Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of some public concern and absolute public interest. I welcome the announcement of a commission of inquiry, but I am disappointed at the way in which the Government has gone about forming the terms of reference, particularly the fact that there has been so little regard for the serious concerns raised by members of the Opposition, including me and my party.

We have tabled an amendment to the motion calling on the Government to amend the terms of reference. We specifically call on the Government to ensure that the commission of investigation submits an interim report to the Taoiseach no later than 14 September 2015 on the status and likely date of conclusion of its work; that Dáil Éireann be recalled no later than 15 September 2015 for a debate on the interim report of the commission of investigation; and that a reference be included within the terms of reference to the provision by the Minister for Finance of all resources and supports which may be necessary to the commission of investigation to ensure that the final report is published no later than 30 October.

It is extraordinary that after all our years of tribunals of investigation, scandals in public life, stealth and cloak-and-dagger moves, we still have not mastered the art of investigating wrongdoing or issues of public concern in an expeditious fashion. I was accused by a Minister of State the other day of wanting to have my cake and eat it simply because I have asked the Government to conduct an expeditious inquiry and a thorough one. I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive, but that is what we are being told by a Government that is now so arrogant that it does believe it has to be accountable to anybody. We all know that this inquiry will not be concluded and that its report will not be in the public domain before the next general election. That is patently obvious. If we needed any evidence or proof of that intention, it is clear to us in the conduct of the Fennelly inquiry. That is extremely regrettable.

I reiterate my call to the Minister to put a tighter timeframe on this inquiry, to ensure that an interim report is produced after the summer which is aired and debated in Dáil Chamber, and to ensure we do not have to wait until after this Dáil has been dissolved and a new Parliament is in place after the next general election.

We have also called for a reduction in the capital threshold for this inquiry. A threshold of €10 million is the figure on which the Government has insisted. I am very suspicious of that. I have already expressed my concerns on the basis that I have information pertaining to write-downs in the region of €5 million. I do not know if they are accurate or otherwise but I want the inquiry to find that out. It is not fair to say that if something is raised with the inquiry and if something comes to light it will investigate it. If the threshold is so high, it will ensure that many issues of concern may very well be excluded.

We also included in our amendment a provision to the effect that whatever transactions occurred, there is a requirement to understand clearly what protocols and controls the Minister for Finance and his Department had in respect of various transactions and whether sanction was given or whether there was knowledge of such transactions. Again, the dealings between IBRC and the Minister and the Department are effectively excluded from this inquiry, which makes it a pretty toothless dog.

A number of contradictions have emerged in recent weeks, and I want to touch on some of them because they are very pertinent to this issue. They relate to the Department of Finance, its role, its relevance and why it ought to be included in the terms of reference. In addressing the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in October 2012, the then IBRC chief executive, Mike Aynsley, stated that the bank "does not have any debt forgiveness capacity".Furthermore, he declared that IBRC had "a policy of not writing down loans for customers". Mr. Aynsley was singing an entirely different tune last weekend in responding to the findings in The Sunday Business Postthat 40 private individuals and businesses had received a combined debt write-off of more than €1 billion. He admitted that "the Irish taxpayer has effectively shouldered this burden". That was an absolute U-turn by that individual.

My question to the Minister for Finance were he still in the Chamber - perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, will pass it on - would be on when these write-downs in IBRC began and why the general public was not told about them. Was the Minister aware that write-downs for customers were taking place? Does he stand by Mr. Mike Aynsley's testimony to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in October 2012 that the bank had a policy of not writing down loans for customers?

In light of the Minister's statement on 30 April of this year that there was "a professional working relationship between my Department and senior management of IBRC at all times", it seems reasonable to believe that he had knowledge of the extremely favourable deals being conducted between the bank and the individuals concerned. If this is not the case, how can he justify a situation whereby large quantities of public money were effectively given away in sweetheart deals without the slightest element of parliamentary scrutiny or oversight? This question relates directly to the amendment that Renua Ireland has on this evening's Order Paper. We are calling on the Government to include the Department of Finance. We need clarity on these issues and to know what was happening and who knew what, where and when.

What about Siteserv? In an interview that Mr. Aynsley gave to the Sunday Business Poston 26 April 2015, he stated that IBRC "drew specific comfort" from the exclusion of the bank's head of specialised asset management, Mr. Richard Woodhouse, from the decision-making process, as he was also responsible for a performing client and potential bidder, one Mr. Denis O'Brien. Speaking on NewsTalk the day before Mr. Aynsley's interview, the former IBRC chairman, Mr. Alan Dukes, stated that, as the bank expected Mr. O'Brien to be one of the bidders in Siteserv's sale, Mr. Woodhouse was excluded from the decision-making to ensure that its processes were "robust and above board".

Minutes that the Minister stated were lost but have now miraculously been found and published on his Department's website show an IBRC board meeting on 15 March 2012 at which Mr. Woodhouse, who is supposed to have been excluded from the process, was minuted as stating that a "letter had been received from Virgo Capital attesting to the fairness of the sales process which had been followed to date". It was also minuted that Mr. Woodhouse responded to a question about the involvement of Mr. Dix in the process by noting the role that the latter played as a director of Siteserv while serving as a director of Quinn Group (ROI) Limited. We need answers to all of these issues. It is unclear from the terms of reference agreed by the Cabinet that any of this information will be aired.

In the same interview, Mr. Aynsley went on to say: "I don't think it's a secret that I don't get on at all well with John." The "John" to whom he was referring was the then Secretary General of the Department of Finance. Was it a secret to the Minister for Finance that his Secretary General did not get on with the CEO of a bank that was charged with disposing of €70 billion in State assets on behalf of taxpayers? It was certainly a secret to the general public and, as far as I am aware, the whole of the Oireachtas. When the liquidation of IBRC was announced, the Minister stated of the management of IBRC: "I wish to acknowledge, with much appreciation, the significant efforts the directors and staff of the IBRC have made to the stabilisation of and maintenance of value in the IBRC." He was painting a picture that does not appear to have reflected the views of his Department. We are now well aware of the unease expressed and concerns held by Mr. John Moran and other senior departmental officials.

Unfortunately, due to the deliberately narrow scope of the inquiry's terms of reference, we will not learn anything about that relationship or the concerns or otherwise held by the Minister, Deputy Noonan. We will learn nothing about the dysfunctional nature of the relationship between the Department and IBRC. This is not acceptable. I assure the Minister, Deputy White, that if the Government believes it can silence questions from this side of the House or prevent members of the Opposition from pursuing genuine questions on behalf of the Irish people by shunting this issue off to a toothless investigation until after the next general election, it is wrong. That will not happen and we will continue pursuing all of these issues.

See this speech in context