Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I begin by concurring with the Tánaiste on just one aspect of what she had to say, that is, to extend all our thanks to those members of the committee of all parties and none who spent very considerable time holding the public hearings and sifting through the mountains of documents to produce this report. I do not know if it will benefit them electorally but I believe it was a job well done and that it will benefit future generations of politicians, bankers, regulators and the public alike.

The inquiry report provides a balanced account of the complex facts of the financial collapse. It might not suit the Tánaiste's agenda or the agenda of the Government generally to suggest that there were complex facts which led to the collapse, and subsequent recovery. The report identified failures in banks, regulators, Government, politicians, and at a European level. That was across all political parties, whether in government or in opposition. I know the burden of responsibility must rest on the shoulders of those who were in power at the time, and that has been accepted by all concerned, but where the general thrust of debate and financial thinking was shared across the floor it would be of benefit to everybody if the Tánaiste had the good grace to issue an apology, on behalf of her party, for the approach her party took and the kind of policies she and her party wanted pursued rather than demanding a repeat of an apology made in a heartfelt and clear way by the leader of my party.

People have been able to watch the hearings and they will make up their own minds about what happened during the period, and who is to blame. That was not something the committee had the powers to do, but the members of the public are well able to make their own decisions on that. The boards and senior executives of banks must bear primary responsibility for the banking crisis, but the regulators should also have intervened, notwithstanding that the Tánaiste used emotive language similar to "on the watch of the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government." Had the Government sought to interfere in the independence of the regulatory regime, she would have had something else to say about that, but she chooses to ignore the fundamental principles of the separation between independent regulators in government when it best fits a political agenda on the eve of an election.

The inquiry found that the Government ensured that the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank both had sufficient powers to intervene in the banking sector to protect the financial stability of the State, but neither intervened decisively when required. I am taken by the comments of my colleague on the inquiry, Deputy Michael McGrath, when he said that in many cases issues had been identified and paperwork generated but, very quickly, the trail ran cold. There was no execution of appropriate penalties or implementation of sanctions.

The Financial Regulator put in place sectoral lending limits to stop any bank becoming too exposed to the property sector, but when these rules were breached, the regulator did nothing. In some cases, the response to a bank breaking its property sectoral lending limit was for the regulator to just increase the limit. That speaks volumes in terms of the light touch approach taken to regulation.

The inquiry was reminded that ten out of 11 budgets before the crisis period were in surplus, but all politicians failed to look behind those fiscal surpluses to the underlying structure of the budget. With the benefit of hindsight we can now see that permanent spending commitments were being made on the back of taxes from the property sector that proved to be unsustainable.

The Tánaiste fails to recognise that as an Opposition politician and, if my recollection serves me right, the Labour Party spokesperson on finance for a period at the time, she does not believe that her approach and that put forward by the Labour Party played any role in the crisis that developed. That is fine, but I remind her again before she seeks a repetition of an apology that was made to consider apologising on the eve of the election for the mistruths that were proffered in advance of the last election where commitments were made by the Labour Party - I would have thought on her behalf as spokesperson on finance - by the then Labour leader when he said that it would be Labour's way, not Frankfurt's way when it came to dealing with such important matters as the burning of bondholders. It is very clear that this Government, of which the Tánaiste plays an integral role, failed absolutely in burning any bondholders, particularly within the senior ranks, over and above what had already been set out prior to her coming to office. The indication was that if Labour was part of the Government, an entirely different approach would have been taken to dealing with Frankfurt or the ECB. The truth is that there was no difference in the approach, and perhaps an apology for that would be appropriate at this stage.

While she is considering an apology for that particular commitment, it might also be worthwhile apologising for the commitments that were made to the Irish people.

She said no water charges would be introduced by a Government of which the Labour Party would be part, and that no cuts would be made to social welfare, child benefit or maternity benefit, but very quickly these emerged. Despite the commitments she made prior to entering Government, many of the cuts were delivered by her at the Department of Social Protection. Before demanding the repeat of an apology I stated was given in a clear, concise and heartfelt way, the Tánaiste would be very wise to consider her confession, even this late stage, before she faces the electorate. I will await, I am sure with bated breath, her position on this.

See this speech in context