BUSINESS OPINION:A Dirt-style Oireachtas inquiry into the banking crisis is exactly what we don't need
FOR MANY years the Daily Telegraphran a satirical column by Michael Wharton written under the pseudonym Peter Simple. In the style of Brian O'Nolan's Myles na Gopaleen his column featured numerous fictitious characters.
One of Peter Simple’s more famous characters was Dr Heinz Kiosk, a distinguished social psychologist and chief psychiatric adviser to the Pelmet and Curtain-Ring Authority, amongst other organisations.
Kiosk, like many of his fellow characters, was presumably intended to be a send up of a certain type of left-leaning liberalism that did not find favour with the author and the readers of the Telegraph.
The column would regularly report on public seminars given by Dr Kiosk on a wide range of matters. Regardless of the topic his talks would invariably reach the conclusion that explanation lay in the fact that Britain was a guilty society.
The crescendo would come with the audience rushing for the doors as Dr Kiosk bellowed that not only was society guilty but “we are all guilty”.
The extent to which life is now imitating art in the form of Peter Nyberg’s report will not be lost on those familiar with Dr Kiosk’s world view.
The Finnish economist – whose report into the causes of the banking collapse was published last week – concluded that we are indeed “all guilty”.
It is not that surprising. The sort of liberalism that so enraged Peter Simple is very much part of northern European culture with its Lutheran tradition and an emphasis on personal responsibility.
It is, however, not a view that has found much favour with the Irish public either, certainly as represented in the letter pages of this paper. The vast majority have it pretty clear in their own minds that blame rests not on them but pretty squarely on the shoulders of a number of bankers, civil servants and politicians.
We want more. We want names and we want blood. And it seems the politicians are only too happy to give them to us, particularly if it takes some of the heat off them.
The Circus Maximus of choice is an Oireachtas inquiry like the public accounts committee inquiry into the evasion of Dirt tax, which many politicians still remember fondly.
The clever trick pulled off at the Dirt inquiry was to cast the TDs and senators who made up the committee in the role of inquisitor.
In truth substantially all of the facts had been already established by an exhaustive investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
However, the senior management of the banks and various others were still hauled into the committee room and treated to US courtroom drama-style questioning by politicians.
The other novelty was that it the inquiry was all carried live on television.
The various bank executives took the humiliation doled out to them at the committee – on the advice of their public relations consultants.
The roles of various politicians in the cover-up – every serving minister for finance during the relevant period was aware of the scandal – were glossed over.
It was not until the Garda objected to attempts to pull a similar stunt over the Abbeylara shooting that Oireachtas inquiries were exposed for the unconstitutional cynical publicity stunts they were.
Fine Gael and Labour are now planning a referendum to allow the Oireachtas to carry out these inquiries again. First on the list will be an inquiry into the banking crisis.
As a response to the issues raised by the Nyberg report and the two previous inquiries it is inconsequential. As a public spectacle and platform for blowhard politicians it will be unparalleled.
But as with the Dirt inquiry it will do very little to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.
The true tragedy about the Dirt inquiry is that all the problems in the Irish banking industry and regulatory system that manifested so spectacularly in 2008 were uncovered in the initial report carried out by the C&AG.
They was there for all to see. Supine regulators, ethically compromised bank boards and managements and above it all a political system incapable of recognising the problems, let alone the imperative to do something about it.
But nothing was done about it. Once the members of the public accounts committee had had their fun, everybody just carried on as usual. No meaningful reforms came out of the inquiry but a few people secured their chances of re-election.
If the Dirt inquiry tells us anything it tells us that the last thing we need is some sort of televised show trial of senior bankers. It will if anything hamper any attempt to bring about serious reform by substituting activity for action.
