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

Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún atá os ár gcomhair, a thugann deis dúinn an ceist fíorthábhachtach seo a phlé. Níl dabht ar bith ná go bhfuil coiste fiosrúcháin neamhspleách, a bhfuil tacaíocht an phobail aige, ag teastáil le díriú isteach ar na saincheisteanna atá le plé ó thaobh an chaoi inar dhíol an iarbhanc Banc Angla-Éireannach an chomhlacht Siteserv. Níl dabht ar bith i mo thuairim, agus i dtuairim mo pháirtí, nach mbeimid ábalta tacaíocht an phobail agus muinín an phobail a fháil muna mbeidh coiste fiosrúcháin neamhspleách leagtha amach. Ní thuigim cén fáth go bhfuil an Rialtas ag cur a aghaidh in éadan an cineál próisis sin, go háirithe nuair a fhéachann muid ar na príomhcharachtair atá i gceist sa chás seo. Bhí cuid acu pléite sa Teach seo san am a chuaigh thart, nuair a ardaíodh ceisteanna faoin dóigh ina raibh siad ag idirdhealú nó ag déileáil leis an Rialtas ag an am sin. Tá a fhios againn fá dtaobh den bhinse fiosrúcháin a bhí leagtha amach mar gheall ar sin.

On 26 March 2012, ten days after the sale of Siteserv, I raised the question of that suspicious sale with the Minister for Finance. I tabled it as an oral question because I believed it needed to be discussed on the floor of the Dail. Unfortunately, as a result of the lottery system, it was not chosen as an oral question but was subsequently responded to me in written format. In the question I submitted on 26 March 2012, I asked the Minister for Finance to explain why "State owned IBRC agreed to write down the value of its loans to [Siteserv] by more than €100m whilst at the same time ordinary shareholders were paid €4.96m as part of the deal to sell the company" to Denis O'Brien. Three years and two months later, I am still waiting for my answer. The Official Report shows that I was told back than that "the Board of the bank are satisfied". I suggest it was a question of "move along, Deputy, everything is above board, nothing to look at here".

It was not mentioned in the reply to my parliamentary question that Peter Fitzgerald of IBRC and formerly of Anglo Irish Bank wrote to the Department four days later, after it sought a response to my question, to say he was going to hold off on a reply until he had read what was in the papers about the story the following day. I wish to make something clear about this aspect of the matter, which may seem tangential to the whole controversy about the sale of Siteserv. The questions I pose to the Minister, as a representative of the people and an elected Member of this Oireachtas, should be answered on the basis of the facts and not on the basis of how the media might be covering a story. It is not right to interfere and to respond based on what else has slipped out. My question was to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and not to Peter Fitzgerald. I did not ask IBRC's opinion. I asked a Minister of our elected Government to set out what was going on. He did not give a full answer. It is hard to believe the Department had not yet expressed any concerns. It should have been fully aware of the context of my question and should have gone for a straight answer, especially in light of all the media presentation around this issue in the days running up to my tabling of the question.

That was the beginning of the story. Any bit of information that has been gleaned since then has been dragged kicking and screaming out of the Minister for Finance. We are still pushing for these answers three years and two months later because questions have been asked by me and others. I refer particularly to the diligent efforts of Deputy Catherine Murphy. It may now be some years later, but it is apparent from the Government amendment to the motion before the House that nothing has really changed. The line we are being given is still "nothing to see", more or less. It was not credible in 2012 and it is even less credible today. The attempt to brush this issue under the carpet through this investigation is a nonsense and will not satisfy the public's demand for answers.

The Government amendment contains a telling line that states "given the recent public concerns and questions raised regarding the Siteserv transaction, the Minister for Finance has directed the special liquidators of IBRC to review and report on all transactions" and so on. In other words, the Government is telling us it has to be seen to be doing something because the people are angry. An actual desire to get to the truth for the sake of the truth is missing here. If a freedom of information request had not revealed the concerns of the Department, we would not be here and those concerns would be unknown. The Minister knew about these concerns for many years, but decided to do nothing about them. He held a couple of meetings, but he did not think it warranted an investigation or an inquiry. He let it slip on by in the hope that nobody would notice or ever find out that his Department, in addition to Opposition Deputies and other members of the public, had raised serious issues about this sale.

The proposed investigation and the amendment tabled by the Government are about being seen to do something. They are certainly not about doing something. How will the type of investigation that the Government has announced determine the identity of those shareholders who bought shares during the crucial period? How will it get behind the holding companies or the front companies that bought the shares on behalf of the individuals? How will the investigation have the confidence of the public, given that it is being carried out by individuals and partners from KPMG? How will that be possible, in light of KPMG's own role in the sales process, KPMG's history in relation to other people who advised on the sale and the history of people who are involved in Siteserv with KPMG?

We have to bear in mind that the terms of reference established by the Government go up to the date of the liquidation of IBRC, to the point where the special liquidator was appointed. The special liquidator has liquidated many companies and has vast experience of doing so over many years. We need to be honest here. Questions have been raised in the public domain about some of the sales that have been facilitated by the special liquidator. They have been reported in the media, but they are outside the terms of reference. The sale of the Racing Postis one such example. It was sold to the person who had the debt. The Racing Posthad debts of approximately €180 million. It was sold to the owners of the Racing Post. A UK publisher, Tim Hailstone, told The Timesin London-----

See this speech in context