. Keane or someone similar in respect of putting together some kind of comic effort. It certainly bears no comparison with reality.

The people are demanding an open, public and transparent investigation into what went wrong. The people and taxpayers of this State are carrying the can for serious Government misconduct bordering on fraudulent policy. They are carrying the can for this and are likely to do so for several generations. This is grossly unfair and is completely unacceptable. If the Government is not listening to Members on this side of the House, I am sure it will get its answer from the public as soon as the latter has an opportunity to do so, namely, as soon as the general election is called.

See this speech in context