Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

I would like the Minister to shed some light in his answers on a couple of important matters specifically pertaining to the role of the auditing and accountancy firms, their role in NAMA and their previous roles in regard to some of those banking institutions. Little light has been shed on their particular roles. It is important that the Minister would use the opportunity to provide clarity to the House as to his understanding.

Could the Minister explain the current role of Ernst & Young in the loan evaluation process for NAMA and how it came to be given that role? Ernst & Young, as the Minister is aware, was the auditing team for Anglo Irish Bank when accounts were published in February 2009. That report effectively gave Anglo Irish Bank a clean bill of health, yet we now know that the 2008 year end figures included cash that had been transferred from Permanent TSB. We know that directors' loans were concealed and loans were given to shareholders to buy more shares. Loans were also given to directors, senior executive members of Anglo Irish Bank, to buy more shares yet none of those matters was exposed in the end of year accounts presented by Ernst & Young.

Let us take the situation in regard to KPMG. What role has KPMG now in the NAMA process and how did it come to be involved in that process? KPMG audited Irish Nationwide. Its 2008 results, announced in April 2009 showed a pre-tax profit of €300 million after having set aside €500 million for bad debts. Yesterday's announcement confirmed that Irish Nationwide requires €2.6 billion in funds from the Exchequer, a mere 11 months after KPMG gave it a clean bill of health.

It is very important that we have full transparency and disclosure of the roles of those particular auditing and accountancy firms and their current role in regard to NAMA. I have specified in regard to both of those that they have functions currently. How did that come about given the questionable role they have clearly played in presenting figures allegedly as facts when we now know they were nothing of the kind? Are those auditing and accountancy firms being investigated for their specific roles in what some would suggest was an orchestrated cover up of the facts pertaining to those financial institutions? If they are not being investigated, why not?

See this speech in context