Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 2015

Vol. 881 No. 2

Draft Commission of Investigation (Certain matters concerning transactions entered into by IBRC) Order 2015: Motion (Resumed)

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, on Tuesday, 9 June 2015:
That Dáil Éireann:
— having regard to the specific matters considered by Government to be of significant public concern regarding transactions entered into by the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC;
— noting that it is the opinion of the Government that these matters of significant public concern require, as the best method of addressing the issues involved and in the public interest, examination by the establishment of a commission of investigation; and
— further noting that a draft Order proposed to be made by the Government under the Commission of Investigation Act 2004 (No. 23 of 2004) has been duly laid before Dáil Éireann in respect of the foregoing matters referred to, together with a statement of reasons for establishing a commission under that Act;
approves the draft Commission of Investigation (Certain matters concerning transactions entered into by IBRC) Order 2015, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 9 June 2015.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:
To insert the following after "Dáil Éireann on 9 June 2015":
"Calls on the Government to amend the terms of reference for the commission of investigation into IBRC, as follows:
- The commission of inquiry will also examine governance within IBRC.
- The Taoiseach would request an interim report to be provided in October."
- (Deputy Michael McGrath).

The House and the people of Ireland owe a "Thank You" to Deputy Catherine Murphy for persistently bringing this matter to the attention of the people of Ireland and the Dáil. We must have openness and light on the biggest banking collapse in the civilised world to date. As an outcome Anglo Irish Bank, now IBRC, and NAMA have a combined written down value of assets in the order of some €60 billion to €65 billion. Around one million people in Ireland today hurt and will continue to hurt for the rest of their lives as a result of the unjustified and incorrect distribution of the losses that occurred from the credit pyramid-Ponzi scheme that was the creation solely of the boards of banks in the period 2001 to 2008. It is provable from the balance sheets but ignored by the current Administration and I am deeply depressed that, having been elected to this honourable House, any contributions I have made on this have been completely ignored and set aside. There is an unwillingness to have clarity, truthfulness and a discussion of the correct analysis.

In February 2013, we came into this House at an ungodly hour for a two-day event to deal with the special liquidation of Anglo Irish Bank, now IBRC. We also cement-set the unjustified loses of investors in the bank onto the Irish people. It has been blurred and wrongly taken on board by the establishment of this country, which is hiding behind a growth rate of 4% for next year and all that nonsense. People have come into my office whose family members have committed suicide, as have widows and sick people who are literally being bullied and beaten up by the so-called pillar banks who are still operationally paralysed because they do not have the capabilities to deal with the loan ledgers which they have remaining.

Anglo Irish Bank suffered admitted losses of €28 billion and Irish Nationwide Building Society losses of €6 billion - a total of €34 billion. A series of promissory notes was created for that, which are now promissory bonds, standing at €26 billion. These should be cancelled unilaterally and Mr. Draghi told about it. I will be travelling to Brussels on 1 July to support the Ballyhea group with that in mind. Yesterday, the Taoiseach said things had improved with so many thousands of jobs being created after the loss of jobs a few years ago but this is just political point-scoring. It is as if the collapse was all down to property, but it was not. The scale of credit that was allowed to flow into this country, across the board, brought the size of domestic banking from three times national income to over five and a half times national income.

I want to talk about how the so-called profits of IBRC were inflated for a period starting in 1993 and travelling forward to the present date. There were two ways this was done. First was the direct manipulation of interest charges and the concealment of loaded interest, which happened in the majority of cases. An extensive exercise carried out by Bank Check revealed this. It was an excellent exercise and gives the key facts as follows: there were 113 variable DIBOR and EURIBOR loans and 17 LIBOR-based transactions. Some 494 separate DIBOR-EURIBOR rates were reconciled and found to be loaded to a degree ranging from 0.5% in the early 1990s to between 0.03% and 0.05% in 2002 and 2003. Some 80% of all the loans examined, relating to many clients, were found to have this loading. The statements which clients received never showed the breakdown of the base rate and the DIBOR 3-month rate plus a margin, which had been agreed by loan agreements, plus the reserve asset cost, RAC, if and when it applied. The quantum of the loaded overcharging was in the order of 0.3%. A margin of 1.5% would comprise two elements, namely, the amount that goes to cover overheads, which is usually about 0.9% of the 1.5%, and the remainder, 0.6%, which is the profit of the bank. A loaded secret dark pool profit of 0.3% would represent one third of the overall profits, including that dark pool profit. That means the market valuation of Anglo Irish Bank in the 14 years up to 2002 when this was going on was overstated by one third. If it had been discovered by proper auditing the market would react with a collapse, like the St. Valentine's Day massacre, of at least one third of the value of the bank and this would affect the shareholders, creditors and depositors. That would happen irrespective of whether there was an international credit bust and a freeze of credit. This has been brought to the attention of the NTMA, NAMA and others but it has been ignored to date. I have the evidence here and it is shocking.

There is a superbly authoritative letter about the second element of the overcharge by Anglo Irish Bank, now IBRC. Interest was charged for 365 days across the board, when it should have been 360 days. In the case of IBRC v. John Morrissey, this was the decision of Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan. It has been brought to the attention of the bank, which has been asked to explain what has been done about this in relation to other clients, but it has been ignored.

The terms of reference which the Government has outlined for the investigation cover the period from 2009 to 2013, which is absurd. I am ashamed that this is the case as it excludes the professional conduct of the special liquidators. I have other examples of where clients of what was Anglo Irish Bank and is now IBRC are being mauled while special preferential treatment has been given to certain bidders on loans. I cite the Blackrock Clinic in this respect, which is now the subject of open court proceedings. I have the court depositions and it appears from the evidence that the senior accounting advisers of Larry Goodman are former KPMG partners and very close to the special liquidators at KPMG, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Wallace. It appears there was preferential treatment in the bidding for some of the loans of the investors in the Blackrock Clinic. This should also be investigated as there is too much darkness and too much selective, narrow stuff. On the day after the six-month stay on involvement in any property transactions relating to NAMA loan assets, the chief loans manager of NAMA, Mr. John Mulcahy, joined the advisory team of Denis O'Brien.

KPMG were the auditors of Irish Nationwide Building Society, which had a balance sheet of €14 billion. They made losses of €6 billion which were put on the backs of the Irish people. That is wrong.

KPMG was the auditor. It is unbelievable stuff. In May of last year all the Opposition Members put forward a motion in which people with experience and qualifications - in fact, myself - offered to go on the banking inquiry, and the Government, under the Whip, told Deputies to vote it down.

I want to read something that is extremely important, following the judgment of the-----

The Deputy's time is finished.

The Deputy's time is finished.

Can I conclude on one short sentence, please?

Yes. This is from Black solicitors, following the John Morrissey case:

It appears numerous illegalities have been carried out by Anglo Irish Bank and its successors over these 25 years. You, Mr. [Kieran] Wallace, have acknowledged under oath in US Court proceedings the overcharging of interest by the bank. As the overcharging has continued under your watch, you are jointly and severally liable for same, together with the Minister and Department of Finance, the Central Bank of Ireland and the Financial Regulator.

This is really serious stuff. No response has been received to letters that issued to NAMA on 7 January 2015, to the Central Bank on 22 January 2015, to the Minister for Finance on 3 March 2015, and to the Central Bank on 9 March 2015. We are now in June. This is serious stuff. There are loans that are being operationally processed by the originators of those loans. Now those loans are owned by third parties, including hedge funds, and they are calculating interest on an unlawful basis, even though it has been brought to their attention. This is shocking.

We are being told to stay quiet and that only information from between 2009 and 2013 will be looked at.

This should be open season, where there are valid, evidenced complaints.

If Deputy Mathews does not mind-----

I know, Chair, I know.

If Deputy Mathews does not mind, I ask him to finish. I have been more than lenient with him.

The Chair has been very generous.

It is those people-----

-----those benches, those empty-----

He said he had a short statement to read and I allowed him the 30 seconds to do that. Now he is going into another speech, so if he does not mind-----

There is other evidence that NAMA knowingly-----

-----allowed the information memorandum-----

-----for the Chicago Spire-----

-----to be negligently misleading, which has resulted in unnecessary huge losses for both the Irish people and the developer.

I have the evidence for that.

I have evidence for-----

Could the Deputy resume his seat?

I have evidence for too many things-----

Could the Deputy resume-----

-----that are being put into the dark pool-----

-----of the establishment.

Clerk, can I call for the Ceann Comhairle, please?

I thank the Acting Chairman.

There is no point in my sitting here if the Deputy is not going to listen to me. I have asked him repeatedly to sit down. I have given him an extra minute at this stage.

I apologise to the Acting Chairman personally.

It has nothing to do with me personally.

The authorities-----

It has to do with the chairing of the Dáil. The Deputy should sit down when he is asked, as his time is up.

This Government has abused-----

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the House today on this very important motion. It gives me and my Government colleagues the opportunity to provide some context for the issues that have been debated publicly or, in some cases, have not yet been debated publicly. I welcome the fact that we are now able to have this debate here and that it can be covered and given the attention this matter deserves. In the time available to me, I want to emphasise to the House how IBRC came into being in the first place. This will be uncomfortable listening for Fianna Fáil. I then want to outline the actions taken by this Government to secure our banking system, which was on the brink of catastrophe, and how stability has been brought to this sector. This will be uncomfortable listening for Sinn Féin and for some on the Independent benches. Finally, I want to express my strong belief that the commission of inquiry will report on these issues in a serious and deliberate way and will bring about the transparency and the clarity that is needed on this matter. I have no doubt that this will be an uncomfortable point for many who are now challenging what the Government is doing.

Let us be absolutely clear about why we are having this debate. During the Celtic tiger period, Fianna Fáil woefully mismanaged the Irish economy. It overspent, under-delivered and failed to properly regulate the sectors most closely associated with them as a party, particularly the banking and construction sectors. This resulted in a light-touch regulatory regime for Irish banks, which in turn led to a banking sector that was grossly out of proportion to the size of our economy. Eventually, that banking sector collapsed on itself. It impoverished many Irish people, it destroyed jobs and it forced many young people, in particular, to leave our country. To compound the problem, the then Fianna Fáil Government introduced a blanket guarantee for the banks in September 2008, a decision that would end up costing the Irish taxpayer, who would become liable for the debts and the obligations of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide to the tune of almost €35 billion. That is the context for this debate. That is why we are speaking about the need to protect taxpayers' money, the need to ensure the State got as good a deal as possible, and the need for transparency in the workings of IBRC to ensure the public interest was protected.

After coming into office in 2011 and surveying the wreckage of Ireland then, it is no understatement to say that this Government was charged with rescuing the country. Unemployment was skyrocketing, the era of net inward migration was over and a sense of doom prevailed. The chances of success were estimated by some at nil. However, due to the choices made by the Government and the support of the Irish people, the situation has dramatically improved. The Minister for Finance's predecessor said, "The bank will be managed on a commercial basis at arm's length from the Government, allowing the full potential of the bank's business to be realised." This is the framework under which the bailed-out Anglo Irish Bank, later IBRC, operated. Not satisfied with this, it was this Government that in 2012 revised the framework to provide greater oversight by the Minister, and rightly so. It was this Government that, through its skillful negotiation, restructured the promissory notes, resulting in the liquidation of IBRC in February 2013, removing Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide from our political and economic landscape. We did this is in the face of a maelstrom from many, who spoke of default and who imagined somehow that we would walk away from our obligations and find another way to pay our public servants. I say this not only to make a political point, but also to make an economic one. Our success in sorting out the banks in a prudent and responsible manner impacts directly on our ability to fund the vital social services our country needs. We have gone from a failed bank to a recovered bank to a liquidated bank, from money wasted in the past by the previous Government to as much money as possible saved by the current Government. Deputy Mathews referred to a 4% growth rate as nonsense. This is the kind of growth that is now enabling communities to begin the steady work of rebuilding themselves, getting more people back to work, and getting our country on the path to better days.

The decision to set up this commission of investigation is the right one. I have been described as many things in this House in recent weeks, but a Keynesian is not one of them. However, I agree with Keynes when he said:

When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?

The decision to wind down the review of the special liquidator and establish the commission of investigation has been questioned by some. It is the right response. When issues relating to IBRC first came to light, the Government believed the proposed review was the appropriate mechanism for getting to the bottom of the circumstances at the time.

When further issues came to light, thanks in part to the interventions by Deputy Catherine Murphy, it became clear that a wider and deeper investigation was needed. The Government heard the points that were made about the areas of public concern in regard to a potential conflict of interest. They were considered and we have now put in place a commission of investigation to respond to these points. This is the kind of process and debate that takes place outside the Dáil all the time.

I fully support the actions by the Government and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, in this regard. He admitted that when circumstances had changed, so too would the approach to responding to matters that need to be investigated and discussed. It was the right decision to take and highlights again his exceptional performance as Minister for Finance during what have at times have been horrific circumstances for our country.

I want also to touch on the terms of reference of the investigation. We have had an open-minded approach to setting up the commission of investigation. The Minister for Finance engaged with Opposition parties in this regard to widen the scope of the investigation and to put in place adequate terms of reference. That is because we recognise the need for a thorough investigation. The truth must come out. This must be balanced against constant requests to widen the terms of reference. There is something incongruous in hearing Deputies complain that the commission of investigation will not report by a certain time while at the same time asking for it to investigate more and more material.

We must also recognise the independence of the figure who will lead this work and allow them the scope to determine in an independent manner how they wish to conduct this inquiry. It is clear that the greater the transparency, the better. The more light that is shone, the better. That way we learn lessons and avoid repeating the mistakes that have cost our country so dearly.

I do not know what the outcome of the commission of investigation will be. That is one of the reasons we need this kind of process in place - to respond in an impartial and independent manner to issues that are of concern to the public and to taxpayers. I echo the statement by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, that there is currently no proof of wrongdoing. I also echo his remarks that in response to points and concerns that have been aired, it is now appropriate to handle this very important matter in this way. This is a response, and many of the actions of the Government have been a response to situations and challenges that we inherited. However, we are also clear that the relationship and the work that took place within our banking sector must be examined and investigated. That is why we have supported the Oireachtas banking inquiry, which is doing important work. It is also why, in response to the circumstances and points that have been made about an area of interest, the Government has put in place a commission of investigation.

The banking collapse has left a deep economic scar on our country. It has taken much time and effort to respond to it. The putting in place of a commission of investigation by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, is the right and the needed response to a matter that is of concern to the public, which will allow these matters to be dealt with in an independent, impartial and rigorous manner.

I note from the list of speakers that the next contributor is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan.

I do not mind, but is that correct, given that we are hearing two speakers from the Government side?

I understand the speaking times are 20-minute slots.

Yes. I have the new list of speakers and the Minister is the next speaker.

This is an important debate and one in which I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution, however brief. This two-day debate is part of the Government's commitment to transparency and openness. It is regrettable that some members of the Opposition are displaying an absence of good faith in this regard, while others, such as Deputy Catherine Murphy, are in many respects to be commended on their dedication to public service and accountability in asking questions and allowing due process. I cannot say the same about the Deputies opposite on the Fianna Fáil benches, because they have shown a remarkable ability not only to put the past behind them but to pretend it never happened at all. They fool themselves into believing that the starting point for any examination of Irish banking matters should begin after the 2011 general election. The reality, as we all know, is that following that general election, a new Government came to office - one in which Deputy Michael Noonan, as Minister for Finance, has had a huge role to play in addressing the toxic legacy of an abject failure to properly manage and regulate our banking and financial system. Fianna Fáil's approach over the many years when it was vested with responsibility of guarding the public interest is sometimes referred to as "light-touch regulation." To my mind, that is a very polite description of what is more accurately termed "gross negligence." That gross negligence was underpinned by endemic and rampant cronyism as leading Fianna Fáil politicians fraternised on golf courses and in racecourse tents with bankers, developers and other members of the golden circle that characterised the modus operandi of Fianna Fáil in government for many years. Anglo Irish Bank was inextricably linked to Fianna Fáil and it was the toxic agent that slowly poisoned the entire banking system; we are still grappling with the fallout and we will be grappling with it for many years. The subject matter of this debate continues to be part of that legacy. It is often said that Fianna Fáil in government believed that taxpayers' money was its own money to spend in whatever way it saw fit, with scant regard for the overall common good. Nothing proves that point more than the €34 billion it sank into Anglo Irish Bank. That was a staggering amount of taxpayers' money that we will never see again. It is very difficult to say that the taxpayers' interests lay at the heart of those decisions. In fact, it is impossible to say it. It is impossible to arrive at any conclusion beyond recklessness and negligence.

By contrast, this Government has made a realistic and responsible assessment before investing taxpayers' money in AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB, and we intend to recover that investment fully. The value of the State's investment in AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB continues to rise. It is not this Government's intention to remain a holder of its banking investments in the long term. Unlike the Opposition, this Government does not believe politicians should be in the business of banking or directing the banks how to act. Siteserv is a case in point. We believe a thriving, competitive banking sector which is properly regulated will produce the best outcomes for consumers and citizens. The Government's exit strategy is about recovering the full cost of the taxpayers' investment in these institutions and using the proceeds to further reduce our debt. The sale of 25% of Permanent TSB further improves this position and we are confident that all the taxpayers' money invested in Allied Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB will be fully recovered.

This debate focuses on the Government decision to establish a commission of investigation into certain activities of IBRC. There has been an attempt by some on the Opposition benches to twin IBRC and the current Government in the public mind, as if we are in some way cheerleaders for that entity. In fact, the reality is that we are its liquidators. IBRC was created by Fianna Fáil, explicitly designed to operate at arm's length from the Government. There is now a public concern about some decisions taken by the board of IBRC; most of these decisions were taken by a board appointed by the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government operating within a framework put in place by that Fianna Fáil-led Government. The framework did not require the Minister for Finance to be informed of deals such as the Siteserv one, which was already concluded by the time concerns were raised with the Minister for Finance. As soon as these concerns were brought to the Minister's attention, he and the Department of Finance put new measures in place, replacing the relationship framework in 2012 and enhancing oversight activities of IBRC.

My colleague, Deputy Noonan, is without doubt the best Minister for Finance to have served his country since the foundation of this State. History will recognise him as such. His deep sense of public service and civic responsibility drives him day after day and year after year to give his all to bringing about Ireland's economic recovery and creating a sustainable and secure future for succeeding generations of Irish people.

He, along with his Government colleagues, has helped to lift this country off its knees, going from the pariah of Europe to its fastest growing economy. His achievements and steady stewardship have enhanced investor and consumer confidence at home and abroad. He has moved us from being dependent on the troika after being locked out of international bond markets to a point at which Standard & Poor's this week awarded Ireland an A+ credit rating. He is widely respected internationally, as I well know from my work as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Some on the Opposition benches take a narrower, political view. They see the Minister, Deputy Noonan, as an asset to the Government and Fine Gael, a Minister at whom they need to throw a lot of mud in the hope that some of it will stick. I have bad news for them: the Minister was not the champion of IBRC, the remnants of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. He was its liquidator. Not alone did he honour his commitment not to sink taxpayers' money into IBRC, but he succeeded in the challenging task of restructuring the punitive promissory notes that Fianna Fáil had bequeathed as part of its toxic legacy. The deal on the promissory note in February 2013 was a key step in the stabilisation of the public finances and our clean exit from the bailout later that year.

The Minister also succeeded in achieving a reduction in the interest rate on the European loans provided under the bailout programme, securing agreement on extending the maturity of the European loans and replacing €18 billion of IMF loans with cheaper market-based funding. We continue to emerge from what was a catastrophic economic crisis comparable only to the early years of our State when the Government set about building a new state from the smouldering ruins of the War of Independence while civil war raged around it. Through the leadership and vision of Ministers like Deputy Noonan and the resilience of the Irish people, we are firmly on a path to recovery and are in the process of securing that recovery.

The Minister has also shown leadership in proposing the establishment of this commission of investigation. I look forward to the Dáil allowing the commission to undertake its task. It will be independent of the Government and proceed. I am somewhat struck by calls from the Opposition for the commission to do more. The shopping list will continue because it makes for good politics and copy. At the same time, the Opposition wants the deadline to be brought forward from 31 December. We agreed the terms of reference and the Dáil will approve them later this evening. Let the independent judicial figure undertake this task as quickly as possible. We will await the report. Any question asked of the commission in the course of its duty will be answered. I look forward to receiving the report of the commission of investigation by the 31 December deadline.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate. Fianna Fáil called for a commission of investigation three or four weeks ago, but every Member on the Government side voted that down. Such a major and dramatic U-turn by the Government is welcome, but there is a big "however" in that this is only a small step. The Government is facing the right direction, but it is not willing to travel that way. It must move in the direction called for by us.

Fianna Fáil made three requests of the Minister in recent days regarding issues that we wanted incorporated in the terms of reference, but none was. We want the role of the Department of Finance and its Minister in respect of their dealings with IBRC included in the terms of reference. Instead, those terms state: "in relation to each transaction under investigation, whether the Minister for Finance or his Department was kept informed where appropriate in respect of the transactions concerned, and whether he, or officials on his behalf, took appropriate steps in respect of the information provided to them." This relates to specific transactions. We want an examination of the-----

Fianna Fáil has not proposed an amendment on that. Its spokesperson has not moved one.

That is fine. Our party leader spoke to the Minister and told him that we wanted the Department's brief included. The Minister has included a narrow amendment on specific transactions and only the judge can determine which will be examined fully. The Minister has excluded from full examination his Department's remit, his own remit as shareholder and the remit of his senior officials in terms of the relationship with IBRC during the period covered by the terms of reference. This is not satisfactory. The Minister has limited the terms specifically.

We asked the Minister to reduce the threshold of €10 million but he has chosen not to do so. This is not satisfactory. We also asked him to publish an interim report, but he refused to do so. He has rejected our party's three requests. This is our starting point. The Minister has a commission of sorts. While we would welcome it, these terms fall short of what is required.

I listened to the last two Government speakers. They accused us of light-touch regulation of the banking sector while we were in government. They tried to put my party under the spotlight. However, something happened during this Government's lifetime. The Moriarty tribunal report was presented to the Dáil under the Government's watch. That report detailed matters of corruption relating to when the Minister, Deputy Noonan, and other Ministers were last in government. This Government has done nothing to pursue that corruption. Not only was the Minister's former Government involved in corruption, but the current one has received the report of the Moriarty tribunal confirming this and done nothing to investigate that corruption. It is allowing that corruption to continue unchecked. Corruption was identified, but no action has been taken in response. The Government is presiding over a situation in which that corruption is going unchecked. Ministers opposite have said that Fianna Fáil has tried to put the past behind us.

Say that outside the House.

I will take no lectures from any person on my legal rights.

It is not a lecture. Say that outside the House. It is a challenge. The Deputy will not.

I will say anything I like.

Say it on the plinth.

Given the people who were identified in that corruption, the Government will have its cronies trying to serve legal notices to prevent me from speaking. The Ministers and their people who were involved in the corruption the last time and are involved in this investigation have not just tried to silence every journalist and media outlet in the country that he does not own, but they have tried to silence this Dáil. If the Ministers want their pawns to do the same to me, let them come. I would welcome any visit to any court anywhere.

That is an outrageous statement to make.

I am moving on.

On a point of order-----

That is a disgraceful thing to say.

I have been here a long time, but I have never heard such allegations.

What I am saying is that corruption was reported by the Moriarty tribunal.

What about Fianna Fáil and its people?

Corruption was reported by the Moriarty tribunal and what was the Government's response?

That allegation should be withdrawn immediately.

What about Fianna Fáil and its pawns?

The Government has a duty to this House-----

I am surprised that the Deputy would lower himself to this level.

-----to follow up on the corruption involved in that issue.

I remind the Deputy that he is speaking to the motion that is on the floor.

There is no corruption.

I am happy to do so-----

-----and to respond to the specific remarks made by the two Ministers in the past ten minutes.

Please speak to the motion for which the Deputy has speaking time.

I will. The Acting Chairman is always impartial, but I noticed that, when others spoke about Fianna Fáil's record in government, she did not make a similar request. I will move on, but the Acting Chairman made her point well and I thank her.

The Government's approach is one law for the rich and another for everyone else. I will ask the judge, whoever he or she may be, to consider the context in which we find ourselves, that is, solving the banking crisis. I want the judge to examine all of these matters. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and I know, we have constituents in Portlaoise and Mountmellick who fell into arrears with their banks that, in some cases, had received offers from voluntary housing associations to buy those properties so that the people could continue living there. In many cases in my constituency and elsewhere, though, banks have insisted on vacant possession.

They have told those who are in arrears to get out of their houses. They have threatened to take them to court. They want them out of these houses because they intend to sell them and they want to control the process. They have said they will sell the houses and decide on the levels of proceeds to be accepted. They have said that any negative equity will be attached to those whose houses are sold. They have said they will follow these people for these moneys for the rest of their days. That is the approach. That is what is happening here in the Irish banks.

I know the judge - whoever he or she may be - will read the Dáil transcript in relation to the terms of reference. The biggest issue the judge will have to determine will be why Siteserv was allowed to manage its own process. Issues like money for the taxpayer, cash in the bank, debtors and whether the amount actually accepted was the highest bid, an in-between bid or the lowest bid all follow on from the fact that Siteserv was allowed to control the process. If IBRC had done to Siteserv what other banks had been doing to other people, it would have said to Siteserv: "You owe us the money, we are taking control of the situation, you cannot pay back what you owe us, we are taking a big loss on behalf of this, we are taking control of the sale process, you just get off the pitch and out of the way, we want vacant possession from your company, we are putting in a receiver and we will decide the sale process." Those situations need to be examined by the judge. Why was Siteserv allowed to control the process? All of the other matters followed on from that. If Siteserv had been removed from the process from the outset and had been controlled by IBRC, the trade buyer issue would not have arisen. If it had been sold by a receiver on the public market, rather than as part of the in-house operation that IBRC allowed Siteserv to control, many more offers might have been received. That is where this problem started. The problem with Siteserv continued from there. We are here today because of this insider dealing between wealthy individuals and the State.

The Deputy knows all about it.

I understand that the Minister misled the Dáil in relation to the operation of the Department of Finance and I acknowledge that he corrected the record of the House yesterday. The Secretary General of his Department misled the Committee of Public Accounts three weeks ago. If this commission of investigation is established by the Dáil today, I do not know whether he will be allowed to come back to discuss the matter.

Fine. We have arranged a time. The Committee of Public Accounts will deal with this at 12.30 p.m. tomorrow. It now seems that after a commission of investigation has been approved by this House, committees of the House can continue to discuss matters of relevance to what is being investigated by the commission. The Minister will have to square that circle. How can committees have debates about these matters after the commission of investigation has been set up?

The correction of the Dáil record is not in the terms of reference.

Here we go. The subject matter of the issue is in the terms of reference. This issue will be discussed at the Committee of Public Accounts tomorrow. Can people come in and talk about the subject matter of the terms of reference in committee after the Oireachtas has established this commission of investigation?

The relationship framework is also excluded from these terms of reference. The Minister and his Department delayed the implementation of the framework. The Minister made heavy play of the fact that the relationship framework which existed at the time of the Siteserv deal was the one he inherited before he came to power. He has not told the people of Ireland that shortly after he came to power, the troika asked him during one of their quarterly meetings to update the relationship framework. IBRC was pleading with the Department to do that because it had taken control of Irish Nationwide, which was not part of the previous relationship framework. There were several drafts of that framework during the troika's visits here. The Minister missed the deadline. His Department delayed and dragged its feet. The Minister should have had a revised relationship framework in place before the Siteserv deal was done.

Before I call the next speaker, I want to read something here. It is important to me as well. Contributions should be relevant to the matter under discussion, which is the establishment and terms of reference of the commission of investigation. That can include expressions of opinion on what might reasonably be included therein. Members should not stray into other areas. I am only chairing here. I am not here to adjudicate on who should say what about anybody else. If everybody could stick to the terms of reference-----

On both sides.

-----I think it would be very important.

I will stick to the motion, except to say before I start-----

The Chair might as well let her continue with her "except".

-----that based on what has happened here yesterday and this morning, it is no wonder that the profession of politics, which I actually enjoy and cherish, is held in such low regard by people outside this House. The use of this issue as a political football that was displayed-----

It was started by a Minister before I spoke.

-----by Opposition Members yesterday was a disgrace.

I was interrupted by the Minister.

I fully support the Minister's view and his decision to set up the establishment of this commission of investigation. There are many things that have quite rightly been raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy over the past couple of months. We need to learn lessons from the difficulty she experienced in getting the information she was seeking. For example, we need to change the practices that apply to the way Departments respond to parliamentary questions. I refer not only to questions tabled by Opposition Deputies, but to questions tabled by everybody in this House. That is one lesson we can learn.

We need to look at the concerns that have been raised by various Members of this House, all of which have been counter-claimed or denied. We have been told that these concerns are materially untrue or categorically untrue. There are so many things that we do not know we do not know at this stage. There is a clear need to restore public trust in the liquidation of IBRC, which the Minister sought fit to do on 7 February 2013 when he introduced legislation to ensure there was nothing but transparency with regard to the liquidation and closing down of IBRC, as denoted in the relevant Act. Now we need to look at the transactions that came beforehand. Currently, we genuinely have a situation where a source can claim that somebody has two heads, this is confirmed by an insider and suddenly it is the truth.

I represent ordinary people in County Meath. I do not represent the rich people, the wealthy farmers or the people who live in expensive houses. I am lucky enough to represent everybody who lives in Meath East. I am quite sure that there are not that many billionaires living in my constituency. Maybe there are, and I just do not know who they are. We need to be seen as a Government that is representative of everybody in this country. We need to rule and make the laws of the land without fear or favour to any individuals or organisations in this country. I fully support the robust criteria that have been set out in the commission of investigation's terms of reference, which cover transparency in the transactions arising from the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide, the transactions that occurred as part of the sale of loan books and IBRC's interactions with its clients, the Department of Finance, the former Minister, Brian Lenihan, and the current Minister, Deputy Noonan.

I think we have a situation where a political football is being used. It is almost as if there is glee on the part of some Opposition Deputies from Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. They seem to hope that if they throw enough mud around, some of it will stick on Fine Gael. In my view, Deputy Catherine Murphy is the only person from an Opposition perspective who has acted with integrity in this process over recent months. She is to be commended and supported for that. She is one of the most reasonable people I have had the pleasure of dealing with since I came into this House. I really want to wish her well in her investigations and her pursuit of this matter.

I fully support the establishment of this commission of investigation, which will be fully resourced and supported in terms of the staff and the judge when he or she is appointed so that it can conduct this review in a timely manner. We will have the documentation and the full review by 31 December next. I will explain why this is so significant to me. I know what I know, but I absolutely do not know what we do not know. People in every town and village in this country have suffered immeasurably over the past seven or eight years because of the collapse of the economy and the ensuing decisions that had to be made by the former Minister, Brian Lenihan, and the current Minister as part of the attempt to ensure the economy recovered for the rest of the people of this country. Those who have suffered silently for the most part at the hands of those decisions want to know that the rules of engagement of the Government and of statutory bodies are the same for them as they are for the people in this country who are perceived to be very wealthy. That is what the investigation will uncover. This will ensure the Government governs for everybody and not for our people and our "pawns", as Deputy Sean Fleming suggested in the most despicable way. He should be ashamed of the disrespect he has shown to this House. I fully support the Minister in his decisions. I look forward to a speedy conclusion of this review so that we can all move on.

In the ten minutes available to me, I certainly will not be able to cover the multiple issues that arise from the whole Siteserv-IBRC debacle in the necessary sort of forensic detail. I assure Deputy Regina Doherty that I hope to look at the issues in a reasoned manner.

Whatever about the use of language, to mention the context of the Moriarty tribunal, the adverse findings in relation to Denis O'Brien and his relationship with a former Fine Gael Minister is relevant to this, particularly given that no action was taken subsequent to the Moriarty tribunal, when we were possibly talking about criminal activity. That is a serious issue and is not playing politics. It is one that must be addressed. The failure of the Government to act on the findings of the Moriarty tribunal raises very serious questions connected with this matter.

I pay tribute to Deputy Catherine Murphy for pursuing this matter. It raises serious questions about the Government’s responsiveness to parliamentary questions and issues raised by parliamentarians about this and other matters and whether the Government’s attitude was to deliberately not pursue the matter, to obfuscate, to cover up or not respond at all as it should do. It has been dragged kicking and screaming over four years to finally launch the investigation that should have been launched in 2012.

I am sorry the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Donohoe, has left the Chamber because this raises serious questions generally about the Government’s attitude to parliamentary questions and serious issues of concern. To give one example which the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport might consider, I have asked 50 questions or more about Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company-----

The motion is on something entirely different to what the Deputy is speaking about. It concerns the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry.

It is connected to the argument about the terms of reference.

I do not see anything about Dún Laoghaire here.

It is about parliamentary questions and the failure of the Minister to answer them.

The Deputy has already stated that.

It is relevant. The failure of the Minister to-----

It states clearly here "the establishment and terms of reference of the Commission of Investigation".

The Acting Chairman is wasting my time.

I am not wasting the Deputy’s time.

The Acting Chairman is wasting my time.

I am not wasting anybody’s time.

I am making a point about an issue that arises out of this.

I am making the Deputy aware-----

This is unbelievable.

-----of the motion we are speaking on.

I am aware of the motion and I am speaking to it.

The Deputy should stick to that motion.

I will ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to send a briefing note on that matter to the Deputy.

I asked 50 questions raising issues of corporate governance to do with public assets, unexplained payments, expenses and so on, over a four-year period but no action was taken. There is a story there.

This connects with the Siteserv issue. In the Minister of Finance’s statement last week, he said "any concerns around the [Siteserv] transaction were not known either to me or to my officials when answering parliamentary questions prior to June 2012”. I dug out a question I asked the Taoiseach in June 2012, when I said:

I am simply summarising what was in the Moriarty report. It made serious findings about the circumstances in which Mr. O'Brien received the aforementioned licence [the Esat licence] and about the role a former Fine Gael Minister had in helping him to secure that licence. ... This is not simply an historical question and the Taoiseach should clarify his relationship and that of his party to Mr. O’Brien. I ask him to so do particularly as a live issue faces us yet again in respect of Mr. O’Brien’s recent acquisition of Siteserv plc and its facilitation by the writing down by Anglo Irish Bank of €110 million worth of debt to that company. This deal deserves considerable scrutiny and in the context of the controversial plans to introduce water metering and water charges, I note Siteserv provides contracting services to Bord Gáis, including the installation of water meters.

The Taoiseach said:

In regard to the question about the Siteserv position, I point out to Deputy Boyd Barrett that the Competition Authority looked at that merger to see if there were any anti-competitive practices contained therein and it made its decision approving that merger independently, as is its function and responsibility.

There was no mention of the fact that the Minister for Finance had launched an investigation at that point into the sale of Siteserv. It was a case of nothing to see here. In his statement, the Minister essentially implied that because no further parliamentary questions were asked after April there was nothing for him to respond to in respect of the concerns he had about Siteserv. In fact, I had asked the Taoiseach about it in June. There was something to respond to. Even if the Taoiseach was not aware of it, which I find surprising, why would the Minister not inform him afterwards and inform a Deputy who had raised it that there was in fact an investigation at that stage and that the Department had very serious concerns about what was going on in Siteserv? Mike Aynsley pointed out in his interview with The Sunday Business Post that, contrary to the notion the Minister knew little of what was going on in Siteserv, from the last quarter of 2011 there were monthly meetings with the Department and all significant transactions were being discussed with the Department and the Minister would have been aware of them.

There were numerous press reports in the aftermath of the sale and, indeed, in the run-up to the sale about serious concerns raised about the matter. One quite startling report was in the Sunday Independent on 8 April, before the parliamentary questions were asked, where Jody Corcoran writes about Denis O’Brien and Phil Hogan: "In due course, Siteserv will, no doubt, tender for state contracts, such as, for example, the installation of water meters at households around the country - a contract that will be granted by the Department of the Environment.” That is interesting. He goes on to say: “As both men are no doubt aware, it simply would not do for them to have either formal or informal meetings, nor, for that matter, for them to bump into each other over a burnt rasher, lest anybody get the wrong idea. You cannot be too careful these days." There were already suggestions in the public domain of an improper relationship between Phil Hogan and Denis O’Brien, water metering, the sale of Siteserv, the write-downs and so on.

Another fact that needs to be looked into in this matter is that Denis O’Brien got the money he used to buy Siteserv, as well as the €119 million lost to the State in the write-down on Siteserv, and possibly preferential interest rates, from Allied Irish Banks, AIB, another publicly owned bank.

Bank of Ireland.

That raises very serious questions. This is somebody who owes €500 million to one bank, where there are now allegations that he was not meeting the terms of those loans and was looking to renegotiate them, who gets an enormous write-down to his benefit when he takes over Siteserv, and the bank that lends him the money to buy the company is 100% publicly owned. Do we not need to look into the decisions to lend him money for that transaction and other big loans or write-downs, the question of Independent News and Media and the €100 million write-down, which, to some extent, benefitted Denis O’Brien?

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport put this in context. The big context is that in a period when child poverty rose and 137,000 children live in consistent poverty, Denis O’Brien’s wealth went from €2.2 billion in 2009 to €6.9 billion by 2015. That is a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people into the pockets of the new oligarchs. That is a very serious context in which we need all the answers about the most important job this Government and the Minister for Finance had, the disposal of the assets and loans of the banks we bailed out, who they went to and did that involve enriching a tiny insider elite, as the evidence suggests it certainly might have.

An rud is tábhachtaí faoin díospóireacht seo ná go mbeidh fiosrúchán neamhspleách againn agus go mbeidh breitheamh i gceannas ar an bhfiosrúchán sin a bhfuil meas mór ag gach duine air. Rud eile atá ag titim amach as seo ná go bhfuil cumhacht na Dála ag dul i méid. Tá sé sofheicthe ón obair atá déanta ag an Teachta Catherine Murphy, go mór mór maidir le ceisteanna parlaiminte a chur faoi bhráid na Dála agus ó thaobh na litreacha a fuair sí - cé nach bhfuil a fhios againn an bhfuil na rudaí ráite iontu fíor - gur ceart go mbeadh an fiosrúchán seo againn agus go mbeadh daoine ó gach taobh i bhfábhar an fhiosrúcháin.

An cheist atá ann anois don Rialtas ná, má thagann rudaí nua os ár gcomhair nach bhfuil luaite faoin ráiteas poiblí atá againn faoi láthair maidir leis an bhfiosrúchán agus na cúrsaí ábhartha, ar nós litreacha eile a thiocfaidh isteach ó dhaoine cosúil leis an Teachta Pearse Doherty, a luaigh ábhair nua sa Dáil inné, an mbeidh seans ag an bhfiosrúchán neamhspleách féachaint isteach sna rudaí sin. Is rud bunúsach é sin.

The commission of investigation will be a good, independent inquiry and, along with everyone else, I am convinced of the need for it. I have no doubt the eminent justice appointed to lead the commission of investigation will be the proper person to do so. The establishment of a commission of investigation shows the strength of the Dáil. Deputies on all sides have praised Deputy Catherine Murphy for her tenacity. The Deputy has shown great persistence in raising an issue through parliamentary questions and her work is coming to fruition. We do not know whether the information provided to her is the full truth, as it has been denied in the media.

The Oireachtas has emerged strengthened from recent events as the courts have provided clarity on the right of Members to raise issues in the House. This right has been found to be sacrosanct and Deputies cannot be sued for comments made in the House. This is a positive development.

Deputy Pearse Doherty has been given information that differs from that provided to Deputy Catherine Murphy. There is certainly a conflict on the rate of interest purportedly charged on some of Mr. Denis O'Brien's loans, with certain letters indicating a rate of 3.5% was charged, whereas Deputy Murphy referred to a rate of 1.5%. The judge who will be appointed to lead the commission of investigation should be able to clarify the matter and determine the veracity of this information.

Further documents may be released once the commission of investigation is up and running. If a new issue enters the public domain and is not germane to the information we have received thus far, the judge should have the authority, should he see fit, to bring it within the scope of his work. I ask for clarification on this matter.

On the timeline for the work of the commission of investigation, most of the comment has focused on the Siteserv issue and it is important that the judge complete his work on this matter as quickly as possible. However, Deputies will disagree on whether it is necessary to specify a date by which the work should be completed or if an interim report is required. I have no doubt that the justice who is appointed to lead the commission of investigation will, in his wisdom, be keen to complete the investigation as fairly and quickly as possible.

The issues of fairness and equity arise in this case because everyone, whether it is Denis O'Brien, Michael Murphy, the Minister for Finance or Deputy Catherine Murphy, has a right to be treated fairly and properly. Some of the comment on this issue has been one-sided as we do not have all the facts, although we all agree on the need for the facts to be established independently. All relevant information, irrespective of its source, should be provided to the judge who will carry out the inquiry. He should then exercise his discretion and use it as he sees fit.

The issues that arise in this regard are credibility, transparency and the manner in which the Oireachtas conducts its business. A commission of investigation is the best means to achieve accountability and transparency. All Deputies want a fair and independent inquiry to establish what did or did not happen.

I am probably the only Deputy present who voted against the blanket guarantee in September 2008 and its subsequent renewal during the term of this Government. I voted against the guarantee because it was a totally unjustified and economically crazy policy and I feared it would leave Irish people with a large burden of debt for decades to come. I also feared that members of the golden circle of insiders that produced the crash, who are represented in this House by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, would continue to escape the consequences of their profligate behaviour and would be permitted to protect their key assets. My fears are proving to be justified.

Would any future historian draw much of a distinction between the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government that was in office until March 2011 and its Fine Gael-Labour Party successor? The Siteserv and IBRC controversy simply highlights the widespread fire sale of business and financial assets by IBRC, the National Asset Management Agency and other State banks as well as a result of troika diktats issued from late 2010 onwards. The bottom line is that nothing changed after the 2011 election when the new Taoiseach and his Minister for Finance chose to steadfastly persist with the policies of the two previous Taoisigh, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen, and the former Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan.

Deputy Catherine Murphy and her valiant staff have done Irish people an enormous favour over the past year in doggedly questioning the sale of Siteserv in early 2012 and the treatment of high-value customers of the now liquidated bank. I commend the Deputy on her perseverance, painstaking research and great courage in pursuing the major questions raised by her inquiries.

The arrival in this country of vulture funds and various financial sharks from early 2009 onwards raised many worrying concerns for citizens across many sectors of the economy, from commercial property and housing to financial institutions such as Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB. One of these key concerns related to the strange sale of Siteserv. Most people were familiar with the Sierra company, which was heavily involved in developing infrastructure such as the gas network. People looked closely at Siteserv when they realised it was a Denis O'Brien company and had secured a €500 million contract from Irish Water to meter every household. Similarly to other Deputies, I had no knowledge of the Siteserv balance sheet in 2012 and no way of knowing whether the net price of approximately €45 million was a fair return for citizens or a knock-down price that squandered €100 million of State assets. However, articles on the sale published in Phoenix magazine and The Sunday Business Post were alarming. While the Siteserv company was seriously indebted to IBRC in 2012, it was a profitable going concern with a workforce of several thousand. We now know that in 2010-11, its sales increased by 11% to €169 million and turnover increased again in 2011-12. I note that an article in the Phoenix argued that with an annualised EBITDA - earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation - of €15 million, the sale price multiple should have been at least six, indicating that Siteserv was worth a minimum of €90 million in early 2012.

Allowing Siteserv management to handle the sale seems to have been a serious error by the chairman and chief executive officer of IBRC. The exclusion of trade buyers from the sale also seems unbelievable. It has also been suggested that a sum of between €90 million and €100 million could have been realised for Siteserv if its important British subsidiary, Deborah Services, had been sold separately, given that the company had been purchased for €60 million as recently as 2008.

I welcome the belated decision of the Government to establish a commission of investigation under section 3(1) of the Commissions of Investigations Act 2004. The schedule of terms of reference appears to be reasonably comprehensive. Nevertheless, I support the proposals made by Sinn Féin and Renua to reduce the relevant write-off limit by 90%. I also welcome the decision to shine a light on the Department of Finance, because a major question mark hangs over the future of the Minister for Finance. Why, in July 2012, did the Minister not order the independent review of the Siteserv sale that Deputy Catherine Murphy had sought for so long? Why did he not at least order the special liquidator to check out the Siteserv sale and similar sales concluded in the two years after the so-called prom night? Why, just weeks ago, did he appoint a company with a clear conflict of interest, KPMG, to lead the review of the Siteserv sale? Given the scale of these errors, a Minister in a similar position in most other European Union jurisdictions would have resigned by now. I call on the Minister to do so, as it is still the right course of action.

That is absolute nonsense.

We must also ask about the knowledge of the other three members of the so-called Economic Management Council, the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and the former Minister, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, of the nagging and profound public concerns about the scale of write-downs in IBRC, NAMA and other State financial institutions. Did they care and did the Minister for Finance care?

Thanks to the appalling decision of September 2008 taken by Fianna Fáil and supported by Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and many Independent Deputies, €35 billion of precious public money was sunk into the dead carcasses of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. The totally discredited Rabbitte-Gilmore leadership of the Labour Party jumped on the same bandwagon in March 2011 and over seven years, the most vulnerable citizens in our society have been crucified with cutbacks and ever increasing charges and debts. Hopefully, the investigation now underway will shine a further bright light on all those responsible for these terrible failures and the suffering of our people.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share