Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I see every reason why the Irish people should find out what happened to the banks, and what is happening to the banks currently, and that the veil of secrecy which surrounds those events which have been outlined to us by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade should be lifted. Indeed, it is essential that those who wish to know about it should find out about it and that there should be transparency introduced to those decisions, how they were made and why they were made because of the danger of these mistakes happening again. We should know what happened. However, I am doubtful about the way that this inquiry has been set up, not only the timing in that it has taken so long in that it is nearly six years after the guarantee but about the capacity of this House and its Members to make a judgment on an event in which they are so pivotally involved and interested.

The main controversy surrounding this inquiry has been the issue of bias. I may be the only Member of this House who immediately eliminated himself from this inquiry, not because I would not have been on it anyway but because I felt, having written a book about bankers which was pejorative in the extreme, I was not objective. The book was condemnatory. It revealed matters which I did not know when I started to write it. It gave me a certain view of bankers and the banking sector which was undoubtedly biased. Let me say here now, I am biased against bankers. I have an in-built, but learnt, bias against bankers. I believe the way that the bankers behaved at that time and continue to behave now is indefensible and I believe that I am unsuited because of that bias to be the judge or jury, or to ask questions, at an inquiry of this sort because I would be coming from a certain position of hostility. That may be a somewhat extreme case, but it is there and it is documented.

What I worry about in this area is that virtually everybody in this and the other House comes into that category to a greater or lesser extent, not to such an extent as I do. I am aware, because I have done some work on it, that virtually everybody who knows anything about this subject who has written or spoken about it in this House has come from a certain position and has reached conclusions, none of which could be described objectively as balanced. I happen to think they are right, but they are not unbiased. The conclusions to which they have come follow reading a great deal about the biggest controversy to have been inflicted upon the Irish people, maybe in the history of the State. They are biased in the sense that they are anti-banker, and God bless them that they are so. That is what politicians are paid to do - to take positions on situations of that sort. They would not be able to leave their policies or the political parties, and park them, when they go into a committee of that sort. With the best will in the world, nobody in this House ever behaves like that. They may be able to disguise them for a certain amount of time, they may try hard to be impartial, but they are politicians. We all have opinions and we do not park them when we embark upon a given course of action. We still have those opinions and we come from those positions.

I suggest the decision to allow politicians to take this inquiry immediately gives those who want to discredit it ammunition and also gives bankers who will be asked hard questions a great excuse for taking them to court and for saying that there is bias, because there is bias. I want to see an inquiry with credibility, not an inquiry where those members of it will be the focus of the attention of many of those who will be the witnesses immediately questioning begins.

In such circumstances, the issues would be disguised and camouflaged. The deplorable decision to provide for a Government majority on the committee will mean the banking inquiry will be controlled by the Government. It will be politically controlled. The terms of reference will be set by politicians with an obvious and plain agenda. Although I have great respect for the Deputy who will serve as chairman of the committee, I do not think a Government representative should have been chosen. This body will be politically controlled by the coalition. When controversies arise over the terms of reference, as they undoubtedly will, the Government will decide what happens - what is allowed and what is not. The first indication of this is already with us, in the form of the decision not to extend the committee's terms of reference to the present day.

The focus of the Tánaiste's speech was on the night of the bank guarantee, which was a night of great shame for the Government of the day. I have just read his speech, which suggests "we need to know which Ministers were involved". Although he is right - we will want to find that out - it ill becomes him to focus on that when introducing this motion. It looks like the Labour Party intends to use this inquiry to nobble Fianna Fáil. I have no time for Fianna Fáil or the Opposition and I never have done, but I see this as an unashamed attempt to put a particular party in the dock for political reasons. I expect the timetable for this inquiry to be structured to ensure that party's most high-profile people are put in the dock in the run-up to a general election. Decisions on when witnesses do and do not appear will be made by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. That is what is going to happen and that will discredit this inquiry. I deeply regret the fact that the Government, in establishing this inquiry and accepting that politicians will participate in it, did not allow people who are seen to be politically impartial to take precedence. Rather than politicians taking all the seats on the inquiry, I would like citizens to be selected to serve on this inquiry on the basis of a jury as was done in the case of the Constitutional Convention.

See this speech in context