Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is very welcome, as always. I thank my colleagues, Senators Mary White and Deirdre Clune, for their contributions. Senator White pointed out that going to the Circuit Court could result in a saving of 30% on legal costs as compared with proceedings in the High Court. All such savings are very welcome. I echo Senator Clune's comments regarding the reduction in rents on Grafton Street premises. I had the honour of seconding Senator Feargal Quinn's Bill on upward-only rent reviews, which will be coming forward again in due course. As Senator Clune observed, the new examinership process will save jobs. The criteria regarding a turnover of €8.8 million, a balance sheet of €4.4 million and a payroll of 50 employees or fewer are welcome.

Much of the remaining content of the Bill is seeking to deal retrospectively with issues that have arisen in recent years. Indeed, there is a sense of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. In terms of giving additional powers to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, many people might reasonably ask where that office has been for the past five years. In regard to auditing, the Bill proposes to transfer powers from the recognised accountancy bodies to a statutory body, namely, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority. We, as a society, bought several banks on the basis of accounts that were prepared by people who are still walking around. If we are transferring powers from one body to another and the latter has not been particularly active in pursuing the dreaded things we have all had to cope with in this country since 2008 - problems this Government has inherited and in the resolution of which every Senator has tried to assist - then the question arises of whether we have been too mild in putting our faith and confidence in bodies that have done very little to justify that faith and confidence.

There is a serious question mark there. We must ask ourselves why the recognised accountancy bodies failed to identify what was going on among their members. Are the big four accountancy firms beyond rebuke? The State is now taking on the burden of a profession that did not regulate itself. There is a huge moral hazard in that, in the sense that were no consequences for those bodies for their failure to self-regulate. In cases such as that of Enron, or the Paul Coulson case in this country, in which private companies made acquisitions on the basis of accounts that proved not to be a true and accurate reflection of the entity in question, substantial damages were retrieved by the private companies engaging in those purchases. I ask how much the State might be owed in this context. The former Minister, the late Brian Lenihan, and both Houses of the Oireachtas were told of very low levels of losses in the banks, on which basis we acquired them. As we subsequently discovered, the stated losses proved to be only a fraction of what was eventually imposed on the State.

I support the move away from the recognised accountancy bodies because, as I said, they failed to do their job. The fact remains, however, that we are letting them off the hook very lightly indeed. My experience at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform is that when people from that sector present at meetings, they do not accept liability for having failed to do the job with which they were entrusted. In fact, I suspect they would mostly do the same all over again. The Government must be far stricter in not letting the recognised accountancy bodies off the hook. We must ask the IAASA where it was when all of this was going on. Did any alarms sound?

I will support the Bill, with the caveat that we must see certain people pulling up their socks and performing far better than we have seen them do heretofore. That includes the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the recognised accountancy bodies and the IAASA.