Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

He has, so I am here to take it up.

I welcome the Bill. The Bill is before the House essentially because it has been forced on us. However, it is a Bill that should have been produced in any case. Although some things have been prescribed by the EU-IMF, it does not mean they are all wrong. This proposal is quite good.

Last year's Central Bank Reform Act and the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act gave powers to the Government and the Central Bank to direct enforcement on financial providers and specifically on individuals within such organisations. The behaviour of certain financial institutions in recent years has highlighted the urgent need for appropriate means to conduct forensic analyses into these organisations. In recent days the need was highlighted when the courts are hearing cases to have people who are capable of understanding the minute financial issues at stake. It is important that the appropriate powers are in place so as not to get to that point because the end game in terms of prosecution becomes a very difficult one.

To suggest that our present difficulties could have been avoided if a robust and empowered supervisor was in place may be a little simplistic. That may be an understatement but certainly we can agree that had there been appropriately strong channels through which the Central Bank could discover the true extent of our banking systems' catastrophic exposures certain decisions forced on us in a crisis may never have been needed. We will all pay a heavy price for that into the future. As a citizen I never again want the stakes to be so high and the banks so large and out of control without a regulatory regime where we risked everything as in recent years.

A particular difficulty is that often scant information is available. At its conference last week on mortgage indebtedness FLAC and New Beginning identified the need for the Central Bank to be in control of information from all lenders to enable the extent of indebtedness to be fully captured. There is a strong argument to be made for that proposal. It is important that there are strict and robust powers available to the Central Bank. While there is much criticism of the banks we must not blacken everybody who works in the banking system. I have spoken with people who are tellers who do not want to tell people they work in a bank. It used to be the case that if one worked in the Revenue Commissioners one did not want to tell people but banking used to be the blue chip in so many different ways. However, that has become a real problem for people and there have been some tragedies as a consequence. Those who work in the banking system will be protected by virtue of strong and robust powers being in place.

Obviously the powers available to the Minister and the Central Bank are broad. Given the calamitous situation we have just come through, I agree that in principle the broad powers are a good thing and are needed. However, I can see some grey areas arising in terms of the Bill as proposed in regard to some existing Acts which I propose to highlight. Perhaps the Minister would reply to me on this point because framing amendments will depend on what the conflict might be or whether there is a conflict.

Essentially the purpose of the Criminal Justice Act 2011 was to tackle white collar crime and it gave the Garda defined powers in respect of the investigation of alleged wrongdoing. Under this Act it would appear that the obligation falls to a person, which I take to mean any employee who learns of suspected wrongdoing, to report it to the Garda immediately. We had quite a discussion on that issue. Afterwards I raised the issue with the Minister given that it had been raised separately by Mr. Michael McDowell in a newspaper article.

Section 33 of this Bill places a mandatory reporting obligation only on persons with a pre-approval controlled function. I understand that to mean anyone who occupies a significant position of authority within the organisation in question. It appears to me there is a conflict here. Given that there are to be whistleblower provisions in several different pieces of legislation, would it not have been advisable to have separate whistleblower legislation rather than trying to knit it in with each item of legislation? It is needed and I agree it should form part of the regulatory regime because people will not come forward if they are not protected. Comprehensive protections have been proposed in the Bill but when one Bill conflicts with the other, I can foresee a situation where the terms will be appealed given that one supersedes the other. That is a grey area and I am not sure if it can be amended to be consistent with the other legislation.

Clearly this is not the only area where regulation is needed. We must look at each element of the failure in turn and address each one to ensure we do not end up in the same position as now. Not only is it necessary to put a regulatory regime in place but a change of culture is also needed. A change of culture means having different personnel at the top of organisations. There is not a great deal of evidence of a change of culture in respect of the two key banks. That is a matter of grave concern. We can have all the regulation we like but if people carry on as before it is useless. Obviously there is a different range of rules but they must be matched by a cultural change.

The over exposure to property and the lending practices was not just about the banks, it was also about the planning system and seeing buildings and properties as development rather than planning. We have not changed anything in the way that is done. For example, I was looking at applications for development plans and applications to have land rezoned all over the place. I understand there has been a change in terms of regional guidelines and the national spatial strategy but the controls and the way of doing things have not changed.

The expertise required when one gets to the point of going to court and the length of time it takes to get cases to court makes one question how robust and well-resourced is the Office of Corporate Enforcement. Four or five years ago I recall complaining about the lack of resources in that particular office because there was a backlog in dealing with some of the issues I had brought to its attention. We have got to have not just a good regulatory regime but the practical elements that can get things to a point where if there is a sanction it can be made quickly and appropriately. The legislation is good but it is only part of what is needed. I am happy to support it.

See this speech in context