Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It is important for us to consider how we investigate issues of public importance in the State. We have been getting our investigation process completely wrong in the past ten or 15 years. I refer to the requirement to set aside the vast majority of the Mahon tribunal's findings which emerged from an incredibly extensive and expensive investigation because of the way certain evidence was used or not properly used. The Supreme Court has judged that the approach to the rules of evidence was not properly followed. There is a lesson for us in that regard. It seems from the outside that a number of years on from the Moriarty tribunal which was of considerable significance because it involved large sums of money and the allocation of contracts within the State, the findings reached by the tribunal have had no real consequences. To my mind, that process did not work. Questions have been asked by people who had dealings with the tribunal and believe the actual process undertaken by it was far from satisfactory.

While we recognise the establishment of new mechanisms known as commissions of investigation, we suggest the evidence that has come before us in recent months require us to ask real questions about how the process is working. The Cregan commission was set up on foot of calls for a commission of investigation to be established to look at the sale of IBRC assets, including Siteserv. My party which was outside the Dáil at the time stated: "No, this is not working." We argued that we should be doing this ourselves by getting an Oireachtas committee to investigate the issue. We made the point that running for a High Court judge to try to set up a commission of investigation should not be the first thing we do whenever complex or difficult issues arose. I am now even more convinced of the real difficulties with commissions of investigation in the light of how the process recently treated Sergeant Maurice McCabe. I understand from everything I have heard at a distance - I am not intrinsically involved - that the adversarial approach taken in this investigation was deeply unsatisfactory for the participants. The commission delivered in the sense of providing a finding. It ultimately produced a report which vindicated Sergeant McCabe. Real questions need to be asked about the use of such commissions or these mechanisms in general.

I am a member of the Committee on Procedure. The first thing we have on our agenda is our own form of investigation. There are real questions about the Committee of Public Accounts. I will not go into the details because they are so bloody sensitive that they could affect our entire ability to do our work. I have cited various cases to make the point that I do not see a compelling case for us to be using any commission of inquiry at this time. I do not believe we have got it right in how we do it if we are to do it. No one is disputing that significant issues of consequence arise about the sale of the loan asset book in the North of Ireland. No one is doubting that issues such as the manner in which money was salted away to the Isle of Man and the undue influence of some people involved in the process are of concern to everyone. Given that the circumstances which are the cornerstone of the key issue are at the centre of a criminal investigation governed by rules of evidence, I do not believe we should do anything that would interfere with, undermine, confuse or get in the way of the real accountability associated with criminal proceedings which lead to consequences. I suggest this is a particularly valid point in the absence of a process that works effectively. Why would we jump into yet another commission process when we have not even worked out from the recent processes how we should manage these commissions?

I would like to move on to those instances where we do have jurisdiction and where there are issues to be examined about NAMA's actions in the South. This is separate from the immediate issues relating to the financial transactions that took place in the North and the various actors involved there. Consideration needs to be given to how NAMA has worked and delivered on the objectives set out for it. It seems that this is primarily a subject for political discussion or investigation. That would be very healthy and valid. The more openness with which we have a really good internal inquiry in this area the better. However, it is much better suited to political investigation within the Committee of Public Accounts. If we are going to get commissions of inquiry right or our capability to inquire right, we have to start here in the Oireachtas, for example, in the Committee of Public Accounts, by learning lessons from what has happened in recent years when we seemingly got this wrong. I ask why we would not be prepared to set ourselves to the real task of having full transparency, full access to information and full accountability through the Committee of Public Accounts. That committee should be able to do what it says on the tin. That is my primary response to this legislation.

I welcome the work Deputy Mick Wallace has done to expose various aspects of this issue. I respond to it by suggesting we should be allowed to investigate in the Oireachtas. That would be cheaper and give us greater control. It would not interfere with any criminal investigation. We would not run into any difficulty if something similar to the criminal investigation in the North were to be undertaken here. The approach I am advocating would empower this House, something we have to do.

See this speech in context