Commission of inquiry only way to probe bank guarantee

EVERYBODY’S mad, so let’s get even.

Round up a few bankers, throw in some retired politicians on fatcat pensions, and haul the lot of them before newly minted politicians, who are in tune with the anger. Let’s just get it on.

The furore that has blown up over a proposed Oireachtas inquiry into the banking collapse is descending into farce. Look, there’s John McGuinness, a dissident Fianna Fáil TD, scourge of the public service, riding to the rescue of Josephine Citizen. He can feel your anger and he wants to act on your behalf.

John chairs the powerful Public Accounts Committee. He’s desperate to do a service by hauling bankers and retired politicians and public servants before his committee. Then, in front of the live TV cameras, he will show his anger and, ably assisted by the Sunday Independent, the world will see a good man striking out against the evil that others have done. By the by, he might also get to stick it to the likes of Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen, neither of whom appreciated his political gifts when they were in power. Go get ’em, Johnny.

But, hey, who’s that coming up on the outside? Why, it’s Alex White, Labour TD and barrister. Now, who better to ask the right questions and turn reluctant witnesses on a spit than a barrister. Alex chairs the finance committee, and he also wants a crack at the devious bankers.

By the by, Alex is in a bit of trouble as a result of the recent constituency commission findings. The redrawing of the Dublin South boundaries has left his seat in some peril. How better to raise his profile than hand him a Superman cape and sit back as he zaps the evil purveyors of recession with all his inquisitive powers. Way to go, Alex.

But wait — what use are these superheroes if their power is neutered? How can they point an accusatory finger if the accused can respond with two fingers, and tell the superhero to put a sock in it.

Enter another man with a mission, Pat Rabbitte. Since the weekend, Rabbitte has made it known that he favours a rerun of last year’s referendum on Oireachtas inquiries which was rejected by the electorate. Another referendum rerun? Why not, the people have no right to be wrong. Just as they were wrong in voting down a raft of European referenda, they got it wrong on politicians deciding on guilt and innocence.

The carrot for this proposal is, of course, the chance to see upstanding politicians stick it to the bankers, not to mention Cowen, Ahern, and whomever else is deemed to be a cartoon villain. The minister is also acting as a class of referee, suggesting that instead of McGuinness and White battling it out, a new, special committee should be set up for the job. Another committee. More jobs. Gravy in the name of justice.

Strip back the posturing and the farce and a clearer picture of what is afoot emerges. A whole raft of politicians are chomping at the bit for the chance to engage in some grandstanding.

Apart from grandstanding, the stated purpose of a proposed inquiry lacks credibility. Everybody wants to investigate “events around the bank guarantee”, as if a smoking gun will be rooted out to show why Cowen and Brian Lenihan mortgaged the State’s future.

This plays into the popular — and populist — perception that Cowen and Lenihan could have acted otherwise on that fateful night in Sept 2008. It ignores the reality that the politicians — and probably the bankers — were not in full possession of the facts that night. It also conveniently ignores that the ECB had instructed the then government to prevent the failure of any major bank at all costs. It ignores the belief that Anglo Irish was on the point of collapse, which in turn would have raised the spectre of contagion with the other domestic banks, and the possibility of a breakdown in social order. What leader would have taken a chance on such an outcome, however remote the possibility?

None of which exonerates the main players from culpability for the state we’re in. For the real question that requires answering is how things were allowed to get to the stage where there was no choice but to issue the guarantee that night. Over the previous nine months at least, politicians, regulators, and bankers were all derelict in getting to grips with the unfolding situation. A worthwhile inquiry would rake over those months in detail to illustrate how the State was driven to an inevitable outcome.

Such an inquiry neither could nor should be carried out by politicians. No adverse findings could be made. It would be a full-time gig. Most of the work would have to be conducted behind closed doors. Opportunity for flashes of glory would only present themselves in brief interludes through the months of drudgery.

The only suitable vehicle for this kind of probe would the commission of inquiry model, which has been used so effectively in the inquiries into clerical sex abuse in a number of dioceses. It has been shown to be both effective and cost efficient. A commission of inquiry wouldn’t deliver much in the way of grandstanding. It wouldn’t deliver a clutch of bankers for pummelling in the stocks. Most of the work would be behind closed doors, far from public view, but it might well provide answers to ensure that the same mistakes will never be made again.