Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Is maith an rud é deis a fháil labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo atá os ár gcomhair. I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about the important report before us. It is a very substantial piece of work, 455 pages long, and is the culmination of 49 days of public hearings and 128 interviews. I hope nobody is suggesting that a debate of two and a half hours is sufficient for such a substantial volume on such an important issue. It would be to undervalue and underestimate the work that has been undertaken. I hope that as soon as the 32nd Dáil convenes, the work of the banking inquiry becomes an important first part of the agenda to be considered both by the House in plenary session and by the finance committee and the Committee of Public Accounts, if they are the two most appropriate committees to examine the work.

I thank all of the committee members for the work they did. I saw this at first hand in respect of my colleagues Deputy Michael McGrath and Senator Marc MacSharry. They devoted themselves selflessly to the inquiry. Given where it came in the electoral cycle, their dedication may have electoral consequences for them. That is also true of people from all political parties and none who participated in the process.

I have particular admiration for the Government members of the inquiry team. What they did has brought some credit on the body politic, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the ability of the Dáil and Seanad to conduct an inquiry. They did not do what their political puppet masters set them to do. They did not avail of the carefully orchestrated timing of the inquiry geared and intended to cause the maximum political damage in the run up to a general election. This was very much at variance with what we heard earlier from the Tánaiste, who was incredibly partisan in her contribution. Rather, they set about the job in the national interest, setting aside party political considerations.

I think they are to be commended for the maturity and statesmanship they demonstrated in the job they did.

People have questioned the value of the work that was done. We have spoken about the culpability of the banks and the poor level of regulation that existed. This report explicitly sets out that the regulatory system we had in this State was not working. We knew it was completely ineffectual, but now it is clearly set out before us. The regulator was not functioning as it needed to function and the Central Bank was not acting as a central bank is required to act. We have conclusive evidence that there were appallingly bad practices in our banks. I suppose it is implicit in that that responsibility must be accepted in some instances by the executives of those banks. Indeed, direct responsibility rests with the directors of those banks, who may not have shouldered the level of responsibility that they could have done.

Deputy Donnelly is absolutely correct when he seeks to identify the third area of culpability. He has done the process some considerable service by highlighting the role of the European Central Bank, particularly the role of Mr. Trichet. He is quite right to raise questions not only about the manner in which the involvement of the ECB and the actions of Mr. Trichet were carried out and conducted, but also about the manner in which this situation was reported to this House by the Minister for Finance in the earlier part of this Government's term in office. At any time, a Minister would be required to tell this House the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but I suggest it is a particular requirement that the unambiguous truth be put before us at a time of national crisis, such as that from which we are currently emerging.

I would like to make a point about political culpability. Undoubtedly, that is recognised and accepted within the report. My party leader, Deputy Martin, has accepted responsibility because my party was in government when the crash happened. The policies pursued by my party in government contributed to some extent to the problem and to the crisis, but so too did the policies that were being advocated by Opposition parties. In the run-up to the 2007 general election, Fine Gael and the Labour Party campaigned vigorously for less tax to be collected and more public money to be spent. The inevitable consequence and conclusion is that if they had assumed power in 2007, the crisis would still have happened but the situation would have been even worse. I am not saying that to try to make a political point - I am saying it to illustrate the extent to which there was groupthink across the political spectrum. This was supported in many instances by outside interests, including people in the media, supposed experts on economics and finance and people in the banking sector. If we are to learn anything from what has happened to us since 2008, it must be that the role of the contrarian is an important one. When a contrary view is advanced and argued for, that view must be listened to and evaluated. It must not be cast aside on the basis that the person expressing it needs to go off and take a running jump. We need to listen to the voices of reason, even in circumstances in which that voice seems to represent a small minority point of view. We did not do that in Fianna Fáil, but Fine Gael and the Labour Party did not do it either.

That brings me to where we are currently. What have we learned from the mistakes of the past? As we head into the general election campaign, the auction has started, the parties in government are promising to reduce the taxation base substantially and the Taoiseach has said he wants an American-style taxation system. Good God knows one cannot erode or narrow the taxation base without creating a situation in which the State achieves less income and is therefore less able to provide the essential services needed by the people of this country. It seems to me that even though an incredible number of people in this country have suffered enormously - we would all wish to see the return of the many thousands of people who have been driven out as a result of the recession - we have reached a juncture at which it is clear that many of the political parties have learned very little indeed. Various commitments were made at the time of the 2011 general election, which was supposed to mark a watershed in the political history of this country on the basis that we were going to do politics differently, we would have a new beginning and we would empower the people, but I suggest we are back to where we were before. It is a case of the old ways again. The cycle has started again.

I could go on. I think we all could, but there is not enough time. I will conclude by saying it is vitally important for the subject matter of this report to be prioritised by the new Government, regardless of its composition. These issues need to be discussed here in plenary session and taken into the committees. The recommendations of the banking inquiry committee need to be considered seriously and acted on.

See this speech in context