Sir, – The publication of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) proposals on a banking inquiry have, on occasion, given rise to a heated debate that bears little comparison with the factual position.
It has been suggested (Dan O’Brien, Business This Week, July 13th) that I have indicated support for a particular committee to conduct the inquiry. I have not. In my letter to the Public Accounts and Finance Committees I posited a question as to whether the Finance Committee might be the more appropriate committee to undertake an inquiry. I retain an open mind on the subject. I wrote as I did on the basis of the advice I received from the Attorney General that a policy-based inquiry was one of two possible approaches to a committee of inquiry. The other approach outlined in the advice I received is the inquire, record and report approach. Indeed, while the PAC indicates its support for this latter approach, even a cursory look at the questions it believes an inquiry should resolve suggests overlap with a policy-based approach.
The other criticism made by Dan O’Brien and Vincent Browne (Opinion, July 11th) concerns the involvement of the executive, through myself, in this process. My involvement is largely driven though by the legal uncertainty that exists following the defeat of the referendum on Oireachtas inquiries. The accompanying legislation to the referendum proposal set out the process Oireachtas committees seeking to undertake an inquiry would follow, including a central determining role for the committee on investigations, oversight and petitions, a committee established for the purpose. Unfortunately, this proposal fell following the referendum outcome. That my letter to the Public Accounts Committee, bizarrely described by the chairman as “unprovoked”, came as a surprise to the committee comes as a surprise to me.
Following the defeat of the Oireachtas inquiries referendum, I indicated that I would examine options available to the Oireachtas under the current constitutional framework. Indeed Deputy McGuinness as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee wrote to me and asked me to do so.
Once, by the end of June, Government had been advised of the outcome of the comprehensive legal assessment on inquiry options available to the Oireachtas, I simply communicated the findings of this process to the two Oireachtas committees that had indicated to me an interest in involvement in a banking inquiry. My legal advice differs from theirs on one substantive point. I am advised that legislation to determine the power of Oireachtas committees to undertake inquiries would both be appropriate and add a statutory framework to any inquiry. Work on such a bill is underway within my department.
I also indicated at the same time, and previously in response to queries arising from material relating to the Public Accounts Committees work appearing in the media, that I looked forward to receiving the report when published, that I would study it and consult the Attorney General on its contents. That is what I am now undertaking. When that work is completed I will revert to Government and both committees.
I firmly believe that the Irish public deserves an inquiry into the banking disaster that has overwhelmed us. Determining the appropriate legal framework for the inquiry is central to ensuring any approach adopted is a viable and robust one. The Public Accounts Committee has set out one possible approach and is to be congratulated on doing so. There are clearly others worthy of consideration.
It might even be the case that if an Oireachtas committee succeeded in undertaking this exercise in a professional manner, the public might be minded to reward them additional powers in a future referendum on the subject. – Yours, etc,