Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Renua Ireland will not be supporting this motion unless our amendment is taken on board. There is one glaring and obvious weakness in this motion, namely the lack of Government accountability. I listened to Deputy Wallace outlining some figures. While they are concerning, the more concerning are those transactions which were turned over the next day or the next week.

At a time when we are struggling to move on from the past, it is regrettable that it is now necessary to establish a commission of investigation as outlined. The late Mr. Justice Hamilton in his beef tribunal report outlined how there would have been no necessity for such a tribunal if Dáil questions were answered at the time. That may well be the case here or it may not. However, it seems to be a practice by Ministers over time that they do not answer questions. I got a brief reply to a parliamentary question from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government today. For the second week running, he did not answer my simple question. It shows complete disdain for this House. I will forward it to the Ceann Comhairle’s office because I am tired of going back and forward to Ministers with parliamentary questions.

What is depressing is that we are here again talking about the damage that IBRC has done to the country and may still be doing to our reputation. It is not as if we did not know. In a Private Members’ motion on the banking system in early 2009, in the context of the preparation of provisional legislation to nationalise the then Anglo Irish Bank, it was asked was it credible that the Minister for Finance and his Department were not tracking closely what was happening to Anglo’s deposit base. It was also asked was it credible the Minister was not informed by his officials of an issue of this consequence. The Member who asked these questions said he could go on and on; so could I.

I refer to previous debates to demonstrate the concerns about what was going on at the then Anglo Irish Bank and how it should have ensured we got our house in order. In December 2011, in a similar debate, I opened my contribution by stating, “Misaligned interests in banking are what has got us into this difficulty.” That misaligned interest is still at the heart of our problems today. In that same debate, I expressed concerns about the possible selling off of loan books from the then Anglo and AIB for a lower return. I requested that a loan book sale comparison between these two banks and Bank of Ireland should take place. I made the point that my information was that there was no mechanism in place to monitor sales. I concluded, “It is really important that we do so. It is not too late to stop the rot. I would like to see action in this regard on the part of the Minister for Finance.”

In fairness to the then Minister of State, Brian Hayes, he gave a commitment to raise the matter in the Department of Finance. A day before Christmas Eve 2011, I received a telephone call from an official in the Department of Finance with respect to the matter. I outlined my concerns and the official sent correspondence to me in the new year. The information was very limited and was bound up in confidentiality. The Minister appointed an official from his Department to oversee operations in IBRC perhaps somewhere in and around February 2011. Will the Minister refer to this in his wrap-up speech?

I referred to the weakness at the heart of this motion. Renua Ireland has put down an amendment to this motion. It states:

The commission of investigation shall submit to An Taoiseach an interim report in relation to its investigation no later than 14 September 2015 on the status and likely conclusion date of its work; Dáil Éireann shall no later than 15 September 2015 be recalled for a debate on the interim report of the commission of investigation; the Minister for Finance resources and supports the commission of investigation in a manner that will ensure that it will issue a final report no later than 30 October 2015.

This should not be difficult to do. We are not asking for the impossible. There are so many inquiries going on. One would think the Government would almost need an 11850 telephone number for the amount of inquiries. Every time I see the advertisements for 11850 with the two guys on the motorbike, I think of the limitless number of inquiries going on here. I could not actually name some of them or whether they have concluded or what happened to their reports. It all boils down to a lack of accountability, forthrightness and proper oversight.

The final part of our amendment calls for the inclusion of “each transaction under investigation, what protocols and controls the Minister for Finance and his Department had in place in respect of the transaction concerned, and whether sanction was given for the transaction to occur”. We also want the level of transactions to be investigated to be reduced from €10 million to €1 million.

In his speech the Minister stated, “As outlined, the review shall investigate, in relation to the transactions under review, whether the Minister or the Department were kept informed, where appropriate, and the steps taken in respect of the information provided.” The weakness of this is that it only refers to issues which were brought to the Minister’s attention. It is quite possible, although not likely, that no issue was brought to his attention. Surely, it was the responsibility of the Government to supervise what was happening at IBRC. It is not to examine what the Minister was or was not told. It is to examine what actually happened.

My understanding is that the Minister had an official in the bank, so he should have known everything that was happening there. If he did not, why did his Department not inform him? If we do not include that in this motion, we will be revisiting this issue either in a few months or even a few years from now looking for another inquiry. It is vitally important we examine the role of the Department of Finance and some of its officials during the period in question.

10 o’clock

Deputy Tóibín raised the issue of Blackstone. It gave advice to the Government but was also one of the bodies advising people on the purchase of assets from IBRC and NAMA. That role, and the relationship between it and the former Secretary General of the Department of Finance and the various officials involved in the banking sector of the Department of Finance, should be examined.

I do not buy into conspiracy theories in general, and it strikes me there was an ethos of moving on the loan books to get rid of all the stuff and value for money may not have been to the forefront of political or administrative thinking. Notwithstanding this, and allowing for the plausible explanations that can be put forward to address most, although not all, of the issues raised by Deputy Wallace, we must look at the relationship between the officials and Blackstone and the fact Blackstone later advised people who purchased many of the assets.

In previous parliamentary debates, the two separate entities in the organisation were mentioned. Confidence is not instilled because there is an impression among the people of insiders and outsiders. Today, I spoke to an individual who had to redeem a €35,000 loan. He made a case for coming to an arrangement but he had no special treatment. It is very difficult for people like him to stand back and look at other arrangements perceived to have been in place. It is not possible for government and business to operate in parallel universes. Of course there will be interaction, but this means we must have systems in place to control and protect the public interest. We must especially have accountability because this is how we protect the public interest more than anything else.

I have to be honest, I do not know about the type of people I meet, but I have never met an individual who if he or she was offered a bank write-down or preferential interest rate loans from the bank would not take it willingly. I do not know anybody who would go back and say the deal was too good. We have misplaced the emphasis. I listened to Deputy Daly speak about the right to privacy and I empathise with much of it. Denis O'Brien seems to be to the forefront of Fianna Fáil's thinking. I met him on a few occasions. I do not know him as such; I just met him in casual conversation. We may be missing the target if we hone in on Denis O'Brien. I suspect he was one of many business people who were offered deals and availed of them. We should examine the fairness of them and how the procedures were carried out. I listened to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, speak about the write-down as part of getting our banking system back in operation. This may be so, but if it is we should ensure the public interest was protected. Politics will always cross business. I made reference to Sinn Féin and Blackstone. I heard its president make reference to the uneasy relationship Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have with business. It is a little bit ironic that I saw a headline in a newspaper today about the more than €300,000 Sinn Féin picked up in the United States in donations from businesses. I do not know what type of relationship this might be. Perhaps there is different terminology for it across the Atlantic Ocean.

The Minister for Finance will wrap up tomorrow morning - I am not sure when the debate finishes. I ask him to take on board the issues Renua has raised in its amendment because if he does not, someone will be sitting in that seat initiating another inquiry.

See this speech in context