Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 July 2012
3Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the reason that records in relation to the banking guarantee were inappropriately shredded in his Department; the date on which he was informed of same; if he had this matter investigated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30307/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra4Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the reason that records of the banking guarantee decision were shredded; the person who informed him of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30308/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra5Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the circumstances in which documents related to the bank guarantee were shredded in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34958/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
I take it the Deputies' questions arise from my remarks in the House on 12 June when I was critical of the previous Government's handling of the decision-making process in the run-up to and on the night of the bank guarantee. I continue to have these concerns which I believe to be well founded and widely shared. My remarks were intended to highlight the remarkably small volume of documentation held in the Department of the Taoiseach from the night of the bank guarantee, which bears out these widely held concerns. I did not intend to suggest I had evidence the documentation relating to the bank guarantee had been destroyed or otherwise removed. I have since clarified the position on the record of the House in response to a question from Deputy Michael McGrath.
The Taoiseach's reply is unacceptable and he should stop trying to walk away from his own words. The only possible construction on what the Taoiseach said is he believed records might have been shredded. It is the only reason he would have said it. He has been in sole charge of Government Buildings since early last year and it is unacceptable to throw out conspiracies like a man standing at the bar in a pub. It is beneath his office and he should have the decency to withdraw his statement fully and without equivocation.
In addition, the Taoiseach is oversimplifying a serious decision on a bank guarantee for which he and his party voted. To quote him at the time, they did so "in the interests of the country, in the interests of protecting our economy and to protect the interests of our taxpayers." This is the precise reason the previous Government made the decision itself. I do not know why the Taoiseach-----
Can we have a question, please?
-----deliberately articulated the view that documents had been shredded. However, he decided to invent a wild allegation.
It might not be so wild.
All the officials and information have been available to him since he took over as Taoiseach at the start of 2011. It did not happen straightaway and this came out at a particular point in time. The Taoiseach was making a cynical political attack that was unworthy of him-----
Sorry, Deputy, this is Question Time.
I ask the Taoiseach whether he accepts this to be the case.
Honest to God, I am amused by the Deputy. What I said on 12 June was:
It is either shredded or has been disposed of or dispatched of - in other words, the Government has no evidence of the discussion that took place or of what Deputy Martin said when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Deputy might help the Government in that regard.
Where was the Deputy?
He was the Minister who dropped the Travers report behind the radiator and could not find it for many years.
Did the Taoiseach shred the advice he received to vote for the guarantee? He must have because he cannot get an explanation.
If the Taoiseach of the day meets a group from Deputy Peter Mathews's constituency, Deputy Micheál Martin can be sure that whatever it is about, notes will be taken and be there for posterity.
The Taoiseach has no faith in his own staff.
I find it incredible that Deputy Micheál Martin should make such a political charge in this Chamber because his name is on the incorporeal list of Ministers.
Perhaps he might tell the House where he was or whether he asked any questions in this regard when he was contacted. Did he attend those meetings at which banks gave evidence? What did he contribute to the rationale which led to the decision on that night?
He pressed the snooze button.
What about the Taoiseach? He advised his party.
I find it incredible that the Department of the Taoiseach does not have a single solitary slip of evidence, paper, about any of these discussions or the rationale that resulted in the incorporeal decision being made in the manner it was. Perhaps Deputy Micheál Martin might enlighten the House because I have looked behind the radiators in the Department of the Taoiseach-----
The Taoiseach was at summit meetings.
-----and no report has been dropped behind them in the way he did when he previously was in charge of a Department.
Perhaps Deputy Barry Cowen might ask his brother.
Perhaps one might ask the Minister's brother. What advice did the Minister receive to vote for it?
With respect, the Travers report was not behind any radiator but was published. It vindicated my role in that issue and was debated in the Oireachtas. Moreover, I appeared before an Oireachtas committee without difficulty and dealt with every single question asked. It did not go anywhere behind the radiator. However, my position is well known. The Taoiseach creates innuendo with the manner of his approach to this matter with comments such as "documents must have been shredded" or "where were you on the night" and so on.
Can we have a question, please?
Where was Deputy Micheál Martin?
Where was he?
It is well known: I was in the United States as Minister for Foreign Affairs and participated in the incorporeal meeting. That is a matter of public record and it was covered in a major programme broadcast on RTE months ago. There is no secret or mystery about it. Moreover, there was a Cabinet meeting the following morning at which it was discussed.
What did the Deputy say at the meeting?
Moreover, as the then Leader of the Opposition, the Taoiseach had plenty of time to obtain independent advice-----
May we have a question, please?
-----between the Cabinet decision and the decision of the Oireachtas to pass legislation introducing the bank guarantee. Did the Taoiseach receive independent advice? He voted for the measure and led his party through it.
There is no record of the deliberative process.
It suits the Taoiseach-----
Sorry, can we have a question, please?
There is only one revisionist in this Chamber and that is Deputy Micheál Martin.
Give it a break.
I put it to the Taoiseach that it suits him to create this aura of something wrong or hidden. At the time the late Brian Lenihan-----
There is no record of it.
There is a record of the deliberative process.
Where is it?
It is from the Minister for Finance. The rationale for the decision is on the record of this House.
The deliberative process is-----
The Minister is saying the Government has no trust in its own staff.
I invite Members to speak through the Chair, please.
When the late Minister for Finance came into this Chamber-----
It is the same staff.
-----and actually spoke to the Taoiseach before he brought in the bank guarantee-----
Where is the advice the Minister provided?
The then Leader of the Opposition, now Taoiseach, was actually briefed by the Minister for Finance at the time on the rationale behind the bank guarantee.
Would the Deputy mind putting his question? This is Question Time.
Where is the advice the Taoiseach received?
There are no secrets. I agree that this issue should certainly be examined and there is no difficulty in bringing forward-----
What is the Deputy's question?
The difficulty is there is no record.
My fundamental question is that the Taoiseach's approach to this matter has been deeply cynical and political.
Will the Deputy ask him a question?
It vindicates the decision of the people taken last year on Oireachtas inquiries because they do not trust the capacity of politicians to be objective and impartial-----
They certainly do not trust Fianna Fáil, my dear boy.
-----and to follow due process in the pursuit of or when investigating a particular issue. I do not have a difficulty in so doing-----
Certainly not in the greater Dublin area.
-----but the Taoiseach should cut out the innuendo and the attempt to smear people, particularly previous holders of his office who certainly did not shred any document. He owes his predecessor an apology for what he attempted to suggest that day, which was unacceptable.
I do not know what the question was.
Unlike many others, I paid tribute to my predecessor. The Deputy's question to me concerns:
the reason records in respect of the banking guarantee were inappropriately shredded in his Department; the date on which he was informed of same; if he [has] had this matter investigated.
The Deputy's second question is "to ask the Taoiseach the reason records of the banking guarantee decision were shredded; the person who informed him of same". As far as I can ascertain, there are no informers over there.
I asked the Secretary General if there was a file in the Department on the meetings that had taken place between members of the Government-----
The Cabinet memo.
-----and those involved in the banking organisations; whether we had a record of what they had said and a record of the rationale applied by the Government. We do not.
Is there a Cabinet memo?
There is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach.
Is there a Cabinet memo?
Would the Deputy mind speaking through the Chair, please?
Deputy Micheál Martin has asked his questions. Perhaps he might answer a few.
I am saying that in the Department of the Taoiseach there is no file on the meetings that took place or the rationale applied. The Deputy is now telling me that this information is available. Perhaps he might tell me outside where it is in order that we can have a look at it. Up until the incorporeal meeting at that hour of the morning, there is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach with any relevance to this question. My point was that the Government had no information on the rationale applied.
That is not true. There were the Honohan and the Watson and Regling reports.
Why did Fine Gael vote for it?
If it is available, I do not know where we can find it. I am not suggesting my predecessor hid it under the table or anything else, but there is no evidence available.
The Taoiseach has suggested it was shredded. He should not be so disingenuous.
I have said it was either shredded, disposed of or dispatched. Is the Deputy suggesting to me, from long years of experience, that when the chief executives and directors of banks come to meet members of the Government to make their case for a guarantee or whatever else, there is no written record available in the Department?
An event like that does not happen every week.
Is the Deputy telling me that no notes are taken and that meetings take place in secret? It does not happen. There is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach.
Is there a Cabinet memo?
Perhaps the Deputy might reflect on where he was during the incorporeal meeting in doing his duty as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did he ask questions?
It is well known.
Was the Deputy at the meeting?
I am after telling the Taoiseach.
Until that point, there were meetings and discussions and a rationale was applied by members of the Government in order for that incorporeal meeting to take place and the Deputy to be called on his phone and asked whether he agreed with the decision. The Government has no evidence of the rationale applied and of the meetings that took place----
It does.
-----and what was said at them.
The Government does have evidence of the rationale applied.
Deputy Martin, please.
In view of the fact that this was the single biggest economic decision ever made and foisted on the back of the taxpayer, I would have thought there would be plenty files on the meetings, what was said and why the rationale was applied in the way it was. There is none in the Department of the Taoiseach.
There is in the Department of Finance.
Fine Gael should not have voted for it.
Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has a question.
I find the political point scoring between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael extremely amusing------
Have another march.
------as they both supported the bank guarantee which, as the Taoiseach rightly said-----
It may be amusing, but as this is Question Time, perhaps we should have some questions.
-----was the single most important financial decision taken by any Government in the State's history and which bankrupted the country with disastrous consequences.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I am responding to the amusing political games being played.
Perhaps the Deputy might do that some other time.
The Taoiseach certainly has a point. Fianna Fáil has a brass neck to raise the issue; it is beyond belief, but how the Taoiseach can poke fun when he supported the measure is beyond me.
Fianna Fáil does not have the neck of the Deputy.
Has the Taoiseach asked the departmental officials who were present at the time where the records are? It stinks to high heaven that there is no record of this most important decision and the deliberations on it. What investigations has the Taoiseach carried out into the record keeping for that crucial meeting if he is so worried about it?
I am only trying to answer the questions asked - two by Deputy Micheál Martin and one by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett. His question relates to the circumstances in which documents related to the bank guarantee were shredded in the Department. On 12 June I used the words shredded, disposed of and dispatched, but the fact is that there is no record in the Department of the Taoiseach with any relevance to this matter.
It was a lousy, dishonourable thing to do.
For the single biggest economic decision which has caused mayhem within the economy and so much stress and pressure-----
Which Fine Gael supported.
-----there is no record of what happened in the lead-in to that decision, the meetings that took place, the discussions held and the rationale applied by members of that Government at the incorporeal meeting in the early hours of that morning. The late, lamented Minister for Finance called me that morning shortly after 7 a.m. to say there was a real problem with the banks and to ask about the position of the Fine Gael Party on the issue. I said that we supported having a banking system because it was the lifeblood of the economy, but we needed to know the conditions attached.
He said, "Do what you have to do."
I was in a radio studio at the time and happened to speak to the Minister who had kindly contacted me shortly after 7 a.m. It was not a matter for discussion then. One would expect to find evidence in a Department as important as the Department of the Taoiseach, given that it was an issue of such economic significance and has been the cause of financial stress for so many since, but there is no file. Who said what? What evidence was given to my predecessor? What was the evidence given to the people who attended the meetings? Was the rationale applied by members of the Government to the evidence in order that an incorporeal decision could be taken? There is no file which I find quite extraordinary.
It is on the public record.
It is not.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.
It stinks to high heaven that there is no record of this most important meeting or the deliberations that led to this disastrous decision. I have pointed out that it is amusing that the Taoiseach is poking fun at Fianna Fáil when his party supported the decision. We all know, as it turned out, that the rationale was shared by Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the European authorities-----
Will the Deputy, please, ask a supplementary question?
-----to protect the banks at all costs and sacrifice the rest of us to pay for it.
I do not think the Deputy heard me. This is Question Time.
If the Taoiseach is so concerned about the matter, what investigations has he conducted to ascertain whether records were taken by departmental officials or anybody else, especially if he is making the serious suggestion there may have been shredding or the dispatching of these critical records? It is suspicious that there are no records, what is he doing to find out what happened to them, or if records were taken?
I inquired into it as a matter of deep interest to me and the nation. I read the few pieces of paper available and there is nothing in them of any consequence.
If there are pieces of paper, the Taoiseach should publish them.
I understand influential people called on the Government in the days prior to the decision to make their views known about the issues involved.
There is no evidence of these discussions or what was said. There is no evidence of the facts given to members of the Government or my predecessor and why the decision was made in the way it was. That evidence should have been made available to the people. On an issue of such magnitude one would have thought this was absolutely critical.
Has the Taoiseach asked the departmental officials?
Yes, of course. All of the delegations to Government Buildings had something to say and a story to tell on how good or bad their financial institutions were, but there is no evidence of this in the Department of the Taoiseach. If I am at the Bunclody Community Council, I will have somebody taking notes in order that they will be there for all to see in the years ahead.
Can we confirm that notes were taken?
On the single biggest economic decision ever foisted on the backs of the people, there is no evidence in the Department of the Taoiseach about who said what, record of the evidence they gave and the rationale applied to it. Even by the Deputy's terms, that is quite extraordinary.
Tá an píosa stair seo cosúil le clár "Laurel and Hardy", an raibh and comhdán, nach raibh an comhdán, bhí an comhdán, ní raibh an comhdán. What the Taoiseach has said is very clear.
There is no file in the Department of the Taoiseach. It has been either shredded, disposed of or dispatched. In other words, the Government has no evidence of the discussion that took place.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether there ever was a file? If it never existed, when did it become clear to the Taoiseach? When did officials tell him no such file or files existed? If, as the Taoiseach appears to believe, a deficiency existed in the Department of the Taoiseach, and for that matter the Department of Finance, in record-keeping and note-taking, what steps has he taken to investigate his allegations and to change procedures in this regard since he took office?
Bhí an Teachta Ó Máirtín ag rá liom gur cóir dom a bheith an-cúramach faoi seo. Níl mé ag rá ar chor ar bith go ndeachaigh Aire ar bith nó an duine a bhí romham sa suíochán seo amach leis na páipéir seo agus gur chaith sé amach iad, ach níl siad ann. Sin atá i gceist agam. Ba seo an cinneadh is tábhachtaí a ndearnadh le blianta anuas.
Cén uair a bhfuair an Taoiseach an t-eolas seo?
Bhuail mé isteach leis na hoifigigh a bhí sa Roinn ag an am sin agus léigh mé na páipéir atá ann, ach níl tada iontu faoin gcinneadh.
Bhí nóta ann mar sin, an raibh?
De réir na ráitis poiblí agus de réir an eolas poiblí atá againn, bhí neart cruinnithe ar siúl roimh déanamh an chinnidh sin, ó thaobh bancanna agus iad siúd a bhí ag teacht isteach chuig iad siúd a bhí ag freastal ar an Rialtas ag an am sin, ach níl an scéal leagtha amach. Níl tuarascáil ar fáil ar chor ar bith orthu sin. Sílim go bhfuil sin an-aisteach ar fad. Sílim gur cóir go mbeadh tuarascáil ann. Mar adúirt mé, ghlaoigh mé isteach ar an oifigeach a bhí ag obair sa Roinn ag an am sin, an duine a bhí i gceannas ar an Roinn, agus thug sé dom na páipéir atá ann, ach níl tada iontu siúd faoi na cruinnithe sin, an cinneadh sin, an t-eolas sin, an fhaisnéis sin nó an scéal sin a tugadh do bhaill an Rialtais ag an am.
Sin rud difriúil.
We are not having a long debate on this.
Dúirt an Taoiseach go raibh píosaí páipéir ann agus gur léigh sé iad ach ansin deireann sé nach raibh aon rud ann.
Mar adúirt mé leis an Teachta Ó Máirtín, léigh mé na páipéir atá ann ach níl tada iontu. Níl scéal, faisnéis ná eolas ar bith iontu faoi na cruinnithe a bhí ann roimh an cinneadh sin a bheith déanta.
Tuigim sin
Níl eolas ar bith faoi iad siúd a tháinig isteach roimh bhaill an Rialtais ag insint an scéil leo agus ag rá leo go raibh siad i dtrioblóid agus go raibh deacracht acu. Níl tuarascáil ar bith le fáil faoi sin. Tá an t-eolas sin iontach tábhachtach do mhuintir agus do pholaiteoirí na tire, ach níl sé ar fáil.
Tá difear mór idir nótaí agus nótaí dona.
Cinnte, go bhfuil.
What records are taken at the EU Heads of Government summits, for instance like the one on 29 June recently? If contentious matters come to pass after a summit meeting, what sorts of records and documentation are prepared and recorded at these summit meetings?
Sometimes at these meetings conclusions are prepared in advance. Sometimes the conclusions, however, are not what actually was concluded at all. During the course of a meeting, while there are only one or two officials present, briefing notes of the discussion are sent to various delegations in order that they will know the trend of the discussion and the nature of the argument that might arise. With modern digital technology, I have seen some leaders texting or sending information out, too. In a formal sense, as the discussion continues, sections of briefing notes are prepared by officials and sent to the delegations so they have an understanding of the trend of the arguments, the discussions and who is saying what.
Through a freedom of information request I long ago sought records of a discussion between the European Council President, Mr. Van Rompuy, and the Taoiseach. It was, however, stopped by the Taoiseach and the Government side even though Europe was anxious to give the records of that particular Van Rompuy compromise.
The real issue is the Taoiseach playing games and spreading conspiracy theories to shed a better light on himself.
No, that is not the case.
What is the question?
That is wrong, because the fundamental point is we all know the rationale for the bank guarantee at the time. There is no secret about it.
We actually do not know what happened.
We will not go into that. What is the question?
We know it was a liquidity issue and not just in Ireland.
No, we will not go there.
I am putting this to the Taoiseach, if I may. I will not be long putting it.
Put what to the Taoiseach?
I am putting a question.
Tá an ceist seo an-fhada.
At the time, there was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, while in Britain Royal Bank Scotland announced it was going to go bankrupt. Northern Rock had gone bankrupt the year before. There was a seizure in bank liquidity across the globe following the fall of Lehman Brothers. The fundamental issue facing the Government at the time-----
The Deputy is giving us a lecture on history. Will he ask a question?
-----was, as per Professor Honohan's report, that it either maintained a banking system or it allowed it to collapse. I believe the guarantee should be examined and I have no difficulty with such an examination. The Committee of Public Accounts should be allowed get on with its work in this regard, having already put in six months of significant work on the issues around the bank guarantee, the collapse of the banks and the banking crisis not just here but across the world. This is the worst banking crisis since the late 1920s. It has been unprecedented. What faced the Government the last time was unprecedented as well. The Taoiseach knows that in all sincerity. Putting the politics to one side, those are the issues. We need to find out, first, why the banks collapsed and, second, the policy response to that collapse which was the bank guarantee.
There is growing concern in the House that one of the most effective committees we have had for many a year and which has cross-party support, namely, the Committee of Public Accounts, is being nobbled and undermined progressively by the Government. The most recent manifestation of this is Ministers questioning its capacity to investigate the issues around the banking crisis and bank guarantee. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that we will not witness an unacceptable undermining of the status of the Committee of Public Accounts? Many other committees should be like it in terms of its cross-party consensus and capacity to deal with issues, as it did before.
The Deputy should ask the former Attorneys General about that.
Will the Taoiseach confirm the Committee of Public Accounts will continue its work on the bank guarantee issue?
That is an entirely separate question.
The Deputy is making the case why all the evidence as to what led the then Government to make its decision on the bank guarantee should be made available to the people. Everyone knew a banking crisis was on its way when Lehman Brothers went down, as well as the letter from Mr. Trichet and the European Central Bank in respect of the then difficulties in the Irish banking sector.
Without playing politics with this, I would have thought, and Deputy Martin as a Government member would have expected, I am quite sure, that whatever delegations came in to members of the then Government, stating there was a problem, we were running into dry sand and we needed to do something, and if their case was to have a bank guarantee or whatever else, the evidence they would have presented to the then Government, of which Deputy Martin was a member, is not available to this Government. Whether it was ever written down or, if it was, where it went, I certainly do not have access to it. In the interests of everyone, that would have been of fundamental importance. However, for whatever reason, the Department of the Taoiseach has no access to all of that information, evidence and rationale.
Has the Department of Finance access to it?
I do not want to proceed down a road where we end up with some sort of interminable inquiry. We have had the Regling and Watson report, Governor Honohan's response, the Commission papers and all that. These questions are about a comment I made in the House about the information and evidence presented to the members of the Government before the decision on the guarantee was made. The other reports are subsequent to the bank guarantee. The Government, in its own way, will make its decision as to what is the best thing to do.
I read the good report from the Committee of Public Accounts. The committee has always had, still has and will continue to have a very high standing in the House. There is also the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform which has a different remit, or we could focus on the question of using a different committee entirely.
Last year we put this matter to the people in a referendum relating to whistleblowers and those who might want to provide information. However, what was proposed was torpedoed by the input of eight former Attorneys General-----
No, the people voted against it.
-----who exerted really strong influence at a critical time.
The Taoiseach should accept the choice of the people.
The people turned down the proposal.
They voted against it for good reason.
I respect their choice and we must live with their decision. It might have made the position of the Government somewhat easier if the decision had been different. However, that is neither here nor there.
Not when one considers the way the Government is behaving.
The answer to the Deputy's question is that the Government wants this matter to be resolved. We will try to ensure this happens in a way that is realisable and credible. We will not proceed down the road where there will be a pyramid of writs and litigation and a series of interminable meanderings which do not get to the truth. After all, getting to the truth is the fundamental issue.
