Mr Pat Rabbitte (centre) looking at a copy of the DIRT inquiry report at Kildare House yesterday, with (left) Mr Sean Ardagh and (right) Mr Bernard Durkan. Photograph: Eric Luke

The 1990s have not been kind to politicians. Some colleagues are bewildered by the levels of obloquy brought on the heads of all politicians by the transgressions of the few. Given the prospect of permanent peaceful co-existence on this island and the expansion in the economy of recent years, it is ironic that the practice of politics is now held in such low esteem.

It is for others to judge whether the report of the DIRT inquiry, published yesterday, helps to restore the primacy of politics. Certainly all six members of the appointed sub-committee were acutely conscious that how we did our work would be likely to determine whether parliamentary inquiries have a future. In the process, it is our hope that our work might help improve the standing of all politicians.

If the sub-committee has failed the test of public opinion, all I can say is that there is nothing we would have done differently. We applied ourselves to the task in hand almost to the exclusion of other parliamentary duties and political obligations. We conscientiously strove to assimilate the evidence and, above all, our main objective was to be fair.

At the same time, we were determined, where the evidence allowed, to make clear findings. And insofar as we had expertise available to us, we also sought to make recommendations without fear or favour. We do not claim to be experts on company law, on the efficacy of tax collection procedures, on banking practices or on the precepts that guide the accountancy profession.

In a sense, that's the whole point. We are a parliamentary committee, not a specialist committee, nor a court of law, nor a tribunal of inquiry. We followed normal parliamentary procedure but had the benefit of the new powers conferred on us by the Oireachtas. Thanks to the innovation by TG4, ordinary citizens had the opportunity to watch the hearings live and assess for themselves what transpired. While it would be quite improper for such considerations to intrude into our work, it will be interesting to see to what extent our findings will be deemed to be at variance with the informed person in the street who had the opportunity to follow the proceedings.

The matters we investigated could scarcely have been more important for our society. Central to the notion of taxation is the presumption that the tax laws are being implemented fairly and that all citizens are treated equally. The Revenue Commissioners will no doubt be distressed - but can't be surprised - at the sub-committee's finding that "during the relevant period, given the scale of the DIRT evasion, it is clear that the law was not applied equally as between categories of taxpayer".

It is a profoundly serious finding. The scale and duration of endemic evasion was such that no other finding was possible - and the evidence was clear. The report does acknowledge in a different finding that the Revenue Commissioners were restricted by law in their freedom to police the financial institutions. Banks are treated differently to other enterprises. It also concluded that "there were well-motivated officials in Revenue doing their best in an environment lacking overall professional management and strategic direction, and consequently there were some quite inexcusable lapses".

Notwithstanding these significant mitigating factors, the core finding that categories of taxpayers were treated differently is a matter for the utmost concern. As indeed is the narrative in the report that draws heavily on oral evidence to show that the top echelons of the Revenue Commissioners were not the well-oiled machine that most taxpayers believed.

The report finds that the problem of bogus non-resident accounts was an industry-wide phenomenon. In a nutshell, financial institutions in whom ordinary people reposed so much confidence knowingly colluded in widespread tax evasion.

There is not much that can be said in mitigation of that fact. It may well have been the culture of the time, but DIRT was a self-assessment tax with a legal obligation on banks to deduct it and pay it to the Exchequer. They failed to do so on a widespread basis.

The inquiry also provided a fleeting glimpse behind boardroom doors, where the attitude to issues of corporate governance and standards seems quite relaxed. One was left with the impression that, at least in some cases, the purpose is to assemble eminent names to decorate the notepaper and leave senior management to get on with the real decision-making.

One of the more important findings relates to the role of external auditors. The sub-committee found that a number of defects and weaknesses in relation to the external audit function contributed to the continuance of the bogus non-resident phenomenon. Questions are raised that for too long have been left to the profession themselves.

We recommend a detailed examination by a review group (to be established by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment) of a number of specific issues, such as whether the external audit function is compromised or undermined by the extent of modern-day intermingling of functions - audit, tax advice, consultancy and so on - all of which services tend to be provided by the same audit firm to the same financial institution.

In this first report, we have done our job as well and as conscientiously as we could. The sub-committee applied itself with cohesion and diligence, and not just for the period of the public hearings. There will be another day to comment on the paucity of resources - notwithstanding a positive disposition by the Government - for this kind of inquiry.

In the interim, our thanks are due to our personal advisers, to our financial and legal assessors and to a small but dedicated secretariat.

Pat Rabbitte TD is a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and is Labour spokesperson on Enterprise, Trade and Employment.