Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I also wish to be associated with what the Leader and Senator Fitzgerald said in congratulating Senator Mooney on his re-election, welcoming him into the House and wishing him well in his restarted career. I wish him the best of luck in that. I hope he can bring some reform to his party's policies in certain areas and I look forward to that.

I completely agree with the points made by Senator Fitzgerald about the need for a discussion on the banking inquiry. It is not that I completely agree with the Opposition position on this, nor do I completely agree with the Government position. However, if something is being discussed everywhere else except in Seanad Éireann then there is something wrong about our arrangements. That is the crucial issue and it should be discussed here. We should also look at our own consciences. The airwaves are almost polluted now with politicians piously pontificating about everything around them. We can all look around and find fault with businesspeople, builders, bankers and others without looking at our own record, which leaves much to be desired.

In the past couple of weeks I looked back at some of the debates on the crucial issues. The most crucial issue in recent times was the establishment of the Financial Regulator in 2004. It is very interesting to look back on the debates held in this and the other House. Suffice it to say that all parties welcomed the legislation. The only voice raised against the Financial Regulator at that time came from these benches, where Senator Ross pointed out that it was utterly inadequate to deal with the issues that existed. However, at the end of the day it did not go to a vote - we all agreed to it, particularly the two main parties. On Committee Stage, Senator Cummins made a very strong argument that penalties against the banks in particular were far too low - how right he was. However, at the end of the day we voted for it.

The year before that in the establishment of the IASA legislation dealing with company regulation and the question of directors' compliance statements every single group in this House opposed my proposal on compliance statements so much so that the Minister of the day and then Tánaiste had to pull back having come under fierce pressure from Members of all parties and none and soften that provision. I firmly believe that if that directors' compliance statement had been implemented as it was originally drafted it would have led to a very easy conclusion as to what we do with bank directors who act improperly. I do not want to go into detail or mention anybody, but if we had done as we had requested at that stage, there would have been no doubt about it. However, at the end of the day we all voted for that legislation and people on all sides of the House talked about it being burdensome legislation.

I do not want to hear people talking about everyone else making mistakes. As many mistakes were made in these Houses and regulators were given insufficient power at all levels. Those two pieces of legislation were presented by then Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, whose final comment was that it was business-friendly legislation. That is what governed all that legislation. We also need to take some responsibility for what happened. Let us not walk away from our responsibilities here. We need to be very honest and straightforward about it. This is complex. It is not just about businesspeople and bankers. It is also about ourselves, the political classes. We did not give enough authority to regulators and others. Apart from the Members in my own group, the only people who gave me substantial support on the compliance statement were those in the Labour Party. Then Senator McDowell supported it strongly. The idea of a statement from directors of companies that they believed they acted correctly and honestly was considered a bridge too far. That is where we are and we should be absolutely clear that we have a great deal to answer for also.