Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Feb 2014

Vol. 830 No. 1

Leaders' Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin

The last while has not been good for the administration of justice. We have had the saga of the whistleblowers at the Committee of Public Accounts, the revelation last week by Deputy Mick Wallace, which he put on the Dáil record, of an alleged transcript of a conversation between the garda whistleblower, Maurice McCabe, and the confidential Garda recipient, Oliver Connolly, and now we have had a report of bugging of the Garda Ombudsman's office. I put it to the Taoiseach that the report in The Sunday Times in regard to that issue is very serious but all the Government seems to have done in response is to deliver a frenzy against the ombudsman's office, essentially turning around the issue and turning it into a villain as opposed to a victim. I put it to the Taoiseach that the fundamental issue should be: was the office bugged, who would have been involved in it, and in that context, I ask him if he will establish an independent panel of inquiry to determine the truth around that?

The revelations contained in a transcript between Oliver Connolly, the confidential Garda recipient and the whistleblower, Maurice McCabe, is very serious in terms of what that contains and saps any confidence one could have in our institutions.

An Ceann Comhairle

There can be only one topic per question.

Deputy Micheál Martin

This concerns the administration of justice, which I stated very clearly at the outset.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting into two areas.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I made it very clear at the outset that it has been a bad couple of months for the administration of justice and I am entitled to raise that topic.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, you are not entitled to raise it. You are entitled to raise an issue.

Deputy Sean Fleming

The Opposition has rights too.

An Ceann Comhairle

You are entitled to raise an issue.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I am raising the issue. It is about the administration of justice.

An Ceann Comhairle

You cannot go into two issues.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It is about the administration of justice or the maladministration of justice. The situation is very serious.

An Ceann Comhairle

You know the rules as well as I do.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Too many cover-ups.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I put it to the Taoiseach that the confidential recipient-----

An Ceann Comhairle

I only apply the rules.

Deputy Micheál Martin

-----said to the whistleblower: "If the stuff was to get out into the public, the print media, it must come with what happens in the courtroom." He also said: "I'll tell you something Maurice, and this is just personal advice to you, if Shatter thinks you're screwing him, you're finished." It goes on: "Forget about it. He is dealing with a lot of stuff, the Minister". This is what the confidential recipient says-----

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think you heard me, Deputy. I am only dealing with one issue.

Deputy Micheál Martin

He said: "If Shatter thinks it's you, or if he thinks it is told by the Commissioner or the gardaí, here's this guy again trying another route to put you under pressure, he'll go after you."

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy. We are over time.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The whistleblower said: "You mean Alan Shatter?" The reply was, "Yes, I mean he will", and it goes on. Why is he saying that? He is essentially saying to the whistleblower that the Minister for Justice and Equality will come after the whistleblower if the whistleblower gives whatever material he has to the media or puts it into the public domain.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The Minister for Justice and Equality appointed that confidential recipient. Does the Taoiseach think that is appropriate in the context of a conversation between a whistleblower and the confidential recipient? There has been no denial since this was aired on the record of this House last week. I have seen and read the transcript myself. It is extremely disturbing and extremely sinister.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you. Please resume your seat.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It saps any confidence one could now have in terms of how justice is being administered. Are we serious? What kind of a democracy are we talking about-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Sorry, Deputy. We are way over time.

Deputy Micheál Martin

-----when someone can say a Minister will go after a whistleblower?

An Ceann Comhairle

Before the Taoiseach responds, I would ask, through the Chief Whip's office, for the position on Leaders' Questions to be clarified. My understanding is a topic is raised.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It is one topic.

An Ceann Comhairle

Until that is cleared up, I will leave it to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

A Cheann Comhairle, you have been very clear on this. Deputy Martin has raised an important question about the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. This is an essential and fundamental entity of our democratic system and it is very important the people have absolute confidence and faith in the integrity and the credibility of GSOC, no more than it is an important and fundamental element of our democracy that there be citizens' confidence in the Garda Síochána.

I note GSOC made a statement last night following the meeting between the chairman of the commission and the Minister for Justice and Equality. That statement said quite clearly that GSOC was satisfied that its databases were not compromised. It also made clear its view in respect of there being no evidence whatsoever of Garda misconduct. Finally, it explained to the Minister directly why this was not reported to the Minister for Justice and Equality by the commission and expressed regret for that decision. Clearly, the Garda Commissioner has responded with a number of questions that need to be answered from his perspective by GSOC.

The Government was briefed this morning by the Minister for Justice and Equality arising from the discussions with the GSOC chairman yesterday. The House is now aware of the statement issued by GSOC in which it outlines that it carried out an investigation into three technical and electronic anomalies which had been identified in a security sweep, which had not been triggered by any particular incident but which was part of a process of security sweeps. The Minister also briefed the Government this morning in respect of the statement issued by the Garda Commissioner, in which he expressed concern at any implication of Garda involvement in the matter. It is important to state that, in its statement, GSOC made it perfectly clear that there was no evidence of Garda misconduct. Indeed, the Minister for Justice and Equality has been advised, and briefed the Cabinet on it this morning, that it concluded there was no definitive evidence of unauthorised surveillance, either technical or electronic, of its offices.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

So they were not bugged.

The Taoiseach

Because this is an issue-----

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Were they bugged or not?

An Ceann Comhairle

Stay quiet, please.

The Taoiseach

This is an issue of real importance and an issue of the confidence of the people in two very important institutions, both GSOC, which was set up for the purpose of having oversight in respect of gardaí, and the Garda Síochána itself. I am anxious, and I understand Deputies are anxious, to have as much information as is possible about the concerns that arose.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

We are not getting much information out of the Taoiseach.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

We will have to bug the Taoiseach's office to get the information off him.

The Taoiseach

For that reason, the Government instructed the Chief Whip this morning that, after the Order of Business concludes, the Minister for Justice and Equality will make a statement to the House, with opportunities for Members to respond to that. I note GSOC will attend in public session at the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions tomorrow. It is important that there be clarity - clarity leading to confidence - about the institution of GSOC. I hope that when GSOC attends there tomorrow, it will be in a position to provide that clarity. It is very necessary for the people that this happens.

The Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions was set up when this Government came into office. It has an opportunity tomorrow, in engaging with GSOC directly, to have that confidence and that clarity provided in order that our people are fully satisfied of the integrity of the office, and that GSOC expresses itself fully satisfied in that regard. From a Government perspective, that is fundamentally important. If GSOC itself requires any facility to enable it to come to that conclusion, the Government will provide that.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Why is there no investigation?

Deputy Timmy Dooley

GSOC showed no confidence in the Government at any rate.

The Taoiseach

I might say, for your information, a Cheann Comhairle, that the Government is not entitled to the report that was provided to GSOC by the company it chose. It is an independent body. However, the Minister for Justice and Equality has requested that the report would be supplied to him.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I find the Taoiseach's response extraordinary. I asked a very straightforward question in regard to that matter, namely, whether he would establish an independent panel of inquiry. He refused to answer it, and he went on a long rigmarole. I also asked him, as I made very clear at the outset of my question, about confidence in the administration of justice-----

An Ceann Comhairle

No. You can make it very clear. My job is to adhere to the rules of the House. You are entitled to raise an issue. You can raise that other issue tomorrow if you so wish.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It is the same issue.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not the same issue.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Sorry. It is the relationship between the ombudsman's office and the Garda. The Minister himself has made an issue of the relationship between the Garda ombudsman's office and the Garda confidential recipient.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am ruling on it anyway.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The Minister himself has made that connection in the House. It is outrageous that an attempt should be made to suppress a legitimate issue I have raised-----

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not suppressing it.

Deputies

You are.

Deputy Micheál Martin

------that goes to the very core of the administration of justice in this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

Do not be going on with your dramatics to me, please.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The Taoiseach did not have the bottle to answer the question I put to him.

An Ceann Comhairle

Do not be going on with your dramatics to me. You know the rules.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It is not dramatics. I do not normally do this, a Cheann Comhairle, but this matter-----

An Ceann Comhairle

You are here a long time. You know the rules as well as I do.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I am here a long time, and I have never seen a leader of the Opposition interrupted so much at any time since Leaders' Questions came in.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am here longer than you, and neither have I seen anyone behave like that towards the Chair.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I have never seen that type of intervention, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have never seen that behaviour towards the Chair either, so please put your supplementary.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It is unprecedented how you come in to protect certain situations. You made it clear to the Taoiseach that he dare not reply to a very fundamental question.

An Ceann Comhairle

I pointed out what the rules of the House say.

Deputy Micheál Martin

If you would allow me to finish, I would finish, but you do not. I want a simple answer. It is on the record of this House since last Thursday that a whistleblower-----

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a separate issue.

Deputy Micheál Martin

-----was told by the Garda confidential recipient that the Minister for Justice and Equality will "go after you" if this material goes into the public domain. I can think of nothing more important-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Well then, raise it.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I am raising it, but you are trying to stop me raising it-----

An Ceann Comhairle

There are other ways to raise it, but not on Leaders' Questions.

Deputy Micheál Martin

-----and you are trying to stop the Taoiseach from answering it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not trying to stop him. That is being childish.

Deputy Micheál Martin

It is a very simple question. Is the Taoiseach aware of it? Has the Taoiseach sought confirmation from the Minister? Is it because, and I do not want to cast any aspersions on the individual-----

Deputies

No?

Deputy Micheál Martin

No, because the whistleblower will say-----

An Ceann Comhairle

You are over time.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The whistleblower will say he told him the truth, because the whistleblower will say that the Minister did come after him. That is what the whistleblower will say.

An Ceann Comhairle

You can raise that tomorrow. Thank you.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Oliver Connolly was correct. Oliver Connolly was close to the Minister, he was a good supporter of the Fine Gael party, as he is entitled to be, but he was appointed to a very sensitive office.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Blaming the victims.

Deputy Micheál Martin

A core issue has been raised in respect of it in this House and there is silence from the Government benches and the Minister. I am entitled to ask the question. Is the Taoiseach satisfied with that in terms of public confidence in the institutions established relating to Garda oversight and in terms of facilitating whistleblowers to come to the table with material they want to talk about instead of being told if they do so they will be pursued.

The Taoiseach

I am of the view, which is shared by everybody else, that we require clarity in respect of the GSOC and the integrity of that office which has responsibility for oversight of An Garda Síochána. I am also well aware of the importance of citizens having confidence in the integrity of An Garda Síochána. This issue was at the forefront of much discussion last weekend arising from the revelations in a Sunday newspaper about the consequences and aftermath of an investigation and security sweep carried out by the GSOC. The GSOC chairman met with the Minister yesterday and it issued a formal statement.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

We know that.

The Taoiseach

The GSOC is to attend the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service, Oversight and Petitions tomorrow in public session. Deputy Martin is asking me today to have a public inquiry into this. Does he not think it appropriate that the GSOC should come before the committee and answer questions and provide clarification for Members of the House? Perhaps he does not want that. He is asking me to set up a public inquiry today when an Oireachtas committee is legitimately entitled to inquire into this and the GSOC has responded publicly to the effect that it will attend the committee.

Clearly, the statement yesterday from the Garda Commissioner requires an answer regarding four issues. I expect that when the GSOC attends in formal session at a public committee, this clarity will be provided. It is necessary for the official commission with responsibility for oversight of An Garda Síochána to have integrity and the confidence of the people. The GSOC indicated yesterday that it found no evidence of electronic bugging and that the Garda was not involved in misconduct in any way. I expect that the least Deputy Martin could do is to allow that the GSOC, a commission that is independent of the Government in the way it carries out its business of oversight, should be allowed to come before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service, Oversight and Petitions and make its position very clear. We want to see confidence in the integrity of the GSOC in respect of how it carries out its business and confidence in the integrity of the running of An Garda Síochána. These are two very important pillars of our democratic system.

In respect of the other matter raised by Deputy Martin, if he wants an answer from the Minister for Justice and Equality, he should raise it in a Topical Issue debate or put down a priority question.

Deputy Gerry Adams

I agree with the Taoiseach that we need clarity but he has not been clear. There is very deep concern about reports that the GSOC office was targeted as part of a sophisticated surveillance operation allegedly using high-level technology. The Taoiseach's response to this yesterday was very disappointing, as was that of the Government to the whistleblower allegations. The important question people are asking about this scandal is whether the office of the GSOC was bugged and if so, by whom? There is no point in blaming the GSOC, as the Taoiseach did yesterday. That is not good enough. There is clearly a breakdown of trust between that office, the Garda Commissioner and the Minister. The reality is that the GSOC has been undermined since it was established and its work frustrated, particularly during the public interest investigation into the handling of informers arising from the Kieran Boylan affair. I also agree with the Taoiseach that citizens need to trust public agencies and to know that they are in a position to carry out their work without being compromised, particularly an agency with the onerous responsibility for Garda oversight. Was the office of the GSOC bugged? If so, who did it? The Taoiseach was not clear about that.

The GSOC has no oversight in respect of the Garda Commissioner. Given the breakdown in trust with the Minister, is it not clear that an independent inquiry would resolve these matters in an urgent way and that this would then deal with the issue of public confidence about which the Taoiseach expressed concern?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Adams made the point about newspaper reports that the office of the GSOC was the subject of sophisticated surveillance. A report claiming that the GSOC had been the subject of unlawful surveillance of a sophisticated nature was published in a Sunday newspaper on 9 February 2014. The Minister received a briefing on this yesterday by the chairman of the GSOC. The chairman said publicly that he regretted that the GSOC had made a difficult decision not to inform the Minister, as is required under the law in section 80(5) of Garda Síochána Act 2005. The chairman made that clear.

The issue arose following a sweep of the GSOC's offices conducted in September 2013. That sweep was not dictated by any issue but was part of having a regular sweep of an office like that. As the Deputy is aware, the Minister was informed yesterday that following the sweep and investigation by the company chosen by the GSOC, the GSOC concluded that no definitive evidence of unauthorised technical or electronic surveillance of the office was found. The Deputy asks me whether the office was bugged. Following the investigation, the GSOC found no evidence of unauthorised sophisticated technical or electronic surveillance. I think that is clear.

Deputy Adams is aware that citizens need to have confidence in the integrity of the GSOC. This is why the Minister will give a more detailed statement dealing with the technical issues raised in the investigation and the discussions he had with the chairman of the GSOC yesterday. As I indicated to Deputy Martin, the GSOC will appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service, Oversight and Petitions tomorrow in public session. I expect that the matters that need to be addressed in respect of giving absolute clarity about this fundamentally important office will be addressed. That is in the interests of everybody. Deputy Martin is looking for a public inquiry tomorrow. The GSOC, which has responsibility for oversight of the Garda, is fully entitled to give its report and engage with the committee.

I point out to Deputy Adams that the Government does not have the report provided to the GSOC by the company that carried out the investigation. The Government is not entitled to that report because the GSOC is independent but the Minister for Justice and Equality has requested it. If it is provided we will be able to deal with the facts as presented to the GSOC by the company.

Deputy Gerry Adams

Sinn Féin also supports the call for a fully independent inquiry without delay into these matters.

A part of the difficulty is something about which I challenged the Taoiseach in my first question. Yesterday, he inaccurately quoted section 80(5) of the Garda Síochána Act. He has done it again now. Whatever about whether the ombudsman was right or wrong not to report the matter to the Minister, the ombudsman is not bound to do so. The section states: "The Ombudsman Commission may make any other reports that it considers appropriate for drawing to the Minister's attention matters that have come to its notice." The ombudsman's office may or may not. Obviously, the ombudsman did not. Why not? This is why we need an independent element to examine these issues.

The Taoiseach quoted what could be described as a Jesuitical statement about whether the office was bugged. Was it found that an unauthorised system was in place that would have left the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, offices vulnerable to bugging? I have read all of these reports. It depends exactly on how one interprets what happened. GSOC was concerned enough to bring someone in from outside the State to examine the matter. It was concerned enough at the outcome of that examination not to report it to the Garda Commissioner or the Minister.

The ombudsman commission is appointed by the President. That is rightly so. However, if the Taoiseach misses my next point, he misses it all. Following the penalty points debacle and the whistleblowers controversy, does this current scandal not highlight the worrying level of distrust between GSOC and the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice and Equality?

Deputy Simon Harris

The Garda is reassured-----

Deputy Gerry Adams

If the Government will not do so, just tell us "No", but it promised transparency in how it would do its business.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Dream on.

Deputy Gerry Adams

The Government claimed that it would do its business differently from its predecessors. Why will it not just put in place a fully independent inquiry to examine these matters expeditiously and report to the Oireachtas?

The Taoiseach

I respect absolutely GSOC and I think it is important that GSOC would have every opportunity to state for the record in public session and that the chairman and the members of the board of the commission are absolutely satisfied with the independence and integrity of the way that they are entitled to do their business. Now, I cannot direct them to do that. It is important that the Government here and the people understand the relationship between the Garda on the one hand and GSOC, which has oversight for gardaí, on the other. I think that, without any talk of independent inquiries, it is important for GSOC when it goes before the Oireachtas committee to be able to outline the degree of satisfaction that it has in the running of its own affairs.

In its own statement yesterday, it said: "GSOC is satisfied that its databases were not compromised. Since the investigation concluded, we have been working to review and enhance our security systems in the light of what the investigation revealed... The commission decided to discontinue the investigation on the basis that no further action was necessary or reasonably practicable."

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Was it bugged or not?

The Taoiseach

That is the statement from GSOC. The section that I referred to and that the Deputy quoted from means that GSOC is entitled of its own initiative to report-----

Deputy Gerry Adams

The Taoiseach did not say that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, please.

The Taoiseach

-----under the law to the Minister for Justice and Equality of the day. In its statement yesterday, it said:

We did not wish to point fingers unnecessarily and we did not believe that widespread reporting would be conducive to public confidence. We took the decision not to report in good faith. We regret that now and this was communicated to the Minister for Justice and Equality by Simon O'Brien, chairman...

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

GSOC thought it would go away.

The Taoiseach

That is the independent body with oversight responsibility for the Garda. That is its statement. It says that there was no evidence of its databases being compromised, that it made the decision not to report in good faith, that it regretted that decision and that it communicated that to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

All is well. Is that the point the Taoiseach is making? We are all happy.

The Taoiseach

The balance between the Garda and GSOC is very important here. I do hope that the clarity that is necessary can be furnished at the open hearings of the Oireachtas committee tomorrow. From that point of view, the Minister for Justice and Equality will speak in some further detail after the Order of Business today.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

So, it is not a GUBU situation. It is all right and everything is fine.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I would like to change topic to another important and pressing issue. In just a matter of weeks, the special liquidator of IBRC is planning to sell more than 13,000 mortgages on the open market. I have met some of the families involved, people like Ms Denise McCormack and Mr. Mike Hurrell, who were featured on "Prime Time" last night. The families have two concerns. First, they will not be allowed to bid for their own mortgages. The special liquidator plans on selling their mortgages in batches of several thousand at a discount. Under the current plan, that discount will be turned into profit for large international financial firms rather than being used to benefit thousands of Irish families as it could. Second, when their mortgages are sold, the families will be stripped of important protections from the Central Bank, the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA, and the financial ombudsman.

As the Taoiseach knows, this has already happened to many Irish families. Apollo Global Management from the US and the Pepper Group from Australia have bought thousands of Irish mortgages. Both firms are voluntarily conforming to the Central Bank guidelines and are to be congratulated for doing so. Unlike domestic banks, though, they were not required to do so.

The families that own the Irish Nationwide mortgages are right to be afraid. Depending on who buys their loans, they could find their interest rates jacked up or themselves in court for repossession hearings. If that happens, they will have no protection from the Central Bank or the ombudsman under the current law.

Under the IBRC legislation that was passed last year, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has the power to direct the special liquidator to allow these families to bid for their own loans at the market price. However, when I asked the Minister in October whether he would exercise that power, he refused. He cited the advice that it would be more efficient, among other factors, to sell the loans in batches. I hope the Taoiseach agrees with me that a little administrative complexity is a small price to pay for helping thousands of Irish families in this situation.

I have two questions. Does the Taoiseach agree that the Irish Nationwide mortgage holders should be allowed to bid for their own mortgages at whatever discount is being offered to international financial firms? Will he commit to the House to introduce legislation urgently that will guarantee that all mortgage holders have the same level of protection from the Central Bank, the CCMA and the ombudsman?

The Taoiseach

The Minister, Deputy Noonan, dealt with this in questions just some short time ago. The special liquidator has full responsibility for determining how the assets of IBRC are sold. In arriving at these decisions, it has considered the cases made from both borrowers and professional independent advice on each of the portfolios in the mortgage area. The decision to offer the residential mortgage book for sale in a portfolio was also arrived at, having regard to the scale of the process and the size of the IBRC loan book.

Furthermore, the decision to sell the loans as part of a portfolio is a more efficient method of disposal and the one that is most likely to give best results in terms of the ultimate sales by the special liquidator, having regard to the public interest. Interference by the State in these matters could lead to challenge from other creditors in the bank.

As the Minister set out, the continued applicability of the Central Bank code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA, in respect of the IBRC residential mortgage portfolio depends on the regulatory status of whoever acquires the portfolio at the end of the process. I am advised that, for instance, should the portfolio be sold to NAMA, it will be mindful of the general market norms that apply when determining its strategy for managing the portfolio.

The Minister, Deputy Noonan, has instructed the Department of Finance to examine the issue in consultation with the Central Bank with a view to bringing forward a solution to the problem.

This is a complex legal issue and will require some careful consideration. We will not know the regulatory status of the ultimate acquirer of the portfolio until the sales process has been concluded. The outcome of the sales process will therefore determine what, if anything, needs to be done at that point. For example, in the event that NAMA acquires the loan book, NAMA is likely to apply best practice in this regard.

There were 17,411 residential loans in IBRC at the end of May outstanding to more than 13,000 customers, so it is understandable that many mortgage owners might be interested in buying their loans. The cost and the practicalities involved would make it both difficult and costly to go down that particular road. Taxpayers have already incurred far too high a price from this bank, and no further cost should be imposed upon them. It is important to note that the special liquidators have confirmed that all borrowers are permitted to repay their mortgage at par value and there are no legislative barriers for such borrowers to do so. The decision, as outlined by the Minister, to package such loans for sale by way of portfolios, is not limited only to the residential mortgage book. Similar decisions were taken in the commercial UK books to maximise sales realisations for the special liquidators.

As the process is under way, clearly we will not know who ultimately acquires the loan book until the process is finished. As the Minister has notified the Central Bank about this, it might be appropriate to see what solution, if any, is necessary following the conclusion of the process.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply, but if I were one of these families I would be despairing at that answer. We do know what is going to happen. We know that none of the domestic banks will buy the loans. If NAMA buys them, if Apollo buys them or if some vulture fund in New York buys them, none of the potential buyers is covered by the Central Bank regulations. We know that to be the case, so a "wait and see" approach until after the contract has been signed is not good enough. I cannot imagine how frustrating it is to be one of the owners of these 14,000 mortgages around Ireland and to hear representatives of the Government say that we gave Irish Nationwide more than €5 billion in dead money to ensure every single one of the bondholders was covered. The Government stood over a €900 million bond payout 18 months ago for an unguaranteed bond that was bought in 2007, but when people are now asking to buy their own loans because they are terrified that some foreign firm will buy it, the answer from the Government is that it will let the special liquidator sell these mortgages for 90 cent or even 50 cent in the euro, but will not let the people buy their own loans because it is too complicated and too expensive.

This is potentially a win-win situation. There is no trade-off between getting the best price for the mortgage and helping these families, as well as the Irish domestic banking system and the general economy as a consequence. All these people are saying is that if the Government is going to sell their loans to those guys in New York for 90 cent in the euro or 50 cent in the euro, they would rather buy it for that price themselves. They can refinance it with AIB or by selling the property and getting out of negative equity. The point is that the State is already taking the hit, even though the Taoiseach has spoken about the value to the State. We are selling the loans at a discount. All these people want to do is buy it at a discount.

The Taoiseach and Government representatives have a mantra that everything in the mortgage world must be dealt with case by case basis. Why then, when it comes to helping potentially thousands of families, does that case-by-case principle no longer apply? This could be a win. Would the Taoiseach please at least take one more look and see if something can be worked out? The current solution will profit foreign vulture funds at the cost of Irish families.

The Taoiseach

The Minister has already instructed the Department of Finance to examine this matter in consultation with the Central Bank. The Deputy will be aware that operating loans are being repaid at par value. The interest of acquirers of a portfolio of loans will be for loans that are not performing well. Every mortgage that is signed for has contractual obligations attached to it. Whoever will acquire the portfolio of loans will have to comply with those contractual arrangements that were set out when the mortgage was originally signed. The additional requirements in the code of conduct set out by the Central Bank are the basis of the instruction given by the Minister for Finance to the Department and the Central Bank to look at the option that might arise. Clearly it has been indicated that if NAMA were to acquire this portfolio of loans, it would apply best practice to them.

I know this is of concern to the people involved and I have heard the public reports, but the Minister for Finance is well aware of this and has given his instructions to the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Central Bank, to see what might be the best option in the event of whoever ultimately acquiring the portfolio of loans. If the State were to take a hit in going through these loans individually, it would be both complex and probably very time-consuming. If we look at the portfolio of loans in their entirety, several of them are performing well and are being repaid, and they are probably not of great interest to an acquirer because they are operating at par. It is the loans that are in difficulty that are of interest to them. That is the subject of discussions between the Department of Finance and the Central Bank.