Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It does not stand up to any reasonable form of scrutiny for anybody to say with a degree of credibility that there is not a conflict of interest or a perception of one. I have no axe to grind or connection with KPMG, but it was at the centre of this transaction before it became involved with IBRC. It was appointed as the special liquidator without a tendering process on the night the Bill was passed. It has had a vested interest throughout the process and was involved with Siteserv and now IBRC as a special liquidator. It is front and centre in regard to these transactions.

It is not credible to ask it to do a report into itself. One has to ask whether it will write a report which will be critical of itself. To offer by way of explanation that it is in possession of all the paperwork and has the knowledge, as a special liquidator, of handling the case does not stack up to any degree of scrutiny. There is no reason that KPMG could not be ordered to hand over copies of the paperwork to an independent commission of investigation. That is what rankles with people, namely, the fact that the common thread running through this issue is KPMG.

People have made presentations to the effect that arms length commercial transactions, which they have tried to rationalise, were involved. They have tried to provide explanations, for example, on "Prime Time" on RTE. There was a haircut of €105 million. At the same time, other bidders were excluded. When one adds everything up, people have a right to be worried. One can contrast that with the parallel of distressed mortgage holders who are trying to negotiate with the banks. They see big business getting haircuts and writedowns not on one, but on at least three occasions, for the company behind Siteserv. When they try to negotiate with the banks they are met with a veto.

We have been told a retired High Court judge is overseeing the investigation by KPMG into the Siteserv transaction.

There is no independent oversight in a negotiation process for a mortgage holder who is trying to sit down and hammer out an arrangement with a bank. The bank will exercise its veto, which was raised by our party leader during Leaders' Questions today. My colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, has proposed legislation in that regard. The difference of approach is so palpable when it comes to big business vis-à-vis the citizens who are trying to get on with their lives but are saddled with mortgages they cannot pay. The bank is screwing them to the wall and that is making people very angry.

The only way to get to the bottom of this is to have an independent commission of investigation. This would remove the conflict of interest from the equation and the argument. The special liquidator is to report by the end of August and it would be opportune for the banking inquiry to look at that report. The terms of reference of the banking inquiry include events after the crash up to December 2013, and include "persons who were the recipients of commercial loans, including for commercial property, from the credit institutions within the scope" of the schedule.

It is significant that there was such a large write-off in the Siteserv deal. There was also a €64 million write-off of debt in respect of Blue Ocean Associates and a reported write-off of €150 million for Topaz. The same individuals are behind all three transactions. I am not happy that KPMG is doing the report because in my view there is a conflict of interest. There is a perceived conflict of interest and people are not happy about it. If the Government is minded to have a special commission of investigation, it should allow the banking inquiry to examine the matter when the special liquidator reports at the end of August.

See this speech in context