Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe. I am glad that the position regarding the two CPPs has been clarified. Should the Oireachtas, in its wisdom, decide that this House and its Members should have a role to play in respect of this matter, then I would welcome that.

I appreciate what Senator Byrne, who is a person with legal training, said. The Senator always places his experience in the legal field at the disposal of the House. I asked some friends with experience in legal matters to comment on the new Standing Orders and they indicated that they set a very high standard. For example, they stated that the standard is higher than that relating to members of the Judiciary being obliged to recuse themselves from cases, people on the boards of companies who might be obliged to absent themselves from meetings or university staff being obliged to absent themselves from examination boards if their sons or daughters were sitting particular examinations. The bar has been set extremely high as there would be concerns with regard to how the new system will operate. As the Minister of State indicated, we are learning as we proceed.

The new Standing Order 85A refers to circumstances where a "member is aware of anything in his or her own behalf which might lead to a perception of bias arising". It is suggested that we might consider those with a fair mind and informed perception in this regard because it will be very difficult to find individuals who, as Senator Paul Coghlan indicated, do not have some perception about what happened to the country. People have either spoken or written about this subject and it should be understood that individuals are fair-minded and have an informed perception. The new Standing Order 85C(1)(b) states, "The Committee on Procedure and Privileges shall, as soon as is practicable, consider the submission under paragraph (a), and give the member in question the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee in defence of his or her position, in such form as the Committee sees fit." I propose that in doing so, the CPP should have due regard to the seriousness of any allegation made under paragraph (a).

In the context of the proposed changes to Standing Order 90, subparagraph (f) suggests the insertion of the phrase "as part of its responsibility for overseeing procedure in Committees, consider matters relating to perception of bias in respect of a Part 2 inquiry, for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the Part 2 inquiry as it is being conducted by the inquiry Committee".

This relates to the perception of bias and what we may consider to be fair-minded and informed in that regard. I put the document to some learned legal friends.

We must try to avoid replicating some of the unsatisfactory events that have arisen in respect of the Committee of Public Accounts. It would be better if members chose not to give interviews on matters that are still in progress. That is a matter of general agreement between me and the Minister of State. It is, as Senator Paul Coghlan stated, a most important issue.

Ireland did not have proper procedures in place for the regulation of banks. The regulators were extremely slow to wake up to this and they, too, have a duty to face inquiries. What exactly were those employed by the State to regulate banks doing?

The case of DEPFA, a German bank operating in the IFSC, should be part of the investigation. This was the first event in the banking crisis and one which appears to have cost €100 billion, a much higher sum than the €64 billion we paid for the banking crisis. We did not have an early warning system in place. Germany paid the bills arising from the DEPFA case because it was a foreign bank. The case did not do our reputation any good, however, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has been trying to correct this. The DEPFA case should form part of the general inquiry.