Yesterday, the Taoiseach was adamant that the Oireachtas inquiry into the collapse of the financial and banking system, under the Bill proposed by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, would be more than adequate to hold bankers and all involved to account. We know that is not the case. No sooner were we finished yesterday than the Taoiseach's spokesperson was briefing journalists in the main newspapers that the Cabinet had been discussing the matter and was considering giving extra powers to such an inquiry via a re-run of the referendum on Oireachtas inquiries. That seems to suggest an admission on the part of the Government that the Bill of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform does not have the powers to hold bankers to account. I have put forward an alternative view: that the Tribunal of Inquiry Bill 2005, which provides for a radically different version of the tribunals we have had in the past and much of which was used in the Leveson inquiry in the UK, is a model that can hold bankers to account. People are expecting that bankers will be held to account, given the revelations in the Irish Independent tapes.

In terms of the culture and power of bankers, they have been given additional power by the Government to put pressure on people in mortgage arrears. The Government has changed legislation to give banks greater powers to repossess family homes without conditions attached. The Government has changed the code of practice in respect of how banks deal with customers and mortgage arrears. There is now no limit to the amount of contact between banks and people in mortgage arrears. I am talking to families out there in mortgage arrears who cannot put bread on the table because they are trying to meet payments.

Has Deputy Martin told them why?

Do these people understand why?

Some 26,000 families are in the firing line when the legislation giving the power to bankers to repossess goes through the Houses.

Let us bring back Fianna Fáil.

The tapes revealed by the Irish Independent reveal a certain culture, and the people do not trust the banks on the issue of mortgage arrears.

Deputy Martin trusted them for long enough.

Deputy Martin was owned by the banks.

The people believe there should be independent oversight and there are proposals on this side of the House to have independent oversight of the banks as they deal with customers in mortgage arrears. I suggest it is now essential and it seems the Government is on the side of the banks in dealing with people in mortgage arrears. It seems the Government trusts the banks to deal with people fairly-----

Hypocrite. Deputy Martin was there.

-----and in an even-handed manner on mortgage arrears. It is a serious issue for people who are in arrears and under considerable pressure.

No one can hear what anyone is saying, so I ask Members to remain quiet. A Member has asked a question and the Taoiseach does the answering, not the mob.

Not the hecklers in the Labour Party.

That intervention is a pathetic attempt to acquire and involve Deputy Martin in political opportunism. Deputy Martin knows the licensed regulator of the banks is the Central Bank, and the conditions and attitude have changed entirely from his time in government in terms of the operations of the Central Bank, the licensing of banks, the introduction of the personal insolvency agency, and the result of the Dunne case, but also, it has been made perfectly clear that house repossessions in this country are a last resort, as was specified by the banks. The targets set down by the Central Bank require banks to offer those in mortgage arrears or mortgage distress opportunities by the end of this quarter to find a solution to get them out of the difficulties they are in. These targets will be achieved and overseen.

The Government was of the view that we should put a referendum to the people in respect of inquiries and the authority in that regard. It was rejected by the people and we cannot argue with the people.

They copped on.

They should have copped on to Deputy Finian McGrath earlier.

Deputy Martin has argued with them a few times but they made a decision on the referendum and I accept the outcome of it. On a number of occasions, I said we would have a referendum in the autumn on the abolition of the Seanad and on the court of civil appeal, because of the backlog of court cases, and we will give consideration to other referendums. The question has been raised of re-running the referendum and I have not given a definitive answer to it. The Bill currently going through the House deals with the setting up of a parliamentary inquiry with the appropriate authority and facilities in the law and in the Constitution.

Deputy Martin had an opportunity to have an independent investigation into the banks back in 2010. However, his Government created a secret commission of investigation, the Nyberg commission, which produced no names and no accountability. Before that was established we were promised it would get to the bottom of all these issues, but when the terms of reference were eventually produced it was watered down.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am not interested in weak, secret investigations that produce nothing. What the people want is that justice be seen to be done. An inquiry is one element and a criminal court case is something else. The State structure of the Garda, the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and the Director of Corporate Enforcement has done the preparatory work. Charges have been levelled against a number of individuals and books of evidence have been prepared and produced. I understand that the criminal case will go to court some time early next year.

The inquiry cannot do that, nor was it ever intended to do that. However, I believe it is appropriate that the Oireachtas should have at its disposal a proper parliamentary committee of investigation to deal with what the public wants to know, which is how all this happened, who met whom and why decisions were taken in that manner. These are matters of public interest and whether it is an inquiry such as described by the Deputy or a parliamentary inquiry, it cannot deal with what people would like to see in this case which is that if there are people of criminal intent who conducted criminal activity the court system should be brought to bear and the court should make its decisions to deal with those people under the law.

To be honest I do not wish to have anything to do with ten year investigations that will make lawyers millionaires and bring nobody to account. We should move through the parliamentary system. This is the people's House. We should set up a properly structured and properly resourced parliamentary inquiry to get on with the work it can do. It cannot do work that will put people behind bars as it is the criminal law and a judge and jury that convict people who might be brought before the courts.

The Taoiseach's reply is not clear regarding whether there will be a referendum. What he has said gives confusing signals in that regard.

The Oireachtas inquiry provided for in the Bill introduced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, does not have the powers to bring non-officeholders to account or to make any adverse findings regarding the behaviour in the banks. That is a fact and nobody disputes it. Clearly, it falls short of what is required.

With regard to the statement by the Taoiseach that things have now changed in the banks and people can now trust them, which he said in the context of mortgage arrears, I met a family last week that is in that position. There are two children and the husband is in a permanent pensionable job. He is only on 12 months interest-only repayments but last Christmas week he got a telephone call from the bank telling him to start preparing to sell his family home.

Did the Deputy apologise?

That is what is happening. This person has engaged with the bank and sought to find a resolution mechanism with the bank, but there was no response.

Will the Deputy put his question?

The point is that the banks have not changed. There is no confidence among the public in the capacity of the banks to deal fairly with the thousands of people in mortgage arrears because of the change in the code of practice and the change in the legislation which essentially gives carte blanche to the banks and puts them in the driving seat. I am not the only person saying that. People at the coalface who are helping families are saying it and they have briefed Deputies on it. They find it incredible that the banks have been given such additional powers by the Government to put additional pressure on families in mortgage arrears. The people do not trust the banks to deal with them fairly and independently. That is the actual position and it is why the Taoiseach should have introduced an independent oversight mechanism.

As I said yesterday, we are discussing a situation in which tens of thousands of people in this country are now existing for their families and living for banks because of the pressure that is on them and the way this thing happened. It all happened through a culture in which banks, developers and members of the Deputy's party were heavily involved. We must find out what happened; we need to understand that culture. Due to the fact that particular behaviour was investigated by the Garda, files were confiscated and sent directly to the Garda. The DPP is now in receipt of all those documents and charges have been preferred against a number of individuals. That process is under way.

However, we need to find out about the elements of what happened during the run in to the guarantee being given and the way it was given. I do not have the answers to that, but I expect the parliamentary system would be able to bring to public awareness, in public, why much of this happened. That inquiry cannot, as the Deputy correctly said, say that person X is guilty of this or that, but it can find out about the background, the connections, the decisions that were made and why they were made, without imputing guilt. That is in the public interest. However, it is something I do not want to see dragging on for eight, ten or 12 years where one makes millionaires of lawyers and nobody is called to account. There are two separate issues here.

The Deputy's question is about the behaviour of the banks in dealing with thousands who are under pressure with their mortgages and distressed mortgages. This morning I listened to the director of the personal insolvency agency, which is now open for business. There is an opportunity for the individual the Deputy mentioned to go to the personal insolvency service to deal with that matter. The service was introduced to provide a different option for persons who have mortgages to find a way out of the situation in which they find themselves.

It is not happening.

I do not know the circumstances of the person the Deputy mentioned. The Central Bank has set down conditions for the lending banks and these conditions must be met.

The Central Bank has said it cannot be prescriptive on this. It does not have the powers that are suggested.

That means people must be made offers of sustainable solutions for their individual circumstances.

We are way over time on this question. Please co-operate with the Chair.

It is not just dealing with interest-only repayments but is about finding a sustainable way out of the problem.

The Central Bank does not have the power to instruct the banks on this.

The legislation has been changed and these facilities have been introduced. The conditions of the licensing authority, which is the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank, have changed substantially from what they were when the Deputy was in office.