Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, pursuant to Standing Order 103J, shall consider the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (Seanad Éireann) entitled Relevant Report on the Relevant Proposal for a Banking Inquiry under Standing Orders and the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013, copies of which were laid before Seanad Éireann on 19 November, 2014.

This recommendation has been incorporated in the proposed terms of reference resolution, which appears on today's Order Paper.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges was also concerned to ensure that evidence related to the Central Bank and Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the Financial Regulator, could be taken, not only from managers and advisers but also from more junior staff. The proposed terms of reference resolution now also caters explicitly for this concern.

Members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were conscious that the joint committee was setting itself a challenging task to be completed within a tight timeframe - by 30 November 2015. We were satisfied, however, that the proposed terms of reference are enabling rather than prescriptive and allow the joint committee to tailor the scope of its work to align it with the timeframe. The joint committee drew the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to the fact that the Central Bank Act 1942 prohibits in some cases the disclosure of information by officials of the Central Bank. We have recommended that the 1942 Act be amended to ensure that no such prohibition would prevent the giving of evidence to the inquiry.

On behalf of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I commend the members of the joint committee of inquiry into the banking crisis on the excellent work they have done in putting together their proposal for an inquiry. As Leader of the House, I also thank my colleagues on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, who represent a wide range of opinion and political perspectives, for the careful, constructive and impartial manner in which they approached the evaluation process. I hope Senators will be satisfied that the committee did its best to put in place the type of inquiry that can answer the questions that have required answering for some time. I also thank the staff and legal experts who helped the committee in its work.

By supporting the motion and subsequent motions on the terms of reference and amended orders of reference of the committee, the House can ensure the work of the inquiry can get under way by Christmas. I commend the motion to the House. I also suggest that comments on Nos. 6 and 7 be taken, if members wish, during the course of the debate on this matter.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Leader has outlined the process the Committee on Procedure and Privileges completed. As a member of the committee, I attest to the great deal of detailed discussion and questioning in which we engaged, with the assistance of legal advice and Seanad staff. I thank the staff involved who deserve great credit for all the work they did in producing a detailed proposal, which works in to the terms of reference that must be passed by the Seanad. The Fianna Fáil Party in the House will support the terms of reference.

I raised concerns in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges about the nature of the inquiry. I still believe that enacting the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 would have been a better approach. I also expressed concerns, which were minuted, with regard to the tight timeframe for concluding the joint committee's inquiry by 30 November 2015. Completing all the investigative work, hearings and so forth by this date will be a significant challenge. I am also concerned that the joint committee may select the areas into which it will inquire on the basis that it will not have sufficient time to address 22 separate matters.

To be fair to the Government, I accept that a referendum on the scope of parliamentary inquiries was defeated early in its term of office and this defeat complicated matters somewhat. Nevertheless, the banking inquiry team must make clear that the proposed terms of reference are highly restrictive in nature. I am concerned that the general public will be far from satisfied with what is being proposed in so far as the inquiry will be exceptionally restrictive as to findings of fact and the areas that can be covered. For example, areas in which criminal proceedings and investigations are under way are excluded. This effectively prevents investigation of most aspects of Anglo Irish Bank's role because court cases are pending in this area. Furthermore, Cabinet confidentiality, as provided for in the Constitution, means that Ministers and others who held office at the time of the guarantee will not be able to answer questions, even if they wished to do so. We have indicated to Deputy Ciarán Lynch, the Chairman of the inquiry, that the joint committee must be careful about how these elements are addressed.

The Oireachtas could not produce a perfect solution. I am more than satisfied, however, that, in the time available to us, we debated and asked a series of questions regarding the proposal presented to us. The terms of reference we have produced are the best we could do. I wish the joint committee well in fulfilling what will be an onerous task.

It was good that there were no dissenting voices in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and members worked together as a group. Despite the misgivings some of us had about various matters, the committee was able to reach an agreement. Senator Cummins referred to a specific amendment proposed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges regarding the role played by membership of the euro and the relative strength of sterling. This is an important issue.

I outlined some of my concerns to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Notwithstanding my concerns and however imperfect it will be, the inquiry must proceed because people want answers. I hope they will not be disappointed as I fear the nature of the inquiry will not deliver all the answers they seek.

I fully support the motion and the other motions on the Order Paper. The sooner the inquiry is up and running and the inquiry team is doing its job and interviewing witnesses, the better.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to speak in support of the motion on behalf of Labour Party Senators. The Leader, Senator Cummins, outlined the decision making process of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the meetings we had from 9 October 2014 onwards to evaluate the relevant proposal and the decisions we made. Senator Darragh O'Brien pointed to the constraints that applied in trying to devise and evaluate the proposal that was put to the committee. All members recognised these constraints. I agree with the Senator that these terms of reference are the best we can do. I regret the loss of the referendum on parliamentary powers to conduct inquiries as its passing would have allowed a different type of inquiry to be constituted. Given the constitutional parameters within which we must work, I believe this is the best result we can achieve. It is in the interests of all of us that the inquiry proceeds as expeditiously as possible.

I have been involved in this process in my role as a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I and other members of the committee as well as Senators who will be involved in the inquiry must be circumspect when contributing to this debate. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges had a constructive debate and the Leader spoke comprehensively on how we arrived at our decision, having given careful consideration to the terms of the inquiry and made changes in respect of the relative strengths of the euro, sterling and so forth.

Senator Darragh O'Brien referred to issues that will be excluded from the inquiry whereas I intend to focus on what will be included. The inquiry covers a great deal and its work plan is undoubtedly challenging. The schedule lists 22 matters under the following four headings: "Context"; "Banking Systems and Practices"; "Regulatory and Supervisory Systems and Practices"; and "Crisis Management Systems and Policy Response". The final heading includes the decision to provide a bank guarantee on 30 September 2008, developments in the lead-up to that decision and the decisions taken afterwards on the implementation of the guarantee.

The work plan and timeframe of the inquiry are challenging. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges considered the parameters of the work plan and timeframe. As Senator Cummins stated, the Seanad staff provided great help and support and I thank all of those involved in the process. We also took legal advice at every stage of the process, which we found extremely helpful. We met the Chairman of the joint committee, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, who outlined the work he envisaged the joint committee would be able to do within the timeframe provided. As has been noted, we also took advice from Professor Karl Whelan and others.

The banking crisis and financial collapse were immensely significant and catastrophic events for this country. Irish people deserve the best investigation we can provide in the parliamentary setting into the events surrounding the collapse and all the matters set out in schedule A of the motion. I urge colleagues to read the motion, which provides a comprehensive list of the issues that led up to and may have caused the financial collapse. It is in the interests of all of us to ensure an inquiry is conducted in the parliamentary setting into the causes of the banking crisis.

Perhaps the most important paragraph in the motion is, "The subject matter of the inquiry shall be to inquire into the reasons Ireland experienced a systemic banking crisis". This is the critical issue so many people want investigated and about which they want answers put on the public record, as best we can. People want public hearings. It is in the interests of us all to ensure these public hearings commence as expeditiously as possible. I have great faith in the members of the inquiry. It is already working very well. The preliminary committee, which was established in May, has been already working very constructively on devising a work plan and schedule. I wish them all very well in their work and urge colleagues to support these motions and enable the committee to continue this very important work.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leader and Senators Bacik and Darragh O’Brien. The Leader has very thoroughly described the process by which this very comprehensive document came before the House, and I commend everybody and the secretariat. It is a challenge for the committee and we must go ahead and commence the work, to a very challenging timetable. I was very pleased that Professor Karl Whelan is advising on the economics part, and he is meeting us later this morning to assist us further. It was a major crisis and the ripples continue with a thousand people on the streets and the breakdown of so many institutions. It did not happen in Canada or Australia, two countries with which we have many similarities, and we will try to learn from them. The public needs to know the answers, as Senators Cummins, Bacik and Darragh O’Brien said.

This is a very comprehensive framework. I agree with the adjustment to include the euro in the terms of reference. How did a very conservative banking system become so risk-taking? Was it linked to the currency? This is an important aspect of the committee's work. As Senator Cummins said, it is very important we allow the Central Bank to participate fully because it was the regulatory body responsible. The House can be assured that the terms of reference are fully comprehensive and thorough and I join in thanking the CPP for its work. It has set very good terms of reference and it is up to the committee members to deliver an equally good document at the end of the inquiry. Our thanks are due to the CPP for the thoroughness and unanimity, as Senator Darragh O’Brien said, of this very fine document.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I strongly support the motion and recommend that all Members do likewise. It is good to hear somebody of Senator Barrett's impartiality supporting it. I was a member of the CPP and I join with colleagues in thanking members of the Seanad staff and legal advisers who assisted us in the process. A very considerable amount of time was spent evaluating the proposal and while I can see why Senator Darragh O’Brien has misgivings, we all agree it will be a very extensive inquiry and the members of the team have drawn up a very comprehensive set of proposals. The general public wants to find answers as to how this massive banking crisis occurred and what lessons can be learned for the future. It is in everybody's interest that work commences as soon as possible. It is a major job of work, and many of us on the CPP had reservations as to whether the timescale would be too tight. It is vital that the work commence without further delays. I wish the committee and those charged with conducting this very significant piece of work well. I hope it will be the last time we will have to engage in such an exercise, that we never again have a situation where hardship is caused for so many people as a result of the collapse of our banking institutions.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I oppose the motion. It is the wrong time to carry out this inquiry and Members of the Oireachtas are the wrong people to do it. It is the wrong time because it is too late. Putting elected representatives of the people into the difficult and dubious task of trying to answer some very complex questions to satisfy people's legitimate and understandable outrage about everything that went on regarding the banking crisis and the political, economic, social, cultural, financial and behavioural collapse that occurred on foot of it is too much for the Oireachtas to take on.

Reference has been made to the constitutional referendum on tribunals of inquiry and there have been subdued tones of regret from speakers suggesting it is a pity the referendum did not pass. Because it did not pass, we are where we are and are doing the best we can within the limited scope of that which is constitutionally permissible. I campaigned against the referendum because Deputies and Senators are not the right people to carry out inquiries into the conduct of other people which might lead to findings that are critical of those people's reputations. The reasons for which I opposed the referendum are substantially the same as the reasons for which I think the banking inquiry is a complete nonsense, when one strips it down, namely, that the majority of politicians are unable to resist the tendency to partisanship and making statements that will get them attention in the media. This is not because politicians are bad people. We suffer from these tendencies because we depend to some extent on the oxygen of publicity to secure our reputations in the eyes of voters. In these circumstances, it is absolutely wrong to entrust to elected Deputies and Senators the task of conducting inquiries of a serious kind, even if these inquiries come short of making findings adverse to other people's reputations.

In no sense do I disparage the tremendous abilities of some of the people who will constitute the inquiry team. There is no finer contributor in the Oireachtas than our colleague from the independent university benches, Senator Barrett. Although he will be a very fine and refined thinker on the inquiry, he could be so without being an elected Member of the Oireachtas. Although there are others like him who could be just as qualified and able to participate in such an inquiry, it is not the fact that they are elected Members that makes them peculiarly fit for the task.

If there is an investigation Members of the Oireachtas could take on, it might be to consider what failures in the legislative process or failures to legislate contributed to the systemic banking crisis and the political, economic, social, cultural and financial collapse that took place on foot of it. That would be an appropriate task for Members of the Oireachtas to take on because it relates to their duties as legislators and the future performance by legislators of their duties. Instead of taking our cue from people in the referendum, which was to say we should stay away from inquiring into people's behaviours or weighty matters of this kind, we have sought to give a form of bread and circuses to Members of the Oireachtas, to give them some other task to do instead of strengthening the tasks they ought to have.

Through political reform, we should work at strengthening the task of scrutinising legislation, establishing and identifying policy initiatives and bringing them forward through legislation. That is the road we should be travelling and not this one, which, as Senator O'Brien says, will not only fail to satisfy the people, but will end up being a distraction from the work Deputies and Senators ought to be doing.

Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Much of what I had intended to say has been covered already by the other Senators. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry. The events it will examine have had major consequences and are still affecting citizens' everyday lives as well as political discourse in the State. I have some concern about the delay as the inquiry only began to take shape three years into the life of the Government. We have lost a lot of time and there is a very real chance that an election could interrupt the inquiry's work and that it might not get enough time to fulfil its mandate. Nevertheless, there is strong public demand for the inquiry to get on with its work and I wish the chairman, members and staff well in their journey. The agreed terms of reference allow for a very wide range of actors to be brought before the inquiry. As has been mentioned already, the different modules will allow for a strategic and logical approach. The task before the inquiry is large and time will be tight. It is important, therefore, that members put aside political considerations and co-operate to ensure its success. The people demand no less than that.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like my colleague, Senator Mullen, I oppose this inquiry. I do not know what we hope to achieve by carrying it out. I believe it is the wrong time, as many of the witnesses brought before it will suffer from selective amnesia and Members of the Oireachtas are the wrong people to carry out the inquiry. It should have been carried out some time ago by the State agencies best qualified to do so.

All of the main actors involved in the collapse of the country's economy have taken to the hills - they have gone away on their yachts with their pensions - and are living the good life while the rest of us are left struggling to survive and rebuild. Like many of my colleagues and friends, I ask why did we not see the same response to the collapse of our economy as we saw in the United States? Why did nobody go into the plush offices of these bankers and take them out in handcuffs? Why has nobody been charged or sent to jail?

I believe this inquiry may very well finish up as a publicity grandstanding affair for those who want to use it in that way. I am not for one moment questioning people's abilities but we are politicians and rely on publicity for our oxygen, as my colleague has said. I question the suggestion that the public wants to know what happened. The public wanted to know back in 2008 but I am not so sure it has an interest any more because people know that this inquiry will not lead to anybody being charged with anything. What do we really hope to achieve? I suspect this will become part of pre-election PR to allow one political party place the blame on the shoulders of another. I am opposed to it and believe the time of the Oireachtas could be spent doing better things than this.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Members who contributed to this debate. I respect the position of those opposing the motion, especially as they contribute to the consultation and consideration we are obliged to have. Notwithstanding the opposition from some Members, I commend the motion to the House. I thank our legal staff and all involved in assisting us to bring this proposal before the House.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senators Paul Bradford and Mark Daly inadvertently forgot to push their buttons during the vote.