Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As the quote goes, nothing has changed but the faces and the hairpieces. Both Government parties been dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they have accepted the Opposition demand for a commission of investigation. What we have seen is the politics of yesterday and a Government mess of today.

In 2012 my colleagues, Deputies Gerry Adams and Pearse Doherty, submitted hundreds of parliamentary questions highlighting numerous highly questionable decisions by IBRC, including the sales of Siteserv, Blue Ocean and Topaz, and the bank's startling relationship with Blackstone. As Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said, the fact none of those questions was answered properly not only shows a disrespect for this House but also a disrespect for the people each Deputy represents here. The €4 million cost of this commission of investigation is a cost of the Minister, Deputy Noonan's making, given he was not happy to answer the questions that were put to him during this whole process.

A fundamental truth is being sought from this commission of investigation, which is whether the public interest is being safeguarded. Yet, the fact the terms of reference are so narrow means it is impossible for us to know the answer to that question. Why is it that the Government is railing against full disclosure? What instinct is within the Government to continue with the murkiness of its current process and not have full transparency? This is why my party will not support the Government's terms of reference unless it supports our amendments.

The period under investigation must be extended to 12 March 2015 and must include decisions made by the bank's special liquidators, KPMG. The decisions of KPMG must be exposed to scrutiny. We need to know if the decisions made by the liquidators to defer, extend and change the terms of these significant loans were, first and foremost, made in the public interest. Capital losses of €1 million or more during this extended period must also be investigated. The fact the Government has increased this figure to €10 million is arbitrary and reflects the nonchalant attitude to the public interest and public moneys that permeates senior elements of this Government.

We have called for the commission to be empowered to investigate claims of verbal agreements in respect of the payment, extension and rollover of loans. Teachta Pearse Doherty has provided an astounding example of an existing loan worth a whopping €315 million which was essentially repackaged for the lender into a brand new loan on the basis of legal threats wrapped around an alleged verbal agreement with the bank's former management. If the Minister can stand over that not being properly investigated, there is major trouble ahead.

Sinn Féin has also sought to insert a provision that would enable the commission of investigation to work out whether the Minister for Finance and his officials took appropriate action to safeguard the public interest by enforcing good governance, accountability and oversight in respect of the transactions that occurred. It is mind-boggling that it has been left to the Opposition to demand that these be in the terms of reference.

As Sinn Féin has already demanded, this investigation should not be just about losses and interest rates; it should also be about processes and relationships. The banking inquiry is focusing on the nexus of relationships that existed between big business, developers, banks and politicians. This obviously brought down the country and is why most of our citizens are suffering in the way they are suffering today. The fact we are not willing to investigate that same nexus here is very troublesome. We want to see the role of external consultants examined, for example, Blackstone, KPMG, the wealth management unit of IBRC and the beneficial owners of the Siteserv shares. It is absolutely bonkers for the investigation to exclude these players. If the Government decides against their inclusion, big questions have to be asked with regard to the bona fides of the Government.

Attention has been focused on Denis O'Brien's relationship with IBRC and the bank's special liquidators, and while this attention has been warranted, there are other players in the field. It is important we are not completely distracted from a 360° view of what has happened here. Questions have repeatedly been raised about the dual role of Blackstone, an advisor to the bank on the very assets it sought to purchase. There is no other sector in the world I can think of where this kind of relationship would be considered right and proper.

Deputy Gerry Adams has highlighted what would be considered in any other sphere the deeply improper relationship between Blackstone, NAMA and the Government. In November 2011, the Taoiseach met with the head of Blackstone, Steven Shwarzman, and his associate, Gerry Murphy. The Government appointed chair of NAMA's advisory board sought to appoint Gerry Murphy to the board. This appointment did not come to pass when Deputy Adams pursued the matter with the Taoiseach in the Dáil.

On another massively important issue, there was a sixfold spike in Siteserv share trading in the run up to the sale of that company. This either happened by telepathy or by information shared - which is it? I had a look at the register for Siteserv shareholders to try to identify individuals who could have had information through IBRC but most of those shareholders were hidden behind brokerage firms or nominee companies. I turned to the KPMG guy who was sitting there and said that, surely, when KPMG is carrying out its review, its staff will be able to see what were the names of the individuals behind these nominee firms. He shook his head and said "No". Will we have an investigation where these individuals, possibly the beneficiaries of up to €5 million, are not made known to us? The shareholder payouts are also bonkers. To have a €119 million writedown with a shareholder payout is not normal business, and the questions on this must be answered.

There is then the role of the Minister for Finance and his officials. Did anybody raise an eyebrow when the very obvious conflicts of interest arose, for example, in regard to Blackstone taking on an advisory role with IBRC? Did the Minister's eyebrow ever raise with regard to that?

It is time for the Taoiseach and his Cabinet Ministers to put their money where their mouth is and to extend the terms of reference as set out by Sinn Féin. When you are in a hole, it is important to stop digging. The Government has failed to ensure the commission of investigation can deal with the many substantive issues that have been uncovered by the Opposition, despite the Government's best efforts to avoid them.

Má chuireann an Rialtas bac ar na téarmaí tagartha, beidh an pobal ag cur na ceiste "cén fáth an bhfuil an Rialtas ag iarraidh an bac sin a chur os comhair na ndaoine?". Cad atá an Rialtas ag iarraidh a chur faoi cheilt?

Is ceist an-tábhachtach í sin agus tá dualgas ar an Aire seasamh suas ar thaobh na ndaoine agus an fhírinne iomlán a nocht.

This mess lies squarely at the Government's door. For the past four years I have been here it has pointed at the Fianna Fáil benches for every single mess in which it has found itself. This is a Fine Gael and Labour Party created mess. The Government has pursued a hands-off free-for-all policy in winding up IBRC and NAMA. It appears that safeguarding the public interest has been the last thing on its mind. It should be the first issue. First and foremost, every decision made in here should be made on the basis of how we can safeguard the citizen. The whole process has been undignified and distasteful.

I sat in a committee with the Minister, Deputy Noonan, a number of weeks ago during which we discussed the regulation of vulture funds which now own 18,000 IBRC mortgages. The fact that citizens who are trying to pay their mortgages have been left out on their own with unregulated firms after a number of years stands in stark contrast to how the rich elites, many of whom are friends of the Government, have been allowed write-downs.

There is a massive contrast in how this Government treats people, something which is at the heart of this debate. I ask the Minister to make sure that we are not back here in six months, a year or two years, trying to get answers to these questions, and to do the decent thing and accept the amendments tabled by my party.

See this speech in context