The revelations in the Irish Independent this week of recordings between senior Anglo Irish Bank executives has angered, sickened and shocked people across the country. The conversations recorded illustrate a banking culture that was reckless, oblivious to the damage it was causing people, devoid of any sense of responsibility to anyone other than interests of self-preservation, and dismissive of authority. The bank was populated by people who hold the Governor of the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator in contempt. The culture lacked any moral compass. People are furious about this.

Without doubt, the collapse of the financial and banking system was probably the worst crisis to hit the country since the Second World War. The impact of the collapse has been enormous on the people. Therefore, a comprehensive, independent inquiry into the collapse of the financial and banking system is needed. Such an inquiry would deal with the reasons behind the collapse and also the decisions taken in response to the crisis by bankers, the Governor of the Central Bank, regulators and the Government.

A parliamentary inquiry along the lines proposed in the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2013 has been suggested as the correct and appropriate response to the crisis. I ask the Taoiseach to reflect on that suggestion and on whether such an inquiry would be strong enough or independent enough to meet the gravity and scale of the inquiry required. A parliamentary inquiry cannot hold non-public officeholders to account, nor can it make findings of fact adverse to the good name of any person who is not a Member of this House or who cannot be held accountable to this House. The people on these tapes cannot be held to account by a Dáil committee, an Oireachtas hearing or parliamentary inquiry. That is a fundamental drawback and flaw in what is being proposed.

The Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 is before the House. This legislation was designed to reform the existing Tribunals of Inquiry Acts in order to make tribunals less costly and lengthy and more efficient. I put it to the Taoiseach that such a tribunal of inquiry, chaired by a retired international judge, if necessary, or a judge of good repute, fully broadcast to the public, with the full powers of a tribunal of inquiry along the lines of the Leveson inquiry which borrowed from the Irish Law Reform Commission's report which led to the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, would represent a better response in terms of having accountability. It would have the capacity to make adverse findings against individuals and satisfy the public requirement for the full truth to come out. I do not believe a parliamentary inquiry at this stage, given the revelations, will actually meet what is required.

I noted the Deputy's words, "reckless", "oblivious", "devoid of responsibility", "dismissive of authority" and "no moral compass". I note that he only mentioned the word "truth" once. We need to get at the truth because while it is easy to be shocked and absolutely angry about the revelations in what I understand are very extensive tapes, we should remember who the victims are in this case. The victims are the tens of thousands of families, ordinary people around the country, who became victims of the axis of collusion between Anglo Irish Bank and Fianna Fáil and bankers in general in order to inflate the property business. They bought their houses with inflated mortgages and at inflated prices and found when the crash happened that they had been left devoid of their business and income and mortgaged to the hilt for the next generation. That is what we need to find out. There have been inquiries held in secret such as the Nyberg inquiry which happened after the bank guarantee, about which nobody here knew anything until it was completed. There was no political accountability. I remind Deputy Micheál Martin who the guardians were at the time of what is contained in the Constitution. It was the elected Government which operated with the Central Bank and the regulator and with light touch regulation. It was the Government that sat down, time after time, with the bankers on "Hail fellow, well met" occasions.

Has the Taoiseach reached conclusions already?

It was the Government that allowed that culture to function. It is no wonder that Deputy Micheál Martin suggests having another inquiry in secret that could drift on for years. We had 14 years of the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals and nobody went to court-----

We know how the Taoiseach dealt with the Moriarty tribunal.

Stay quiet, please.

Charges have been laid against a number of individuals and a criminal trial is due to commence next year. A referendum on specific inquiries was rejected by the people. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is processing legislation through the Oireachtas. It is imperative to establish the terms of reference for such a committee and, in so far as it can be challenged, that it deal with political accountability in order to find out how this decision was made and how the Government was duped into making it by what we hear in the emerging revelations. I remind Deputy Micheál Martin that we need to find out about that culture, what went on and who was involved. Let us get at the truth. I ask for his co-operation in putting through the legislation dealing with inquiries-----

It cannot make findings of fact against anybody.

I suggest the Seanad could reschedule its agenda to have this finished by the end of this Dáil session. Let us put that inquiry in place. I suggest the people who were in government with Deputy Micheál Martin during the years write down their recollections of what happened in the lead-up to the bank guarantee, the discussions and conversations that took place, and the decisions made or not made. Why is it that in this day and age there is no record in the Department of the Taoiseach of the conversations about this matter between bankers and those who were in government, when tens of thousands of people have watched their families emigrating because of what these boys did in the banks, aided and abetted by the culture of a Government that was arrogant and contemptuous?

How will the Taoiseach find out what they did?

The Taoiseach continued to pay them-----

Stay quiet, please. This is Leaders' Questions.

It stated, "If you think the housing bubble is going to burst, then go and commit suicide." I remind Deputy Micheál Martin that we need to focus on what happened here; that we need to find out the truth. We will start that process by having a parliamentary inquiry with a specific set of terms of reference to examine what happened before the guarantee was introduced.

That is where the damage was done. There was an infusion into that culture of a system that allowed this to happen that has consigned the next generation to paying for the behaviour of people involved in this circle, some of which has been revealed on the national airwaves in the past two days.

The Taoiseach's response confirms why it would be impossible to have a non-partisan independent inquiry conducted by the Oireachtas. The use of the word "collusion" and his various other remarks all confirm how incapable the Taoiseach and those in his party will be of conducting an impartial inquiry. However, that is not the point. It would undoubtedly be partisan, as per the Taoiseach's comments, and it would not have the teeth to make adverse findings against people recorded in conversations that have shocked the nation. The least of the Taoiseach's troubles will be former members of the Government in coming before any inquiry. He should acknowledge that no member of the Government will refuse to go before any inquiry, be it an Oireachtas or any other type of inquiry. His real difficulty in respect of a parliamentary inquiry will be getting the likes of the people on the tapes or people like the former director of Anglo Irish Bank to participate and in the inquiry having the capacity to make an adverse finding about his behaviour, if so deserved. The bottom line is that as a result of the Abbeylara judgment, a parliamentary inquiry cannot hold such people to account. It will be very restrictive in terms of who it can hold to account. That might suit certain people - it might even suit the Taoiseach - to have the focus on one dimension, not on the fundamental banking issue.

I offer this suggestion in good faith. The Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 is before the House. It results from proposals made by the Irish Law Reform Commission and was debated in the House before the general election. It is due to be taken on Report Stage. It proposes radical changes in how tribunals of inquiry are conducted in order to make them less costly, of shorter duration-----

A question, please, Deputy.

-----and similar in nature to the Leveson inquiry in the United Kingdom. We all saw how effective it was in holding to account people who were not public officeholders, as well as officeholders. It was very effective.

Did the Deputy hear me? I asked him to put a question because he is way over time.

It was in a position to make very good recommendations on how to make changes and improvements for the future. I suggest to the Taoiseach and the Government, in a spirit of co-operation, that the Bill represents a far better framework for conducting an inquiry into the banking sector collapse than the proposed parliamentary inquiry.

Quite simply, it does not have the teeth or wherewithal to hold people to account and make adverse findings.

Yes, but I assume a parliamentary inquiry would have the moral authority to call former politicians of influence and who were in office to give their recollections and accounts of what happened in the lead-in to the bank guarantee.

We said that. That is no problem.

I assume our predecessors in government who served with the Deputy in high office would have the opportunity and a willingness to come to a parliamentary inquiry to explain why this was allowed to happen.

Is that the purpose of the whole thing?

It was the cause of it. That is why we are in the mess we are in.

What about the rest of the players?

Call in the FÁS crowd.

Can Members refrain from making comments?

Why did a Government appoint someone to head up a report group that separated the Central Bank from regulators and introduce light touch regulation in the first place? Can the Deputy explain why all of these occasions were taking place between bankers and high members of the Government and say what was discussed at all of these things?

Steady now.

What was the Opposition doing?

This is what the culture has led to where the decision was made.

They have reached conclusions already.

Stay quiet, please.

The tapes to which we have listened and heard on the national airwaves were recorded after the bank guarantee.

They cannot be held to account by a parliamentary inquiry.

Will Members stop trying to shout down the Taoiseach and listen to the answer?

We had the Nyberg inquiry which was held in private after the bank guarantee.

Stop playing politics.

What about a public inquiry?

We need to have a public parliamentary inquiry with a specific set of terms of reference to find out the truth in so far as we can.

That is what I want - a tribunal of inquiry.

I suppose the Taoiseach will let Deputy Peter Mathews chair it for the Deputy.

They cannot make findings against anybody.

Will Deputy Róisín Shortall, please, refrain from commenting?

The people want to know that justice will be done.

A parliamentary inquiry cannot do it.

Will Deputy Micheál Martin also refrain?

There will be a criminal trial with a judge and jury and that takes its own course.

The Taoiseach is the judge and jury.

The Government extended the period of office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement for the preparation of his report.

That was done in public, was it?

The Garda has done its job and that has all been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand books of evidence are being prepared. That process takes its own independent course.

In the Dáil today a Minister prejudiced the outcome of the trial.

Who are you protecting, James?

We must find out in the House who were the masters at the time and who was supposed to be in charge of the country. It was the Government. We do not have a scrap of evidence about who visited whom, what was said, why decisions were not recorded, whether a decision was taken not to record any of this and why was it that this culture erupted.

That can all be got in a public inquiry.

Deputy Micheál Martin was part of that environment. I am not suggesting he was involved directly in any of it-----

-----but he was a member of the Government and the people are entitled to know why the Government had incorporeal meetings at 3 a.m. They are entitled to know about the political environment in which all of these agents operated.

The Taoiseach backed the bank guarantee.

The Taoiseach wants a political inquiry. We get all that.

Why do we not have it here?

Timmy, you know you are responsible.

The banks were agents of the Government and the issue was to keep the property bubble booming, keep prices up and keep people getting mortgages they could not pay back for very many years.

The whole lot went over the edge and here we are.

The Taoiseach spent too long in Europe. He has started to lose touch with the people again.

Evidence is now coming out on the airwaves of the comments, attitude, arrogance and condescension towards the people who were treated as pawns in a game.

That is the first time the Taoiseach has referred to them.

We need to find out the truth. When the legislation goes through, we will start that process in a parliamentary forum.

I ask Deputy Michael McGrath to behave himself.

It is hard to listen to rubbish.

I will call Deputy Gerry Adams and expect him to have silence as he asks his question. I expect silence from the Taoiseach, or rather for the Taoiseach when he is answering.

It would be better than what we have been listening to.