Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will be sharing time with Deputies Robert Troy and Mary Butler.

Every week, probably even today, repossession courts are sitting across Ireland to hear cases brought by banks and organisations such as vulture funds who have bought loan books. As a result, people are being thrown out of their houses. I have attended such hearings, as have many other Members in their role as constituency representatives, to observe and support people in the process. It is always a case of a big bank or business against a small person. This trial turned that concept on its head. It was a case of the State taking on a big person. In one respect, it was intended to give the perception that no one, no matter how big they are, can get away with breaking the law. If a small man is prosecuted, the prosecution is inevitably successful. The collapse of this trial is so shocking on many levels that people are disgusted that the State has shown a lack of capacity in terms of how to bring a successful prosecution. The comments of the presiding judge in regard to statement contamination, witness coaching, the shredding of documents, and the presumption of guilt rather than innocence have been widely reported in recent days. These are fundamental issues in bringing criminal prosecutions. However, this case was approached in a botched manner. This serious and grave issue needs to be sorted out and there needs to be a proper follow-through, which is the most important issue.

The State's approach to prosecuting white collar crime needs to be considered. Prosecutions can involve many organisations, such as the Garda Síochána, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Revenue Commissioners, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Health and Safety Authority and, potentially, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Local Government Audit Service. These are some of the many agencies charged with trying to bring white collar crime to heel. There is a scattergun approach to doing so, with no co-ordination or focus. The result is evidenced by the FitzPatrick trial and the fallout therefrom. A proper debate on co-ordinating the State's approach to tackling white collar crime is needed. If it is necessary to bring in a serious fraud squad or serious crime agency similar to those that exist in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions, then the State should take that step.

We must be mindful of the damage done to Ireland's reputation by this trial. Ireland's reputation was discussed in the context of a debate in the House regarding the Apple tax judgment. Many commentators from outside of Ireland referred to it as the wild west in terms of playing fast and loose on tax policy. For outsiders to see the collapse of a trial of such importance in the context of the calamity of the banking crisis and Anglo Irish Bank in particular is hugely disturbing. When one adds what has happened in this trial to the perception that the Garda Síochána have created for itself as a result of financial irregularities at the Garda College in Templemore, the credibility of the Garda is in tatters. I say that with much regret. That issue has been debated in the House on many occasions. The credibility of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement is also now in tatters. We have to pull together to mend this damage.

Serious questions need to be asked of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is an independent office, as are many of the agencies of the State. Unfortunately, its independence shrouds a lack of accountability in terms of the organisations' output. Why was this case once again sent for trial following the collapse of the first trial in view of the many misgivings such as critical documents having been shredded? More details in this regard will emerge in the coming weeks. More accountability is needed, as is more questioning of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The total cost of this saga needs to be revealed when the Minister has that information. We know the cost of it to ordinary people who are struggling to keep their homes or on whom banks are foreclosing. Those people are carrying the cost. The State is now being asked to pick up the cost of this trial on the double, in particular through the free legal aid scheme. It is of huge concern that the criminal side of the free legal aid budget is being drained, which is impacting on the provision of civil free legal aid. An ordinary person such as a woman who has been battered by her husband or is estranged or is trying to recover a maintenance payment and needs to avail of free legal aid for that civil matter cannot be helped because the free legal aid budget is being drained by cases such as the FitzPatrick prosecution. The expansion of the terms of reference of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland to allow it to examine the functioning of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement needs to be considered.

The issue of resources needs to be addressed. During Fine Gael's time in this Government and the previous, staff numbers in the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement fell from 43 in 2010 to 35 in 2016. The Minister has alluded to a recent increase in its staffing level.

Clear legislation is needed for accountancy bodies in terms of conflicts of interest. The same lawyers were advising Ernst & Young on several cases, including the FitzPatrick trial, a case taken against Ernst & Young by the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, and in terms of Ernst & Young's own regulatory environment. The area of conflicts of interest of professional organisations and the belief that Chinese walls exist or are good enough need to be further fleshed out.

I trained as an accountant in Ernst and Young in Limerick when I left college over 20 years ago. I am putting it on the record that I had no involvement in auditing any financial institutions. We dealt with small businesses and manufacturing. Separation and conflicts of interest should be key issues, and Ernst and Young have questions to answer here.

See this speech in context