Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome today's order establishing a commission of investigation concerning transactions entered into by IBRC and note that this is only occurring due to the excellent parliamentary work of Deputy Catherine Murphy. Had Deputy Murphy not pursued her own investigation, we would not know that Department of Finance officials had raised serious concerns in 2012 about large IBRC transactions. We would not know that Department of Finance officials raised numerous and specific concerns about the Siteserv transaction. We would not know that these concerns were not being shared with the Oireachtas, even in response to direct parliamentary questions.

As with the replies Deputy Murphy received to her parliamentary questions, the Minister's speech is as notable for what it does not say as for what it does. The Minister references public concerns but there is no mention of departmental concerns, which are at the heart of this affair. The Minister references increased public concern but there is no mention of increased Oireachtas concern caused by the appointment of KPMG to investigate sales processes that KPMG was involved in running. The Minister makes no mention of this conflict of interest, a conflict raised by numerous Members of Dáil Éireann on the Opposition benches.

The absence of any mention by the Minister of the specific concerns raised by Department of Finance officials is particularly worrying in setting out the terms of reference of this investigation. The departmental memo, secured only under FOI by Deputy Murphy, states the following:

We are concerned at the number of large transactions that have been poorly executed under the direction of the chief executive officer. The performance of management in executing these transactions raises the question of the effectiveness of the CEO. The poor management displayed in a number of these items, along with the increased level of public concern and political and media scrutiny that they commanded, is damaging the credibility of IBRC and, by extension, the State.

What was it about the performance of the CEO that concerned Department officials? Which large transactions were they concerned with? What damage might be caused to the State and at what cost? The Minister states that there are no allegations of wrongdoing. This was never about wrongdoing. It was about departmental concerns regarding low performance and poor corporate governance leading to a loss of public money. Now, because of how the Minister has dealt with the information he has received, it has also become about political governance.

8 o’clock

Section F in the terms of reference states that the commission of investigation will examine "whether [the Minister for Finance], or officials on his behalf, took appropriate steps in respect of the information provided to them". The investigation must include whether appropriate steps were taken in respect of informing the Oireachtas about the information that was provided. The commission of investigation will, no doubt, focus on financial performance and corporate governance, but at the heart of the current controversy is a failure of democratic accountability for public money.

In 2012, Department of Finance officials wrote to the Minister for Finance, laying out serious concerns as I have already mentioned. They raised five key concerns specific to Siteserv: allowing the company to run the sales process, excluding trade buyers from the sales process, entering into exclusivity with one bidder, paying the shareholders in an insolvent company €5 million and not accepting the highest bid. The Department stated that it believed these issues "resulted in a less optimal return for the bank". These concerns should have been brought to the Dáil in 2012, as the body constitutionally charged with accounting for public money. They were not. These concerns should have been brought to the Oireachtas in 2013, as part of the context of the liquidation of IBRC. They were not. In 2014, Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister specifically, via a parliamentary question, whether he was satisfied with the disposal of Siteserv. I will read the Minister's response on the record:

Notwithstanding the State's ownership of the bank at the time, Irish Bank Resolution Corporation operated at an arm's length capacity from the State in relation to commercial issues. It was a matter for the board and management to determine and implement such policy in their organisation. Therefore, commercial decisions in relation to IBRC were solely a decision for the bank.

The Minister continues with some technical details on the sale and concludes as follows:

I am advised that the Board of the bank at that time were satisfied that this was the case.

There was no mention in the Minister's response of the numerous and specific concerns raised by Department officials. These concerns were so serious that the officials believed they could damage the credibility of the State.

Deputy Murphy followed this up with numerous parliamentary questions and, again, not one mention was made of any of the Department's concerns by the Minister. In fact, only after freedom of information requests meant that the Department's concerns must come into the public domain did the Minister finally reference those concerns, months after Deputy Murphy's first question and years after the concerns were first raised with the Minister. Even now, the Minister maintains that there is no problem with any of this behaviour. On RTE "News" recently, he stated that he "answered questions, absolutely fully in the way questions are answered in the Dáil. They were full answers."

The following questions need to be investigated: why did the Minister not share departmental concerns with the Dáil? Why did the Minister not mention these concerns when he sought Dáil approval to liquidate IBRC? Why did the Minister not mention these concerns when asked specifically about them by Deputy Catherine Murphy? Why did the Minister only agree to an inquiry after Deputy Murphy uncovered the concerns via freedom of information? Why did the Minister appoint KPMG to conduct an inquiry in which it was obviously and blatantly conflicted? Why did the Minister only agree to a commission of inquiry or commission of investigation once additional information emerged? What other concerns have Department of Finance officials brought to the Minister that he has decided not to share with Dáil Éireann? What else has the Minister omitted from answers to parliamentary questions concerning vast sums of public money?

If the Minister's position was that he had made serious errors of judgment in his political governance of this affair, that he should have shared the information with the Oireachtas and that he had not answered parliamentary questions as they should have been answered, that would be one thing. That is not his position. His position is that he answered the questions fully and his speech today made no mention whatsoever of any errors of judgment. To the best of my knowledge, and I am open to correction, he has not referenced any errors of judgment in his conduct of this affair. Dáil Éireann is accountable for public money. Department of Finance officials wrote to the Minister stating that they were so concerned about what was going on with public money that they thought it could damage the credibility of the Republic. The Minister did not inform the Dáil of those concerns and he did not inform a Member of the Dáil when specifically asked about them. That is not an acceptable form of parliamentary oversight, it is not an acceptable form of executive conduct in this State and it is a matter for serious consideration and further debate in this House.

See this speech in context