Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, for his earlier contribution. First, the issue of governance is included in the terms of reference in the form of specific issues but not at a macro level. I ask that the entire overall governance of IBRC be examined by this inquiry. When the Minister replies at the end of the debate, will he clarify that this will be the case?

Second, I ask that the general relationship between the Department of Finance and the bank also be considered. By this, I mean not just the various requests that were made in regard to specific deals but the overall relationship, given the placement of an official in IBRC. All of that is well documented in freedom of information documents.

Third, I am disappointed by how the wealth management unit is referenced here. I specifically asked that the interaction between the wealth management unit and the bank proper be investigated by the inquiry, and that the potential conflicts of interest that were raised, which occasioned the commissioning of the William Fry report into those potential conflicts of interest, be specifically covered. Can I get clarity before the debate ends that this overall issue is covered? It is mentioned in a very abstract way, which disappoints me, having read the Minister's earlier speech.

It is a longstanding tradition of this House that when the terms of reference of a formal inquiry are being discussed, Deputies address the context in which the inquiry is being established.

It has been the practice of many inquiries to pay specific attention to concerns raised in Dáil Éireann when carrying out their work. It is in this spirit that I want to address the issue of why the commission of inquiry is needed and why the issues of concern go much further and include points fundamental to the future of our democracy.

This inquiry is not only needed, it has been delayed for far too long. It is some time since the Government became aware of concerns about the operation of IBRC. It is years since it was put on notice that there might be a failure to protect fully the public interest. Yet all we have seen are efforts to keep these concerns secret. Not only was nothing done to investigate failings, material which might bring these failings to the attention of the Oireachtas or the Irish people was hidden behind a concerted strategy of limited disclosure.

A quarter of a century after a tribunal explicitly attacked the failure of Ministers to be open in parliamentary questions, we have a Government which has used every conceivable device to avoid admitting that its officials have raised concerns about the possible loss of large amounts of public money. Only one month ago Fianna Fáil proposed the establishment of a commission of inquiry and it was voted down by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. They claimed that there was nothing involved which could not be addressed by a review of files by KPMG, a firm involved in some of the deals to be investigated.

The Government parties also did what they always do, namely, spend most of their time on political attacks. The Government's handling of this issue over the past number of years has been to keep the lid on it in every way possible. Ministers have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid bringing it to the public's attention and once it was exposed they have twisted and turned to avoid an independent investigation. They have withheld information from parliamentary replies which the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, defended by saying, "There is always FOI".

They have voted down a motion to investigate problems identified by their own officials. They have refused to defend the right of the media to report Dáil debates or to publish information about possible lapses in a publicly financed institution. They have even gone into hiding to avoid having to respond to questions. Still this approach of "Move along, nothing to see here" keeps going. If we are to believe what the Government has been saying since its humiliating climb down last week, this is the first time in our history that an inquiry is being established because there is no evidence of any problems. Why have Fine Gael and the Labour Party gone to such extraordinary lengths to avoid this investigation? Why now are they eager to make sure that this much delayed investigation is stretched out beyond the general election?

Before it was sold Siteserv was a company with significant cash flow problems but it had the potential to recover some of its value. Yet, it was sold with a write-off to the State of at least €119 million. We know this from the recently published board minutes that went from IBRC to the Department of Finance at the time. Other bidders were excluded. The circumstances surrounding the sale were highlighted by at least one journalist at the time. This company is now generating major profits, as its subsidiary GMC Sierra has one of the contracts for the installation of water meters.

Everything about that sale gave preference to one bidder. There was a concerted rush to get Siteserv into the hands of a newly incorporated entity with no experience in the industry but a substantial understanding of the underlying value of the company. The idea that it was able to manipulate the process by threatening to walk away if anyone else was allowed even to examine the company is itself scandalous, as is the fact that people with no interest in seeking to maximise the return to the State were in charge of the process. It seems clear that the threat to walk away was a successful effort to ensure that others did not discover the high underlying value of Siteserv.

It certainly cannot be justified on the basis of commercial urgency, given that the sale was to a newly incorporated entity funded by borrowings from another State-owned bank. Why was a major debtor of IBRC given what, on the surface, appears to be the inside track on purchasing Siteserv? Why was that debtor's personal contact in IBRC present at the board meeting where the sale was agreed? Why was he not asked to step out? Why did he actually speak to the board on the sale and show deep knowledge of issues we were told he was excluded from?

Mr. Denis O'Brien seems to confirm this in his article in The Irish Timeson how these deals were done when he said, concerning the purchases of Siteserv, Topaz and the Beacon Hospital, "These were consensual deals with the founders, the management and lenders". What does that statement actually mean? The lenders had obligations, the most fundamental of which were to the State, the taxpayer and the public, not necessarily to do consensual deals and certainly not to exclude trade buyers or others or to reward shareholders to the degree that they were rewarded in the Siteserv deal.

People should also understand that the issue of extending performing loans was a serious lapse in the governance of IBRC. IBRC's job was to get back money from debtors as quickly as possible. If a debtor was in a position to repay a major loan then there was no justification for failing to have it repaid on time. By extending loans like this IBRC effectively enabled debtors to hold on to all of their assets and use other borrowings to purchase State assets. As to the issue of preferential rates, this should be examined thoroughly, as Deputy Murphy says her sources are reliable and robust. It is totally unacceptable that she was labelled a liar and a thief. If more preferable interest rates and extended loan times were given it is important that the inquiry investigate the reasons and rationale behind such decisions.

The cost to the State of this money was the cost of the capital which was placed in IBRC. Equally, the repayment of major debts was essential for the State's overall debt exposure. Those who are defending IBRC keep ignoring the fundamental fact that this was not a private sector bank; it was a bank which had been rescued by the State and which was to be wound down. On the issue of confidentiality, many of the pleadings in the High Court represent a chilling attempt to limit the public's right to know about matters of legitimate public concern. It is a disgrace that the only State involvement in that case has been to fund the attempt of the special liquidator to stop media reports on IBRC's activities. The special liquidator's pleadings in the High Court said that to allow RTE to report on the handling of the debts of a major public figure would cause damage to the reputation and financing of IBRC. This is surreal. IBRC is in liquidation. It is being shut down. It has no reputation or long-term financing needs to protect.

As a society we have made slow but determined progress towards greater accountability and tackling exclusive circles. Yet, the evidence is that the Government is willing to assist actively in reducing accountability and supporting a greater concentration of media and business power than we have ever seen. Last weekend, the chairman of INM announced the group was planning to spend up to €100 million on acquiring more media companies in Ireland and the UK. This is a brief period after it had €140 million written off its debts, mostly by State backed banks. Such an expansion would have a negative impact on media diversity and plurality in Ireland. Why is this Government so determined to avoid saying anything which might upset or annoy Mr. Denis O'Brien?

It is also four years since the Moriarty tribunal report was published, which found serious problems with the awarding of the most valuable State licence in our history. In those four years the Government has been profoundly silent on this report. Let no one be in any doubt, Mr. O'Brien wants the Moriarty report buried and resents anyone even mentioning it. Sam Smyth wrote at the weekend that after Mr. O'Brien took over Today FM "[M]anagement instructed me not to discuss the Moriarty tribunal or the mobile phone licence that O’Brien won when Michael Lowry was minister for communications". Unlike the Government, I have not been willing to acquiesce to this behaviour and I will not, irrespective of the consequences.

Every citizen is entitled to equality before the law, but no citizen should be entitled to use his or her power and resources to silence legitimate public debate. Most of the media not owned by Mr. O'Brien has been effectively under siege as he has deployed his resources on a level not open to other citizens to shape coverage of him. The launching of 24 High Court actions against 42 named outlets is only one part of the ongoing campaign. It has been reported that 11 journalists have received legal letters from Mr O'Brien in the last few years.

The direct legal intimidation of journalists is a new and disturbing development which we must speak out against. Any journalist who wants a long-term future has been put on warning as to what might happen to them if they displease Mr. O'Brien. Some journalists who have in the past been critical of the new owner no longer work for his acquired companies. It should be a source of national shame that Sam Smyth, by some distance one of our most successful ever investigative reporters, was removed from his newspaper and radio employment.

This inquiry could have been avoided if the Minister had acted and listened to the concerns of his officials and if he had immediately intervened to guarantee that IBRC was maximising the return to the public in all of its work. Instead we got years of delay and a constant effort to provide as little information as possible. It is impossible to miss the link between the Government's actions on IBRC and its wider political agenda. This is an agenda which is indifferent to basic press and parliamentary freedoms and is putting all of its focus on the next election. It is a cynical and sinister agenda. It is one which must be stopped.

See this speech in context