John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

We support the Bill. It is a good idea and will be of value to the process. However, the matters that the convention will be given to consider are of equal importance. Given the discussions inside and outside the House and at the Committee of Public Accounts and in light of the Government's consideration of a banking inquiry, it is appropriate to say that the convention's work will be important. It should consider the administration of the country and the workings of this House as priorities.

In compiling the report on a banking inquiry, the Committee of Public Accounts was conscious of the significant legal difficulties facing any Dáil inquiry. The referendum was informative in this regard and suggested that sufficient information was not put before the electorate. Greater in-depth consideration is necessary ahead of similar referendums. The convention will help in this regard. The inclusion of citizens in the convention is a welcome example of the involvement of people in the democratic process.

A banking inquiry is essential. It must have a broader base than that discussed this morning, namely, to fill an information gap. It is important that we protect the integrity of the Committee of Public Accounts, its members and the work it has done since its foundation, in particular its investigations into DIRT, the Arms Trial, spending and so on. It is regrettable that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, in particular decided to focus on the committee's Chairman and the Fianna Fáil Party. The committee has a record of conducting excellent inquiries and has always been chaired by Opposition parties. The Minister should focus on the task in hand rather than the personalities involved. In terms of the convention and the work of the Government, broadening the committee's powers and shoring up its work are necessary. Dumbing it down in any way is unacceptable, yet that appears to be under way. Nor are the Minister's comments acceptable. The first task of any convention should be to consider the committee's powers, its standing within the House, its reputation and the respect in which it is held by the public. A debate on this subject and any referendum that might be required to enhance the committee's powers should be held sooner rather than later.

As we head into discussions on a banking inquiry, the Government will find it necessary to introduce legislation regardless of who conducts the inquiry. Needless to say, the all-party Committee of Public Accounts believes that examining the €64 billion of taxpayers' money spent by the Government on the banks is a natural progression of its work. Some of the paperwork now available shows that ten days prior to the night of the bank guarantee, the banks were talking up their positions and the economy. They were bust ten days later. It is critical that the truth be told and examined by those who were central to the decision, be they politicians, bankers or civil servants. We have been told that little paperwork from the time of the decision exists. Therefore, we need to hear directly from the people involved. If this necessitates providing the committee with the power of compellability or making Cabinet papers available, which has been suggested in the report, it should be done sooner rather than later. We need to hear from those who were involved during the night of the guarantee. The Taoiseach's suggestion that the inquiry would be limited to this is not good enough. The inquiry should have a much broader base.

The Committee of Public Accounts has set out a roadmap by which this can be achieved and has been supported by a senior counsel's opinion. Learning from what we described as the first pillar of the inquiry, we should move on to events in the banks. For example, what were the internal audit committees doing and how were the economists describing and forecasting the economy to the banks? We need to examine what the auditors were doing and what their audits told them. These aspects are essential to any inquiry.

Informed by pillar 1 and having dealt with the banks, the committee could move on to pillar 3. As suggested in the report, we could consider the regulatory system, the Department of Finance, various other agencies and anyone who was involved. Even if they are now retired, they could be brought back to explain what occurred. It is my belief and that of the Committee of Public Accounts that, unless we pursue this type of inquiry and have appropriate powers provided to us through legislation, we will not get to the truth of the matter. The public would like to see that truth being told in a way that states the case clearly in terms of how the decisions were taken, the Merrill Lynch opinion and what other opinions were available, including what outside sources advised the former Government.

Any convention needs to be informed about the background to these issues so that it can reach an appropriate conclusion. This is essential to the democratic process and the workings of the House. While the Bill is short and will be handled quickly, the all-party Committee of Public Accounts has called for a full Dáil debate on the report. This is essential in moving the situation forward.

Although it may be a separate issue, I urge the Government via the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, to consider the report before making further comment on it. The relevance and importance of the Committee of Public Accounts should not be diminished in any way. If anything, they should be enhanced. Any effort to reduce its powers, the scope of its inquiries or its position within the House should be resisted by the Government and Members of this Parliament.

See this speech in context