Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have no objection in principle to a banking inquiry to find out what happened during the critical period which this inquiry is examining as this could be very necessary and very useful in preventing it happening again. However, I have some serious reservations about this inquiry, its composition and its terms of reference. There are serious credibility difficulties attached to politicians investigating politicians. We have seen this in this House before on various issues where serious mistakes have been made, and I would hate to see it done again. I see nothing wrong with politicians carrying out inquiries into matters about which they can be objective, but the idea that politicians in this House, myself included, can go into an inquiry and suddenly throw away their political feelings and motivations and the fact that they are politically compromised when they go into this Chamber beggars belief and asks too much of those whose careers depend upon political patronage and favour and being members of a political team. I do not believe that this inquiry will fulfil that particular objective.

Bankers, auditors and, hopefully, nearly all the players in this sphere will appear, but there will be a completely different dynamic to this inquiry when the theatre opens and former members of the regime which sat at the time of the banking guarantee appear. It would be beyond human endurance or belief to expect members of the Government parties to appear in this inquiry and be soft, fair or objective towards the Fianna Fáil or Green Party players who were part of that scene.

Equally, it would be very unfair or perhaps unrealistic rather than unfair to expect the Independent Members not to score political points in this inquiry. We all know that is what will happen because it will be very difficult for them to resist and I suggest they will not. It is a pity the composition of this inquiry consists of politicians whose careers very much depend upon the fact that, at the very least, they should excel and their opponents should not excel in public performances.

The inquiry is flawed in that way and it is a pity that it will have a Government majority in its membership. With all due respect to the Chairman of the inquiry, who is in the Chamber, it would have been better if the Chairman was not a member of one of the governing parties. I have great respect for Deputy Ciarán Lynch and for everything he does but it would be better if it were not a member of the governing parties or any politician who would be presiding over this inquiry. He will be seen so often, whether he likes it or not, as wearing his Government hat and this committee will be seen as a Government-dominated committee, regardless of whether the Whip is officially used or not. That is the perception and I am afraid it is also the reality.

It has taken a very long time for this inquiry to be set up as more than six years have passed. As everybody knows, memories are dimming all the time and many will plead they do not remember what happened, and with justification. The credibility of this inquiry also suffers as a result.

It would be helpful, and it has some helpful roles to play, if instead of demonising the Government and the players of the past, this were to be left to another theatre and to other people. We looked at the present and asked if the situation had been cured, whether we have learned any lessons so far six years later. It seems to me that we do not need an inquiry to decide that little riddle.

I refer to the boards of the banks and it seems to me to be quite extraordinary that one of the solutions produced for the problems of 2008, especially the night of the guarantee and afterwards, was the role of public interest directors. I pay tribute to and lament the death of Joe Walsh who was a public interest director. Public interest directors are still sitting on the boards of banks, drawing very high salaries and are neither answerable nor accountable to anyone. They do not have meetings with the Minister for Finance, they are not subject to re-election and they are doing God knows what.

See this speech in context