Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Is it not curious that neither the Taoiseach nor the Tánaiste will speak on the motion and terms of reference for the proposed commission of investigation this evening? We can only hope they will emerge from their silence and speak tomorrow.

The public interest lies at the core of all considerations relating to the establishment of a commission of investigation and the decision as to whether the terms of reference are adequate. When the Minister for Finance took to his feet this afternoon to set out his terms of reference, he underscored repeatedly the necessity to meet the public interest and settle public disquiet. Every Deputy who has spoken since has echoed that sentiment.

It is very clear that the only reason a commission of investigation is being established was the public outcry and public dissatisfaction that greeted the proposed KPMG review, which would have amounted to little more than an internal review. The only way we can judge the current terms of reference is to gauge whether they adequately meet the public interest and in their current form, they do not do so. I will set out the rationale for that view.

When I met the Minister for Finance yesterday evening, I raised with him the absence of any reference in the draft terms of reference to the Department of Finance or the Minister. This was an astonishing omission. The Minister's position has moved somewhat and the terms of reference now contain a reference to the Department of Finance for the purposes of the commission of investigation. This is, however, completely inadequate and I would describe it as "passive", the reason being that it does not place an onus on the Department to have been active or vigorous in defending the public interest but simply asks that the investigation review those circumstances in which the Department was given information and what it did with such information.

This chimes with a point made by Deputy Bannon who spoke of the inadequacy of the relationship framework that existed from 2009. This inadequacy has been used by the Government, the Minister for Finance and departmental officials to try to explain away their failure to safeguard the public interest. A number of these officials appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts and to describe them as less than impressive in the account they gave of their actions and inaction would be an understatement. From the evidence I heard from them, I could only arrive at the conclusion that they took a hands-off, "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach in respect of IBRC. That is simply not good enough. There was nothing in the original relationship framework to prevent the Department or Minister from demanding and obtaining information from IBRC and nothing in it would have prevented the type of rigorous oversight that was necessary. Both the Department and the Minister failed in that regard.

Rather than taking a passive approach, the terms of reference should, as proposed in the Sinn Féin amendment, ask the commission of investigation to examine in respect of "each transaction under investigation, whether the Minister for Finance or his Department took appropriate action to safeguard the public interest by enforcing proper governance and accountability oversight in respect of the transactions concerned". This is the correct way to investigate the role of the Department and the performance of the Minister but it is not what is prescribed in the proposed terms of reference. If the Minister imagines for one second that he will appease Opposition Deputies by simply making reference to the Department in the terms of reference, he is wrong.

The second core issue I raised with the Minister was the timeline for the commission of investigation. It is unacceptable that the terms of reference still only allow for investigation up to February 2013. Deputies Pearse Doherty, Catherine Murphy and others set out the many reasons the timeline must be extended at least until March 2015, the point at which KPMG issued its interim report. At that stage, €22 billion of loan sales and 64 separate transactions had been overseen by the special liquidator.

9 o’clock

In respect of one of those transactions, the Racing Post, issues and concerns have already been raised in the public domain by a bidder who was very critical of the modus operandiof the special liquidator. I have in my hand media reports from October 2014 that set out those concerns.

Of concern also to 13,000 mortgage holders was the sale of mortgage books to vulture funds. Those people want answers and reassurance in the public interest that the transaction was carried out in a proper and appropriate way. Professor Honohan was cited a few moments ago. It should be borne in mind that when that transaction was carried out, Professor Patrick Honohan and the Central Bank were very concerned at the sale of mortgage books to vulture funds. Nevertheless, the Minister turns his face away from that and chooses not to extend the timeline to include specifically the issues that Deputy Pearse Doherty raised earlier this evening in the Dáil. He raised very serious issues around verbal agreements between IBRC management and Mr. Denis O'Brien. Why would the Minister exclude deliberately such a crucial matter of public importance from the scope of the investigation? If the Minister's narrative is that he has established the investigation because of public concerns and allegations that have come to light on the floor of the House, I suggest to him that he needs to revisit the terms of reference to make absolutely sure that any verbal agreements, understandings or gentleman's agreements that may have taken place fall squarely within them. To fail to include those matters raises a fundamental question for the commission itself and as to the Government's motives in excluding these matters.

See this speech in context