Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Mr. McAteer has outlined the amount of money that has been paid to his company in respect of this process. Grant Thornton stated in 2010 that there would be no call on the fund. At the time of the sale of Quinn Insurance, it indicated that there could be a potential call of €600 million on the fund. When the Dáil was passing legislation last October, it stated that the call could be as much as €738 million. When the matter came before the courts again in December, the amount had risen to €775 million. Now it stands at €1.65 million. I accept that Grant Thornton might not be in possession of all the correct information but there is a time when one indicates that one got it wrong. Mr. McAteer should state that his original assertion to the effect that the taxpayer would not be obliged to cover the costs relating to this matter was completely wrong. Mr. McAteer and his company have been paid millions of euro to carry out work in respect of this matter. He indicated that his priority was to sell Quinn Insurance. However, there must be due diligence in respect of the call on taxpayers.

Almost everyone in the State has an insurance policy. It is ordinary citizens who, if we are to believe the officials from the Department of Finance, are going to be obliged to pay the price in respect of this matter for the next 15 years. There is a time and place to accept responsibility and state that one got it wrong. In my opinion, there has been far too much of this kind of behaviour in the past. I am reminded of comments to the effect that ours would be the "cheapest bailout in history". As we are aware, the cost of the bailout continues to increase. The figures produced by Grant Thornton in respect of this matter have gone through the roof. It must be held responsible for the fact that it got it wrong over a very short period.

In the context of the Central Bank, Mr. McAteer indicated that his company called in the auditors in respect of a dispute regarding a discrepancy of €68 million between audits. If we were only talking about €68 million, then the country might be in a much better position. I am aghast by what has taken place. Reports indicate that Mr. McAteer has been directly responsible for supervising this company since 2006. When a financial regulator from another member state indicates its view that a problem exists, then something must be done. I presume that financial regulators do not engage in loose talk in respect of different companies. It is shocking that a financial regulator from another state had to bring to the attention of the company the fact that it had failed to go through the accounts and identify some of the losses.

It was stated that some of the additional losses relate to the fact that QIL's €450 million of assets are deteriorating in value. Why was this fact not factored into Grant Thornton's original assumption in respect of this matter? Why were currency fluctuations not taken into account? We are aware that the purpose of the 2% levy relates to products that are available in the North and Britain. Why were currency fluctuations not taken into account in the context of the original estimates and why are they only being thrown into the mix now?

The officials from the Department of Finance indicated that the amount of money required in respect of Quinn Insurance will be in the fund by 2015. It is difficult to accept the figures the Department - and indeed the Minister for Finance - have provided in this regard. The Minister for Finance informed the Dáil that this fund would be in place for between 11 and 12 years. That was his estimate and I presume the Department supplied him with the relevant figures. We now know that he was basing his assertion in this regard on losses amounting to €738 million. As we are aware, those losses may eventually amount to €1.65 billion or more than double the amount originally communicated to the Minister. Our guests from the Department have indicated that the fund will only be in place for three years. It was stated that assets and asset sales are being taken into account but why were these not part of the equation when the Minister stated that the fund could be in place for 11 or 12 years? Did the Minister just ignore the position in this regard? Our guests are playing around with figures, while we are concerned about people's lives and their money. It is very disappointing that we have not received very honest and forthcoming presentations from them at this meeting.

Will the officials from the Department indicate when the State will get its money back? The administrators referred to action being taken against certain professionals. Will they indicate the individuals against whom they propose to take legal action? What are the chances of recouping any, if not all, of this money from the professionals who provided the administrators with dodgy advice in the past? This matter has arisen in the past in respect of the banks, when auditors presented books indicated that certain institutions were solvent when, in fact, they were insolvent. The State lost billions of euro as a result. However, those to whom I refer just walk away and are later given other State contracts and-----