John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I would love to be able to take to my feet and say the Bill will resolve all of the issues concerning the powers of committees. I wish it would, but I do not think it will. I will address the reasoning behind that and what we want to achieve. In committees, at the Committee of Public Accounts and publicly, I have said there is a clear and absolute need for an inquiry into the financial collapse that happened in the country. We need to set out a narrative that explains to people exactly what happened, how the system failed and how people in the banking sector, Government and the Civil Service acted or spoke about it in the lead-up to 2007 and 2008 and what happened after. Like many other people, I want to see that happen. Everyone who spoke in the House acknowledged it as the starting point. It is not that people are vindictive or want to go after an individual or banking organisation: they simply want to know.

It is incredible to think that, since 2008, we have had nothing but discussion, debate and noise on the issue while we watched the reaction of other Governments and countries to the banking issue. They could hold people and institutions to account and, in doing so, they presented their people with the narrative and a detailed explanation. It may not satisfy people and it may anger them all the more but it will set it in context so they can understand what the current Government is doing with the economy. They can judge it for good or bad but at least they will have something to contrast against by which they can explain matters.

With that in mind, I pursued the notion of a banking inquiry. Then we looked at the committees of the House to make it happen. How can we make the committees function?

The Committee of Public Accounts set out in its report of July 2012 - the Minister has a copy of it - the roadmap for such a banking inquiry. The committee tested it against legal opinion both inside and outside the House. It is not just a report concocted by Members. It was deliberated upon and debated at length. We took advice on it, including legal advice. We came up with a direct roadmap to a banking inquiry which, in the process, strengthens the committee system in the Oireachtas. I am disappointed that the system in the House does not allow a very important document such as this to be debated. Deputy Murphy has acknowledged that as well. In that debate we could possibly have arrived at solutions to problems that are faced by committees, not just the Committee of Public Accounts, and strengthen them in that process, before introducing this very complex legislation which will probably be challenged in some way or other by individuals or organisations.

What are the problems facing the committees? The Minister knows them well as he has been a Member of this House for a long time. The Minister refused to accept a Bill which sought to reform the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General by allowing the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit local government. There was another example of that this morning in the Committee of Public Accounts. Millions of euro are allocated by the Office of Public Works, OPW, to local authorities but only 5% of that allocation is being tested and audited. I am not satisfied with that. The Committee of Public Accounts, in the context of the Bill I introduced, is the proper authority to audit every cent of taxpayers' money that is spent by the Government, yet the Minister refused to accept that single reform.

There are other areas of reform highlighted by the Committee of Public Accounts. Let us say we proceed to hold a banking inquiry. If somebody decides not to attend the inquiry because they are being investigated by somebody else, they need not attend the inquiry. The Committee of Public Accounts encountered this last week. A witness was invited to attend the meeting arising from expenditure of €4.4 million in an unofficial account. He said he was being investigated by the Garda. If I relate that to the dioxin report, for example, the Garda investigation into an event that cost the State a fortune is still ongoing, so anybody being investigated need not necessarily appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. Consider our investigation of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. Again, this cost the State millions of euro. The last figure I read was €58 million but if one takes into account that the banks have now taken over those loans through the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, it is in the hundreds of millions. Witnesses were invited to attend, but only one responded. Could a simple legislative measure not be provided to insist on such witnesses turning up for a Committee of Public Accounts hearing?

This similarly applies to documents. If an individual states that the documents are for his personal use, we cannot touch them. That is absolutely incredible. We also had a situation where during the investigation into the Dublin Docklands Development Authority we discovered that under a previously unused Standing Order the Minister had stood down the investigation. We have quite correctly taken it up again. Despite all the problems we face and the lack of legislation and reform in this area, we will continue with the investigation.

In the recommendations in our report - we have yet to receive a response to the report - we set out, first, why there is an urgent need for the inquiry. We proceed to recommend that the Committee of Public Accounts should conduct the inquiry. Why the Minister has gone off in search of another committee is beyond me when there are other established committees in the House that are quite capable of conducting such an inquiry, should the Minister be willing to provide them with the appropriate powers and legislation that they might need to continue in the way set down by the report.

In the report we dealt with the bank guarantee. We suggested that a significant number of questions remain to be urgently answered regarding the available policy options and decision making processes used during the weeks around the guarantee. We suggest that the Committee of Public Accounts, without this legislation, could examine the role of the banks and ask about their responsibility in the crisis. From there it could proceed to the role and effectiveness of State institutions. This is all clearly set out in the document. The document acknowledges that we are working within the confines of the Constitution, the Abbeylara case and the In re Haughey case, all of which have an impact on how we conduct our business. The report comes down in favour of what the Minister has provided for in the legislation, the inquire, record and report model. There is less risk attached to it and there is an example of how it was used previously in the Wallace inquiry, which successfully set out the proceedings in that inquiry. We believe that is the way to proceed.

To assist any further banking inquiry, we are currently completing a bank stabilisation report which covers the period prior to 2008, links it with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and brings it up to date. We have asked for the assistance of Mr. Elderfield in this regard and I suggest that the previous Secretary General of the Department, the civil servant in charge of banking and the previous Financial Regulator could be asked to come forward to assist with that report. No offence is meant to anybody. They would simply set out their memory of that time and capture for any future banking inquiry the information and detail of the time, which is absolutely necessary. It is now six years since it happened. Memories fail people, particular events are not recorded properly or there is only a sketchy memory of other events. To get over that, why not allow the Committee of Public Accounts to inquire, record and report? It would be a helpful measure for a future, comprehensive banking inquiry.

Why not release the documents held by the Department of Finance, without them being redacted? Why not examine under the Cabinet confidentiality rule the documents that might be released to assist the Committee of Public Accounts with its inquiry?

Does the Minister know whether the Department of Finance, for example, has inquired into what meetings were held, who attended them, their agenda and the papers circulated at them so any future inquiry will be able to rely on the bank of information gleaned? The information will be essential in the carrying out of an inquiry. Is any of this work being done by Departments or officials in preparation for what will have to be a banking inquiry in the interest of the citizens of this State who must stump up the cost of the financial collapse of the country? Is anything being done to deal with the anger over the fact that there is no inquiry into any of these matters? Could the Minister tell us, on Committee Stage or later, whether he has instructed the other Departments to collect relevant information? Will the information or correspondence within the Department that has already been spoken about by the whistleblowers be protected and made available? Has the Government taken steps to ensure this? Is all this activity happening now or must we wait for the passage of this Bill and for it to be tested in some way before we realise we should have taken action earlier?

The answer we get at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts suggests it would be too costly to hold an inquiry of the kind I desire. I do not accept that. We are dealing with billions of euro in taxpayers' money. We can blame whoever we like for the collapse politically but we are in the business of accountability and transparency. If, tomorrow morning, an ordinary citizen walked out of a store without paying for a bottle of milk, a large sliced pan or a pound of butter, or if he did not pay for services, he would be in court immediately. The cost to the State of the collapse is approximately €64 billion, yet we must go through this process in this House to get answers. That is simply not good enough.

As progress is made on this legislation, I would like to see officials instructed by the Government to gather the relevant papers, names and information such that they will be ready to be presented to the committee that will eventually carry out a comprehensive banking inquiry. This is what should be done in the context of the management and logistics of the system.

The Government has a very large majority. It promised reform and this Bill is part of it. I would love to see that reform being delivered. I sit in opposition on this side of the House. On the day that the current Government was formed, I expressed the hope that the promised reforms would materialise on the grounds that they would be good for the country, just as what is proposed in this legislation will be good if we can achieve it.

The committee system in the Houses needs to be examined in the context of this Bill. During the DIRT inquiry, there was co-operation from all concerned. Compellability was not tested, nor was anything else. Individuals came and made their contributions, and those who had to pay a penalty later paid that penalty, but the committee system in the Houses ground to a halt. The committee system, with all its flaws, is very important to the democratic process of this House. Alongside this legislation, there should be a plan to ensure the continuation of the work of all the committees. It should be explained how the committee system in the Houses will remain active at its current level and be strengthened in terms of the legislation and inquiry process. It should still be funded and capable of continuing its work should a banking inquiry be put in place. Thus, the consequence of this Bill will not be one that sees the committee system wound down for a period. The Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am Chairman, should be allowed to continue to hold its inquiries and carry out its work consequent to this legislation. That is important in terms of the democratic process in the Houses.

I hope this legislation will be passed and be successful. Everyone wants that. However, I would like the issues I have raised in regard to all committees, not just the Committee of Public Accounts, dealt with fairly and properly in respect of costs and the continuation of committees' work. That is crucial. I look forward to assisting our spokesperson, Deputy Seán Fleming, who made a positive contribution to the debate last night, on some of the amendments that are necessary. I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen.

See this speech in context