Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

On the face of it, the Central Bank Reform Bill 2009 appears to be reasonable legislation. I compliment those in the Department of Finance who worked on it. Having spent time as Minister of State at the Department of Finance, I am aware of the expertise there, which it is evident has been brought to bear on this Bill.

Having said that, a question arises, not in regard to the work of the officials on the Bill, but in regard to its failure to address a particular issue, namely, we still do not know why the previous regulatory system failed so spectacularly. That system was put in place approximately ten years ago, which is relatively recent.

This followed a report by a joint Oireachtas committee in 1998. That 2003 Bill was the basis on which a system was put in place which was supposed to be the answer to all our problems but it did not work. Now, we have a new reform Bill, the mechanics of which appear to be fine. However, I believe there is a fundamental flaw on the part of the Government in bringing the Bill to the House at this time. When introducing the legislation, the Minister stated the causes of the financial crisis should be and would be investigated and that we would have a report in due course. In the meantime, we have scoping exercises. They will be followed by a commission of inquiry which will report only God knows when, but hopefully before the reports of the tribunals sitting in Dublin Castle.

If we are to have any confidence in a new system, surely we should know now the causes and the reasons the outgoing system failed so spectacularly. If we do not know the flaws of the outgoing system, how can we cure them? This is a problem and, to a large degree, we are flying blind. It is not the fault of the officials who put together the mechanics of the Bill; they stand up. However, because we do not know what caused the previous failure at the political end, we cannot really judge whether the proposed new system will be adequate to ensure such a failure does not recur in future.

See this speech in context