Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for coming before us. Many of the questions which come to mind have already been asked.

Commercial sensitivity is used as a shield in respect of information which is relevant and which should be explored. For example, the banking inquiries that have taken place to date were backstopped at the date of the announcement of the guarantee at the end of September 2008. The fog which has fallen into place since then constitutes a type of FOI shield. For example, FOI requests cannot be submitted in respect of NAMA, the NTMA or certain meetings with the ECB and the EU. Pertinent questions relating to landmark points, and pivotal decisions and actions taken, along the route from September 2008 to the present cannot be asked. For example, the final tranche of senior secured debt within in the IBRC was literally redeemed on the day on which the guarantee expired, namely, 30 September. That was the same day on which those in the banks had begun to admit the losses that had been made. The figure in this regard was not the final one. When I made attempts over a period of three weeks to obtain information with regard to who was approving what and why there was no public debate in respect of the redemption of these bonds, the telephones at the Central Bank, the regulator and the IBRC went dead. That was not good enough because the payment involved amounted to €7.9 billion and it was made with exceptional liquidity assistance. Again, this was only made legal and allowable through the creation of a promissory note. The latter was something which had never previously been done in the history of the EU or the eurozone.

All the information about the decisions and who was applying what pressure to do these things is still unknown. That is not good enough. Whatever needs to be done in terms of removing commercial sensitivity for the purpose of getting transparency on these heavyweight decisions must be done.

The scrutiny-as-you-approach as matters unfold and as interviews take place was mentioned. This is a new culture and a new outlook on getting information out and on examining why the questions are being asked. We can remember the reaction of Klaus Masuch at the third troika review in Government Buildings when Vincent Browne asked a question like a dart to the bullseye. Klaus Masuch knew it was a radioactive question and he ducked it. He was protected then by the person in the Department of Finance who wanted to steer the conversation on to less dangerous terrain but that is not good enough. We know that after the interview takes place the chance of getting to the truth of what discussions had taken place leading to decisions will be obfuscated.