Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Regarding Anglo Irish Bank, bearing in mind that there may be an appeal of the sentence, clearly, the conviction was for providing false information for shareholders, but it could be argued that it affected the then Minister's decision at the time because the books of the bank showed that it was in better shape than it was. Does Mr. O'Flynn believe that provides additional scope for a more robust challenge in that regard? For example, if I was to enter into a contract with him based on information he had provided for me that was proved to be fraudulent, it would nullify my contract with him.

Is there an argument in that regard?

The sin of all this is that it is occurring nearly every six months. The Central Bank is selling off at an accelerated rate what are now the Government bonds. When the Government liquidated IBRC, it did a terrible thing. It changed the promissory note into State-owned bonds. This was absolutely appalling. Worse, it presented it as a victory for the Irish people. While there was an important reduction in regard to how we dealt with this on a year-by-year basis, the debt still remained and the bill still existed.

Of the €34 billion that was in the promissory note, only €14.5 billion has not been paid back so far. Does the argument now centre only on what remains? That question is on the strategy. Some €14.5 billion in bonds are now held by the Central Bank of Ireland. The other bonds do not exist anymore. As the delegates said, the money has been destroyed. Alternatively, does the delegation argue we should revisit the issue of the €34 billion?