Caít Keane (Fine Gael)

Like previous speakers I welcome Dr. Nada Dhaif from Bahrain and his colleagues and the members of the Bahrain Rehabilitation and Anti-Violence Organisation. Senator Crown and others have raised the issue many times in the House. Today is not the first day the issue has been raised and I support Senator O'Brien and what he has done today. I am sure the Leader will respond in the positive.

I seek a debate on auditors. A previous speaker asked us to switch off the sanctimony. I am not switching on sanctimony in asking for a debate on auditors because they happen to be in the news in connection with a certain politician in this House. We are not talking about the elephant in the room but we must debate the role of auditors in examining businesses, banks, individuals and politicians. When the banks' auditors failed us, they were paid €164 million. The auditors to banks do not change often and we have seen where auditors have failed us. They may fail individuals and I would like to know whether the legislation is strong enough in this regard. The advisory group for institutional investors in England has urged a ban on non-audit activity because of the fear it compromises auditors' independence and discourages them regarding the advice they might give an individual and what they may or may not report to the Revenue. I would like clarification on this issue in the House. Is our legislation strong enough to deal with auditors in order that if they spot something in the books of a company, individual or bank, they are obliged to report it? If they do not report it, what are the consequences for them?

In the late 1990s, two individuals working in banks blew the whistle internally but were forced out of their jobs. I accept that the legislation on whistleblowers will address these issues. However, I understand that Revenue investigations are conducted under a code of practice for Revenue auditors which sets out rules and procedures to be followed by officials in dealing with audits.