Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I apologise in advance as I will be unable to wait for the full debate because of a previous commitment. Fianna Fáil will support the Bill, which is necessary for the orderly and speedy completion of the Oireachtas banking inquiry. It is important that the inquiry would have access to as much information as possible for its deliberations, and the risks that certain material pertaining to the Central Bank could have been excluded from the inquiry was identified by the committee itself as a potential significant limit on its work.

As the Minister has indicated, the Bill is largely technical in nature and the gateway that opens the limits is strictly in the provision of information for the purposes of the inquiry. My party officials thank officials from the Department of Finance who provided a briefing on the Bill yesterday, which helped clarify a number of implications of the Bill.

Again, we would like to acknowledge that the impetus for this Bill came from the banking inquiry committee and it is correct that this House would fully endorse the work under way.

The debate raises the wider question of the manner in which our Central Bank and the European Central Bank would account for the stewardship of the financial services sector in general. Unlike in other businesses, bank traders have, as we know, inflicted widespread economic damage on our country and on other countries. This explains, if it needs to be explained, why we need robust licensing and regulation. However, robust licensing and regulation have clearly failed and it is time the consequences of, and the reasons for, that are examined here, in the EU and, in particular, in the eurozone.

While the provision of documentation to the banking inquiry is one issue, more significant is the oral evidence that will be provided by those officials who are still in office or who were in office during the time of this regulation failure. Their oral evidence and their willingness to be challenged on that evidence will provide some of the crucial information we need for this inquiry to get to the source of this. As the Minister of State said, previous reports have indicated that there were serious failures in regulation and supervision. However, it is noteworthy in that context that the 2007 general election was not dominated by calls for more banking regulation. There were no major policy debates or statements about banking regulation during that campaign. The inquiry needs to be in a position to give the unvarnished account of the history of regulation and of why regulation changed so much during the early part of the past decade and why it then failed the citizens of this country so spectacularly.

It is important also that the committee examines the extent to which the Central Bank used the powers available to it, both soft and hard powers, and why the Central Bank's and the regulator's actions were insufficient to prevent the crisis from developing. We all wish the committee well in its endeavours and we want to ensure this legislation is signed into law as soon as possible in order that the inquiry team can use its provisions.

Co-operation with the Central Bank is one thing, and the Minister of State laid out the significant investment on the part of his Department in terms of staff and personnel. However, the issue of ECB participation in the inquiry is still unresolved. Its refusal to participate fully and to respect the democratic mandate of this House is an affront to this Parliament and to those of us who serve as representatives of the people. The terms of reference of the banking inquiry specifically provide for an examination of the role of the ECB and, therefore, I cannot understand why we still have not resolved the full extent of its participation or why it does not seem to appreciate its need to be here to answer questions from elected parliamentarians of a national parliament on its dereliction of duty. Its argument is that it is only responsible to the European Parliament. However, in this case and on its watch, significant and horrific damage was caused to the people of this country and it needs to account for its role in that.

The notion that former ECB President, Mr. Trichet, would agree to a meeting with a representative group of MEPs is a completely inadequate response. Our MEPs are an important part of the Parliament but we have established an inquiry team and have put significant resources into the banking inquiry, and Mr. Trichet should deal directly with the directly elected members of that inquiry team.

As a party, we do not agree there is a legal prohibition on Jean-Claude Trichet or on any current or former ECB officials appearing before our banking inquiry. It is imperative that all members of the inquiry have a full opportunity to examine all of the key issues, and that includes direct questions and direct interactions with Mr. Trichet and any officials who were or are still involved.

Members of the inquiry can only consider evidence presented to them directly when they come to writing the report. Therefore, information put through third parties or intermediaries, whether MEPs or otherwise, is devalued. Its admissibility as evidence and the ability to test the evidence, which is essential for any inquiry, would also clearly be flawed. The notion that Mr. Trichet or any official of the ECB, including President Draghi, would appear before a representative group of MEPs is basically a smokescreen. The Government should not accept it and should demand that the ECB respond directly to the directly elected Members of the Oireachtas who, in turn, must respond to the people who are suffering the consequences of banking collapse.

The notion that the efforts of two successive Governments in 2010 and 2011 to impose losses on senior bondholders were rebuffed by the ECB is well accepted. The insistence of the ECB that all bondholders be repaid in full has cost this State many billions of euro. At the end of the original bank guarantee in September 2010, a total of €20 billion of unsecured senior bank bonds came out of guarantee, including almost €5 billion in respect of the former Anglo Irish Bank and the Irish Nationwide Building Society. They were repaid in full because the ECB demanded that and now it wishes to avoid being held responsible for the reasons it inflicted that loss on the people.

I welcome the measures in this Bill but this inquiry will not have the strength to get to where it needs to get while there continues to be dodging on the part of the ECB. I ask again that the Government flex its muscles and rather than accept half-participation, which will be flawed and where the evidence would surely be contested, that it stands up for this inquiry into which it has put so much and demand that the ECB appears in Leinster House before people directly elected in this State. If we are to have a good inquiry and if, as we all agree, we are to learn the lessons, then nobody can avoid their responsibility.

I refer to the issue of professional secrecy. Will the Minister of State clarify that there is nothing in that amendment that would block anybody from actually being called before the inquiry and that there is nothing in that clause which would allow former staff of the Central Bank and former ECB people to escape from appearing before the inquiry and that they will be allowed under this Bill to answer for all of their actions as officeholders in any of these institutions? Will he clarify whether there is anything, inadvertently or otherwise, contained within the provisions of the amendment that will be used to avoid answering for specific actions which may, in the view of the inquiry, have contributed to the banking issue? I would appreciate those clarifications.

See this speech in context