Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I find myself in something of a dilemma in the face of this Standing Order. There is not much point in opposing it, but I could hardly be enthusiastic in supporting it. Essentially, this change relates to the veil of secrecy that legally supports the golden circle in this country. If the public is to see any value whatsoever in the banking inquiry, I suggest it relates to the question of discovering who was responsible for bankrupting this country and inflicting such misery on millions of our citizens over the past seven years. Indeed, the consequences of what this golden circle of bankers, developers and politicians did to this country are likely to continue for many years to come.

The law set down by the EU in terms of central banks and confidentiality requires that for the banking inquiry, which is supposed to be acting on behalf of the public, to look into these matters, the members of the inquiry have to give an undertaking that none of the confidential information from the Central Bank that they will look at will be revealed to the public. That is why we have a public inquiry that cannot reveal to the public the details of what it is looking at. In such circumstances, what is the point of the public inquiry at all? I suppose it is marginally better that, as a result of this motion, the secret circle around the golden circle is expanded to include some public representatives. For those public representatives to access confidential information and evidence that might help them to draw serious conclusions about who was responsible for the banking crisis, they will have to give an undertaking not to pass this information on to the public. It is really pretty scandalous.

As I said when we discussed this matter last week, I can see the logic that underpins the rules of the European Central Bank or our own Central Bank to the effect that information on normal deposit holders and normal borrowers should not be divulged to the wider public. There is good reason to keep that information confidential and private. It seems to me that there is absolutely no justification for withholding the names of the 20 or so biggest borrowers from Anglo Irish Bank, the tiny golden circle of people who were borrowing from Irish Nationwide or any of the other small groups of super-wealthy and well-connected developers who borrowed enormous sums of money from the banks to speculate in the property area and consequently crashed the economy.

Why should their identities and the extent of their loans and involvement in destroying our economy be confidential? They should not be. Why should public representatives who get to see that information be bound by confidentiality clauses under threat of sanction from the Dáil? The only comfort I can take is that the sanctions are pathetic, which makes it likely that the information will be leaked and make a mockery of the entire process. Getting flung out of the Dáil for eight days could hardly be described as the worst punishment one could inflict. One could argue the case that it might allow public representatives time to do something useful, for example, organising the next demonstration against water charges and austerity, which might have a serious impact on addressing the wrongs arising out of the banking crisis and the austerity that has ensued.

I will not vote against the motion because it is marginally better that the inquiry have access to this information, but why the secrets and key individuals, developers and culprits behind the crisis should be protected by a veil of confidentiality is beyond me. It says everything about how the golden circle persists.

See this speech in context