Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Cuirim fáilte freisin go bhfuil, ag deireadh thiar thall, an rún seo os comhair an Tí inniu agus go bhfuil muid ag cur tús le coiste le breathnú ar cad a tharla agus ar an ngéarchéim eacnamaíochta a tharla sa tír seo suas go dtí 2008 agus ar na cinntí a glacadh ag an am sin agus ar na himpleachtaí don tír seo agus do cáiníocóirí agus saoránaigh na tíre seo a thit amach as sin.

I am glad finally a motion has come forward from the Government to set up a banking inquiry. I am conscious also that we are having this debate a week from an election but I believe we will see genuine movement in this regard over the next several weeks. It is important this banking inquiry is dealt with robustly, that it is fair and gets to the core of what was going on in the regulatory system at the time, in the circle of politics and among developers and the banks. It is important to get to the bottom of what led to the decisions taken by those in relevant authority and why we continued with those same decisions later on when it was clear they were in error.

The Government has talked a very good talk about this inquiry but it has taken three years to get here. The Taoiseach spoke about the 2011 constitutional referendum on Oireachtas inquiries, which we supported, but which was rejected by the people, as is their democratic right. However, quite some time has elapsed since the referendum. I was convinced the reason we were not having an inquiry was because of the Anglo trial and other trials involving that bank that are yet to commence. In fact, I was quite surprised this motion was tabled this week, given the fact there is an impending trial involving Anglo Irish Bank over the next several weeks. Hopefully, those with responsibility for bringing wrongdoers to account will be supported in their efforts. We never know; there may be other trials. One concern for committee members is that the efforts of the inquiry could be halted or frustrated as a result of other developments in the courts.

The investigation and inquiry that we are about to commence can be no substitute to criminal investigations into those who may be guilty of wrongdoing in the lead-up to the banking crisis or even its aftermath. It will not be any substitute to meaningful convictions of those who have been found guilty of misconduct. A banking inquiry conducted by Parliament will always be limited. The public will be frustrated by those limitations, however. Today, I was asked how some of the senior bankers involved are seldom convicted and, even when they are, lenient sentences are handed down. Not to be political, an analogy made to me was the recent incident involving a Labour local election candidate and a woman annoyed with all politicians who ripped up the candidate’s election literature in front of him on her own doorstep. The following day the litter warden was on her doorstep with a fine for €150. Much of the frustration out there is that there seems to be one rule for a certain cohort but another for others. It is important we actually deal with those expectations from the very start and ensure people realise no one will be convicted as a result of an inquiry and that it is limited in its scope.

The terms of the inquiry will be crucial. Deputy Martin has addressed the whole issue of confined terms of reference for the banking inquiry. Everyone comes to this committee with their own opinion, background and experience. I do not want to see the terms of the inquiry expanded so much that we actually do not get down to business. There are also issues, however, such as the fact the banking guarantee expired in 2010 but was renewed by this Government. This Government also gave a large injection of capital into the banks, as well as making the first promissory note payment. There are issues the committee will have to deal with itself. I welcome the fact the terms of reference will be left up to the committee because this is a serious issue affecting so many of our citizens that we need to get this right.

My party will support the nomination of Deputy Mathews to the committee of inquiry. If the Government actually engaged with us at the start about the number of members, we would not have this amendment to the motion. I will also support his motion that calls for the bankers to be compelled to come before the inquiry and account for their practices. Who would not? With respect to the Deputies who put their names to this motion, however, it is playing politics with an issue that is too serious. The committee should be allowed to define its own terms of reference. If this is the only term of reference that we are going to agree here tonight, then it just makes a mockery of the inquiry from the start. On the matter of compelling the banks to attend the committee, I will support such a move at the committee. Accordingly, I and my party will support this motion here this evening.

It is important the issue of bias is dealt with. There has been a major discussion about this in the media. There has also been discussion, provoked by elements in political circles, that certain Members would not be fit or proper to serve on the banking inquiry. My own name has been mentioned. I am glad I was nominated by my party to represent it on this inquiry. However, it has been five years and nine months since the banking crisis began. In that time, we have lost economic sovereignty, had an early and bitter general election in which we saw the then Government parties, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, virtually decimated from the standing they had until then, and the Taoiseach’s party swept into power on the basis of bank reform and accountability. Who has not made a comment on bankers? I recognise the issue of bias must be dealt with. However, it cannot be so tight as to prevent the majority of Members taking part in the inquiry. It does allow for any citizen, any banker or any regulator to challenge a member of this inquiry on bias. There may be people from past government parties who may believe there is nothing bad to say about bankers. There are many others, however, who genuinely believe that some of the actions of those in authority and financial institutions were reckless.

There is also an irony in that the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, who brought forward this motion, was the most outspoken in this Chamber on bankers. In a debate on 13 October 2009, he called a certain banker “a gangster”. Later he said he would not withdraw it because he believed in his heart and soul that is what the banker was and then went on to name another banker. Looking back at the Official Report on 13 October 2009, not one Member, including whoever was in the Chair at the time, actually raised an issue about the Minister of State, an Opposition Deputy at the time,-----

See this speech in context