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

It seems to me that one of the unsatisfactory elements of the inquiry, which did its work in a professional and proper manner, was that after the publication of its report, full disclosure of all the necessary and relevant documents that were furnished to it throughout the process did not take place. I refer to the written submissions that were made to the inquiry team, such as memos from the Department of Finance that were of relevance to the period under examination. As someone who was involved in government in the period in question, I submitted a large number of documents - it was approximately 2 ft. high - to the inquiry. I understand there is dissatisfaction among the members of the inquiry that some of the documents in question were not shared publicly. They should have been, for a variety of reasons.

As I said at the outset, I believe the Department of Finance broadly got the resolution process right. The advice given by departmental officials and others throughout that period deserves to be recorded. My experience during the period in question was that there was remarkable co-operation with the officials in the National Treasury Management Agency, whom I trusted. I should mention, given that we were debating NAMA earlier, that I include Frank Daly and Brendan McDonagh in that. My experience was that they were straight people who could be trusted and that the information they provided turned out to be true. The same can be said of the Attorney General; the advisers to the then Minister, Mr. Lenihan; Mr. Ahern; the officials in the Department; the officials in the National Treasury Management Agency, including Mr. Corrigan; Mr. Elderfield; and Mr. Honohan. In my mind and in my experience, we were well served at the height of the crisis. The members of the team surrounding the Minister for Finance at the time were as capable as any of the people we had. They worked in a very collaborative way. I do not see why some of the material and the information about that time should not in some way be presented to or put before the House. We have to be careful and get legal advice about possible challenges or possible untoward uses of this documentation.

In general, I believe the more open disclosure we have, the more lessons we will learn and the more we will improve our operations. I put it to the Members of the House that they need to consider how we can share and present information in a way that makes sure it is not hidden or merely archived. Perhaps the banking inquiry material is not going to be archived. I am not too sure what the process is for archiving material from the inquiry. There is material from which important lessons could still be learned. I do not want to reincarnate the banking inquiry or anything like that. I suggest it makes sense for it to be on the record for historical purposes. I will end my contribution on that note. We will support the Bill. I look forward to any other contributions that people may have to make.

See this speech in context