I must move onto the Spring Economic Statement at 2 p.m. so I ask the Leaders to be conscious of those coming behind them. We need to divide our time properly.
Leaders' Questions
I want to raise the issue of the commissioning of a review and the production of a report on the sale of Siteserv and other large transactions pertaining to IBRC and the decision of the Minister for Finance in that regard. I would make the point that there is a fundamental conflict of interest in allowing KMPG, which advised on the sale of Siteserv, whose personnel were involved with that company and which was also involved in the liquidation of IBRC, for which it has earned €70 million or more to date, to investigate the sale of the company. It is a fundamental political error on the part of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. It is a wrong decision. Belatedly the Minister acknowledged the conflict of interest and appointed a retired judge to monitor potential conflicts of interest. This is the first time I have ever witnessed the establishment of an investigation which, at the outset, acknowledges that there is a conflict of interest.
While I am not casting aspersions on any individuals or the company involved, the bottom line is that this is wrong. It goes to the heart of independence and the need for an independent inquiry. The press release that was issued is incredible. It says that the Government wants the review to address recent speculation and concerns raised in the Dáil and "elsewhere". Could I remind the Taoiseach that the "elsewhere" is the Department of Finance. It was officials in the Department of Finance who raised grave concerns about the sale of Siteserv and other activities within the IBRC. There has been a lot of guff, publicly-----
Can we have a question please.
-----in defence of the sale but the bottom line is that it was a very strange and wrong decision to allow the company to run the sale rather than IBRC. There was no logic in excluding trade buyers from the sale and the €5 million pay-off proves the point.
Thank you Deputy.
The company had skin in the game and that is why it should never have been let near the sale. Yesterday we had a farcical situation relating to activity on the share register and the promise from the Taoiseach that there would be full transparency.
Deputy, please co-operate.
Can the Taoiseach assure us today that the activities on the share register in advance of the sale will be covered by the inquiry and will be embraced by the investigation? Can he ensure that in the interim the Government will ensure full transparency into who was buying shares in a company that was going bust-----
I thank the Deputy.
-----and full disclosure in terms of the personnel involved and all the activity? Why will the Taoiseach not-----
Sorry, Deputy, will you please-----
-----establish a commission of investigation under the Act?
The Deputy asked why we did not establish a commission of investigation. The interest of the Government here is for the taxpayer and that the facts in respect of the Siteserv sale should be made available as quickly as possible. The Deputy knows well enough that if a commission of investigation is set up to look at an issue like this there is a lead-in of a number of months and it can be a long time after that before a commission of investigation report is published. The Deputy would be the first out of the traps to say that the Government was involved in a cover-up, did not want this information to be made available and was engaged in secrecy and all the rest of it.
In the interests of dealing with this matter, the Government decided to have the Minister use the authority he has to direct the special liquidator to look at all the issues and at sales of €10 million or in excess of €10 million and produce a report by the end of August. In addition, because all the files are in the possession of the special liquidator, it was decided to appoint a retired High Court judge to adjudicate on any case where there might be a perception of conflict of interest or whatever else.
The special liquidator has been asked to deal with all transactions that occurred between 21 January 2009, the date of nationalisation of IBRC, and 7 February 2013, which is the date of appointment of special liquidators to IBRC. Therefore it is broader than the Siteserv transaction that was concluded by IBRC back in 2012. It is expected that it will cover approximately 30 transactions that were concluded by the board of IBRC in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and up to the date of liquidation of IBRC in February 2013. It is a much broader investigation here.
That allows for the information relevant to these matters to be collated, produced and given to the Minister by the end of August. In the meantime a judge with the authority can adjudicate in any case where there is a perception of anything to do with a conflict of interest. That can then be transmitted here to the appropriate Oireachtas committees. As I have already said, if necessary the Government is quite prepared to legislate for a further independent analysis of this by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The only reason the board of IBRC was taking decisions that impacted on the taxpayer was the decision of the Government of which Deputy Martin was a member to guarantee the banks back in 2008 and nationalise Anglo Irish Bank in 2009, which caused absolute economic mayhem for hundreds of thousands of families in the country.
From which the Government's spring statement later today will benefit.
Of course the Deputy will conveniently forget that.
By the way, the Taoiseach voted for the bank guarantee and actually asked that the bank guarantee be extended to other banks. So I ask him to stop the hypocrisy.
The Taoiseach mentioned that the Government had no wish to cover up. However, it did cover up. The incredible and fraught relationship between IBRC and the Department of Finance was not revealed to the Dáil for three years. Comparing and contrasting the replies to parliamentary questions on the same issues from two years ago with those in the past month or six weeks show a big difference in terms of what is revealed.
The Department of Finance officials wanted an independent review of the Siteserv deal back in 2012-----
A question, please.
-----and the Minister refused to pursue that. IBRC has now confirmed that it did not pursue any independent review either. So there was no independent review three years ago despite officials in the Department of Finance articulating-----
Can you please put your supplementary question?
-----their concerns and asking for it to happen. For some reason the Dáil was continually misled over a two to three-year period and there was essentially a cover up.
Can you please put your supplementary question?
I would think that is a very serious and grave issue.
There are two others asking questions here and we have to finish at 2 o'clock.
There was a cover-up over what was going on within IBRC, not just on this issue, I acknowledge, but also in respect of other big transactions.
There were significant concerns in the Department of Finance but they were never shared with the Dáil until freedom of information documents were released.
Deputy, please co-operate.
Why was there not an independent review and why did the Minister not reveal this information earlier?
I remind Deputy Martin that two other Deputies wish to ask questions.
Deputy Martin would like to think there was some kind of cover-up.
There was.
His own Government was responsible for a framework that made it clear the Department of Finance could not intervene in any financial transactions.
That has nothing to do with it.
It is true.
The Department of Finance appointed a person to IBRC.
Deputy Martin does not like the truth very often. When the Minister for Finance was able to do something about this, he changed the regulatory framework and appointed a senior civil servant to ask questions. The freedom of information letters to which Deputy Martin did not refer show exactly the level of regard that the Minister, Deputy Noonan, had for the taxpayer in terms of asking the questions that should be asked. That is the reason it is preferable now to have an expeditious review of all transactions amounting to more than €10 million by the special liquidator provided on direction to the Minister for Finance and with a judge to adjudicate if there is any perception of conflict of interest. That report will be provided to the House by the end of August and the Government is willing to amend the law so that-----
We have the necessary laws.
-----if the Committee of Public Accounts or other Oireachtas committee calls for further analysis we can provide for such analysis.
The Government fixed the result before it even started.
It is being pushed out until after the election. We all know the game.
The board of IBRC robustly defended its position, the Central Bank examined the matter and now we are carrying out a further review.
Release the unredacted documents so we can form our own views.
The Deputy should take his cover-up and prove it if he believes it exists.
The Dáil passed a motion last Thursday that Leaders' Questions shall conclude at 2 p.m. I am only obeying the rules. I call Deputy Adams.
The Taoiseach appears to insist on proceeding with a review into the IBRC scandal in which nobody has any faith. The review is simply an extension of the Government's cover-up of this scandal. When Deputy Pearse Doherty raised questions in 2012 on the handling of IBRC's sale of Siteserv, he was stonewalled by the Minister for Finance. At the same time, officials from the Department of Finance were bringing their serious concerns to the Minister's attention. Why did the Minister not reflect this in his written answers to Deputy Doherty? That was three years ago, and the Government has been sitting on this issue for all this time. It is another indication of the toxic relationship between big business and political parties such as Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil.
Go back to the Manhattan marquis.
Citizens see the contrast between the Government's attitude to the banks and the political and business insiders of the golden circle, and its treatment of ordinary citizens. Citizens are appalled by the massive write-downs that IBRC has given to private companies. The Taoiseach has no problem with these write-downs but he ensures there are no write-downs for mortgage holders by giving a veto to the banks. Last week the Taoiseach told the Dáil he knew nothing of the reports on how IBRC did its business or of the concerns expressed by the Department of Finance. When did the Minister, Deputy Noonan, inform the Taoiseach about the deep concerns of the Department regarding the sale of Siteserv and other IBRC deals?
The Minister, Deputy Noonan, is more than capable of running his Department and dealing with the matters for which he has responsibility. The Minister informed us about the negotiations on IBRC in so far as the promissory notes were concerned. Deputy Adams stood up in this House, week after week and month after month, to ask the Government whether we were going to borrow €3 billion every March to pay for the interest on Anglo Irish Bank. The Minister rightly informed his Cabinet colleagues about the promissory notes, through which the Government secured savings of over €20 billion in the coming years. He is well able to deal with the issues arising within his Department. He informed the Cabinet of the discussions in regard to IBRC.
When?
I do not have the date but he kept us updated on IBRC because the promissory note issue continued for quite some time, as Deputy Adams is aware.
I asked the Taoiseach when the Minister, Deputy Noonan, informed him about his Department's deep concerns with the Siteserv sale and other IBRC deals. Last week the Taoiseach stated that he did not know anything about this. Today, if I understand him properly, he is telling us the matter was brought to his attention and to the attention of the Cabinet.
That begs the next question: what did the Taoiseach do about this? While he is valiantly giving the impression he is inquiring into these matters, he is in fact blocking a genuine independent investigation. We know, since it is on public record, that civil servants raised repeated and serious concerns about the sale of Siteserv and other deals.
I do not know how much these transactions cost, but one can presume they cost hundreds of millions to taxpayers. We can also presume that the insiders gained by hundreds of millions. While all this was going on, a Siteserv subsidiary was granted the lucrative contract to install water meters. Was it on the advice of the consultants that Phil Hogan gave €85 million of taxpayers' money to that contract? It is clear a certain privileged elite became even more wealthy as a result of the financial crisis in this State and that the Government facilitated this. It is also clear that the only way to find out what exactly happened is to establish a commission of investigation. Is the reason the Taoiseach will not set up an independent commission of investigation because he does not want taxpayers, the electorate and citizens to know exactly what happened?
I think that deep down the Deputy has problems with the institutions of this State. If the Government decided to set up a commission of investigation, Deputy Adams, along with Deputy Martin, would be first out of the traps to say this was a cover-up and that we were afraid to produce the evidence or information before any general election in spring next year, that we did not want to tell the people. That is the reason we do not have a commission of investigation.
Answer the question.
It is much more expeditious and more in everybody's interest that all the information about this be made available. Who has the files on this? It is the special liquidator. Who ordered the special liquidator to collate all of those files valued over €10 million where transactions occurred and to bring them back to him before the end of August? Who said that if necessary, the Committee of Public Accounts, chaired by a member of the Fianna Fáil Party who has no time for the leader or what he stands or does not stand for, would make a recommendation that there be an analysis of this by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
(Interruptions).
I am sure Deputy Adams believes in the independence and objectivity of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That information, in terms of the public register, is now available for analysis as to who the shareholders were and who the stockbrokers were who purchased shares on behalf of clients. We also have a High Court judge to determine and adjudicate on any perception of conflict of interest in these matters about any of the transactions and to adjudicate on the commercial viability of any of the transactions mentioned.
I understand there were 30 or so transactions over €10 million, but Minister Noonan did not deal with those with me. He was dealing with the IBRC and the promissory notes and he kept the Cabinet updated on those on a regular basis. As the Deputy knows, he was very successful in saving the taxpayer serious money over the next ten years and in not requiring the Deputy to jump up here every week to keep asking questions about borrowing €3.1 billion to pay interest debt in Anglo Irish Bank.
Painted outside the Ministry for Truth in George Orwell's "1984" are the three slogans of the ruling party: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; and "Ignorance is Strength". Does the Taoiseach have any plans to paint slogans outside Government Buildings? If he does, perhaps he could add two more slogans to those three classics, namely, Competent is Compromise; and Independent is Dependent.
Just last Thursday, the Tánaiste and Leader of the Labour Party, came into the Dáil and repeatedly stated that what she favoured was an independent inquiry by a competent authority. Instead, we have a review by KPMG of a sale of Siteserv in which it was involved. This was a company on whose board a number of people with close connections to KPMG sat and in regard to a bank for which it acted as liquidator. Thus it was utterly compromised and utterly dependent and connected with those it is meant to be investigating and is incapable of providing any answers people will be satisfied with.
Does the Taoiseach think this investigation meets what the Tánaiste was calling for last Thursday? Is it an independent inquiry by a competent authority?
The doublespeak of the Government is not confined to this non-inquiry. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, in answers to parliamentary questions repeatedly indicated there was nothing to see here. With a question last December from Deputy Catherine Murphy that explicitly asked if the Minister was aware of higher bids for Siteserv, he did not answer that point. We know now that he was aware of such bids. The Minister was asked if he was satisfied that IBRC had acted in the best financial interests of the State but he did not answer the question; we know now that he was not fully satisfied to that effect. On 4 February this year, he was asked why he did not query the reason for such a large loss to the State.
A question, please.
He did not indicate that any review or meetings about this had taken place. We know now that there was a series of meetings, including one he attended because of that concern. The list goes on of parliamentary questions and stonewalling by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. All of the facts had to be dragged from the Minister. Is that not a cover-up?
Please ask a question.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Minister, Deputy Noonan, deliberately misled the Dáil. Did he also mislead the Taoiseach or did he inform the Taoiseach of his concerns? The Taoiseach has been unclear about that in his answers. Forget about the promissory notes, as we are talking about the Minister's concerns relating to Siteserv. Was there a Chinese wall in effect? Does the Taoiseach have confidence in the Minister and does the Taoiseach agree that the Minister should now resign?
The last retort is hardly worthy of an answer.
It is worthy of an answer.
The Deputy should stay quiet.
I point out to Deputy Paul Murphy that the Minister, Deputy Noonan, among his peers at a European level was deemed to be the outstanding Minister for Finance. I have absolute confidence in him, in case the Deputy has any doubt about that.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
He just does not answer questions.
The issue is about getting information and facts out of people as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Where are all the files in respect of IBRC?
That is the problem.
They are in the possession of the special liquidator.
Do not insult us.
Who has authority over the special liquidator? The Minister for Finance has ordered the liquidator to produce evidence and files in respect of all transactions over €10 million from 2009 to February 2013, inclusive. That is much broader than the Siteserv sale. Clearly, the appointment of Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill is designed to cover the element of the review that will determine where there is any evidence of material deficiencies in IBRC's performance in respect of those transactions, related activities and management decisions, as well as whether it can be concluded that transactions were not commercially sound. With respect to the issues about the sale of Siteserv and others, all the information will be brought to the Minister before the end of the August. It will be brought to this House and the Committee of Public Accounts and others can have their views on it.
I have already stated that if the Committee of Public Accounts considers there is a further necessity to examine any of these matters, the Government is prepared and happy to amend the law so that the Comptroller and Auditor General, with his independence, can look at this. I remind the Deputy that the IBRC board has defended its analysis and the Central Bank has examined these questions. There is a review ongoing, which will lead, if necessary, to a further completely independent and objective analysis. I say this as if the Government decided to have a commission of investigation, the Deputy would paint slogans outside the Dáil gates and argue that we are afraid to tell the truth and provide evidence or facts. That is why with this system, all these necessary pieces of information can be made available to the public. That is the interest of the Government with respect to the taxpayer.
With regard to the Deputy's final comment, we cannot forget about the promissory notes. Perhaps the Deputy does not understand how that issue affected every single person in the country, as the Government was required by the gross incompetence of our predecessors to borrow €3.1 billion every year to pay the interest on the Anglo Irish Bank debt, whose rotten carcass was eliminated by this Government.
Hear, hear.
Before Deputy Paul Murphy speaks again, I would like him to withdraw a disorderly remark to the effect that the Minister "deliberately misled" the Dáil.
Deputies cannot, under Standing Orders, make such a charge. I ask Deputy Paul Murphy to withdraw the remark before making a further contribution.
I believe the Minister misled the Dáil and the facts speak to that.
The Deputy cannot state the Minister deliberately misled the Dáil. There are certain procedures in this House to which everybody must adhere. The Deputy cannot make a charge that a Minister deliberately misled the Dáil.
The Socialist Party does not believe in procedures, no more than Sinn Féin does.
Deputy Hayes should be quiet while I am speaking. I ask Deputy Murphy to withdraw the charge he made.
I am saying that-----
The Deputy said the Minister deliberately misled the Dáil. I ask him to withdraw that charge.
Let me clarify.
No clarification is required, only a withdrawal.
I cannot speak to whether the Minister was deliberate or otherwise or whether it was accidental or on purpose.
Withdraw the remark.
I withdraw the deliberate aspect of it.
Thank you.
The Deputy is withdrawing only the deliberate bit.
Deputy Durkan must be quiet. I am in the Chair.
(Interruptions).
I am in charge and I ask Deputies to be quiet. We will adhere to Standing Orders. I ask Deputy Paul Murphy to obey the rules of the House. He cannot make charges like this against a Minister in the House.
Okay. This is some democratic revolution over which the Taoiseach is presiding and in which the Labour Party is participating. The Government appears to believe it is okay for a Minister to mislead the Dáil.
Hold on.
I did not use the word "deliberately". It is on the record that the Minister misled the Dáil.
The Deputy cannot say the Minister misled the Dáil.
Of course he can.
Would the Ceann Comhairle like to compare the answers given by the Minister?
The Deputy cannot make a charge that a Minister misled the Dáil without any evidence.
The evidence is on the record. It is in the contradiction between the answers to a large number of parliamentary questions and the information that has emerged from freedom of information requests. It is absolutely clear.
The Deputy is making a charge that is not acceptable under Standing Orders. There are other ways to put his question.
I will move on. A broad inquiry is needed into write-offs in IBRC. We should not be misled and the Siteserv issue should not be included as part of a broader question. We must go deep into the rabbit hole that is Siteserv. We must start with the point at which Denis O'Brien, the richest and luckiest man in Ireland, had €100 million written off and got his hands on Siteserv and finish at the point at which he got his hands on a water metering contract worth €180 million. A specific inquiry is needed into that issue.
It was clear at the time, as recorded a couple of months afterwards-----
The Deputy must put a question.
----by the Irish Independent, that metering contracts would be sought, although Alan Dukes denied this only last week.
On many occasions in the past-----
Sit down please, Deputy.
-----including under previous Taoisigh, people have watched crony capitalism in disgust and felt there was nothing they could do about it.
Resume your seat, please.
Now, however, they can do something because Irish Water is delivering a weapon into their letter boxes. They can refuse to pay their water bills in protest against write-offs and bailouts for the rich when ordinary people must pay and pay again.
Deputy Murphy does not care about ordinary people.
Last week, I saw some of your people outside the gates of McKee Barracks where 700 young students from all over Ireland were receiving the Gaelbhratach for what they had done in respect of the Irish language.
What does the Taoiseach mean by "your people"?
The contradiction was startling. If they are your people, you should speak to them.
The Minister for Finance is very much in command of his Department. The Government has made a clear decision in the interests of everybody - the taxpayers and people - to have the facts and information provided as quickly and expeditiously as possible. The clear intention is that if Members of the House and its committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts, believe there is something else that should be looked at, the Government is quite prepared to amend the legislation to have, for instance, the Comptroller and Auditor General carry out a further independent, objective analysis of this matter.
Deputy Paul Murphy is like the others. If the Government had decided to have a commission of investigation, he would say he did not want it, call for us to give the facts and the information and accuse us of delaying until after the general election next spring.
The public will not allow the Government to get away with this sham.
All I am saying is that the Deputy will get the information. I do not know whether she has asked any of her media friends to book an appointment to look at the register of shareholders. The register was a public document before IBRC was changed and was available for public scrutiny.
The Minister has directed that this be approved and the judge will adjudicate in the public interest on any perception of any conflict of interest. I will go back to what Deputy Paul Murphy forgot about. This Government was able to negotiate with our colleagues internationally in respect of the promissory notes which will save the taxpayer billions of euro over the next ten years.
The Taoiseach cannot avoid it.
The Taoiseach's answer has nothing to do with the question asked.