Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don Teachta Catherine Murphy as ucht an obair a dhein sí maidir leis an gceist atá á phlé againn inniu agus amárach. It is Deputy Murphy's tenacity, perseverance and never-give-up attitude that have brought us to where we are today.

Why, when Deputy Murphy first submitted her questions, were the Minister and his officials not alerted to the seriousness and importance of these issues, which appear to boil down to preferential treatment for certain individuals and groups in society? I would have thought alarm bells would ring over these questions of transparency, fairness, accountability and governance. As the questions continued to come in from Deputy Murphy, why did the alarm bells still not ring? They should have rung, especially when we see where we are now, with a commission of investigation into IBRC instead of just the one investigation into Siteserv.

Maybe I have a very simplistic view of politics, but I do think it is Government's role to lead in terms of fairness and transparency, so when the questions came in, why did the Government not take the proverbial bull by the horns and lead? Why did it not then instigate the commission of investigation, rather than simply reacting to what was later discovered by Deputy Murphy? If Deputy Murphy had not persisted, this issue would have continued unaddressed, unacknowledged and possibly unknown, and injustice would have prevailed. Why was someone of Deputy Murphy's standing and integrity doubted in the way she was? It was automatically assumed in some circles that she was being untruthful and vindictive and that she was making spurious claims based on rumour or innuendo, when we know she had absolute confidence in her sources.

There are serious questions to be answered around Siteserv and other issues. I am on the board of a number of community and voluntary groups, as well as a primary school board of management. If we get a grant for any sort of project, including capital projects, we have to submit a number of tenders, and our bottom line is best value for money. I am talking about amounts of several thousand euro up to €100,000 - maybe more. When I look at the Siteserv deal, I see one procedure for that group and a different one for the groups such as those I have just mentioned. I know that many other people in this Chamber are also on such boards, and we are subject to meticulous scrutiny to ensure we get the best bid and the best value for Government money. I totally agree with that approach, but it appears there was a completely different scenario in respect of the way Siteserv was doing business. Other competitors were excluded, something which would not be allowed in any other process of bidding for tenders. There seems to have been an inordinate amount of concern for Siteserv as opposed to other businesses that were in trouble, such as small businesses that failed and went to the wall with job losses when much smaller amounts were involved.

It appears from a media report that one of the reasons Siteserv got preferential treatment is that expansion had got it into difficulties. Aspects of the business were sound and its contracts with other businesses had to be protected. I can only imagine how those involved in the other companies I mentioned, such as small builders and printing companies, must feel when they hear about this controversy in which preferential treatment was given to one company but not to them. There seems to have been an exclusivity with regard to Siteserv, which also applied to its shareholders, who were paid some €5 million, and much preferential treatment between bondholders and shareholders. Mr. Aynsley said the €5 million was "distasteful", but it did not stop the deal going ahead.

There are issues around relationships between the Department of Finance and the IBRC and between the Minister and his officials, and there are questions around how much was known by these and others, including the NTMA and the Central Bank. How much was lost to the State and how much of this loss could have been avoided? How many other similar transactions were there which may have resulted in the loss of millions, possibly billions, to the State? IBRC has relations with a range of businesses, and it must be asked whether we will ever achieve a culture of ethical business, whereby businesses respect the principles of governance and accountability. It does seem that the bigger the company is and the more it owes, the softer it falls. How come the concerns of officials in the Department were not addressed properly and adequately? The Minister said, "Commercial decisions in relation to IBRC were solely a decision for the bank."

This is our country we are talking about. It is our citizens who have suffered so much because of poor decisions by banks but who do banks turn to when they are in trouble? It is not acceptable that anyone would do a Pontius Pilate on this. What does it say about parliamentary democracy and about governments being accountable to parliament that those concerns were not brought to the Dáil in an open way? Imagine if the Minister had come in unprompted, rather than because he was under pressure through Deputy Murphy's persistent questioning. That would have been a victory for parliamentary democracy. It is incredible, if not downright ludicrous, that the initial investigation or inquiry into Siteserv will be conducted by the IBRC liquidator, a partner of KPMG. That is the same KPMG that ran the sales process of Siteserv. We have learned about loan repayments at low rates and about deferring and spreading out repayments. I think of mortgage holders, people who are in arrears or in negative equity, who are denied the benefits that other companies have got. It is important that we find out the truth on this and other matters. For example, why the haste to sell off to vulture funds and not give opportunities to Irish people, Irish families and Irish businesses to buy or buy back? Were write-downs and preferential terms given to certain wealthy individuals and nobody else?

Regarding the role of parliamentarians and of the media to report on proceedings, I am not into abusing parliamentary privilege, and it does not sit easy with me that names can be mentioned here when those people are not here to have a right of reply. However, one of the individuals at the centre of this matter has so many media outlets at his disposal to present his case, and it is worrying that attempts were made to prevent reporting of Dáil proceedings. Dáil privilege brings responsibility and both have to be respected. This is not about just one individual. It is about a horrible culture of preferential treatment, where it is not about what one knows but about who one knows, which must be eradicated. I hope the commission is setting the scene for a new way of doing business and sending out a warning that practices allowed or facilitated in the past, which brought Ireland into recession and austerity, will be exposed in such a way they will not be worth embarking on by anyone else in future. Tonight's business is positive. The commission of investigation is comprehensive and it appears it will be adequately resourced. Resources have to mean there will be resources at the chair's disposal to go through the documents, to ask the relevant questions and to have the wherewithal to go where it is being led. I am not that interested in an interim date. The end date is much more important than an interim report.

I am on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and I constantly ask when we are looking at aid to developing countries that we promote fairness in tax systems and that we conform to international human rights standards. Ireland is a leader when it comes to untied aid. We are a donor country. Since that aid is untied, our interventions are geared not to exacerbate inequality in the developing world. We try to have a rights-based approach to aid. We are saying that on one hand and yet we are doing the opposite in this country. That could damage our international reputation.

Deputy Wallace spoke about NAMA earlier. That could be the next investigation. I want to mention one issue in respect of NAMA, namely, Moore Street. We cannot get answers from NAMA as to what it intends doing in that area and the implications of the proposed sell-off of the Chartered Land Holdings and the national monument in the middle of that.

The terms of reference must be set in the ordinary world and not just in the business world. Getting to the truth is the kernel. The question must always be what is in the best interests of our country and our people. That also brings in the question of how politicians can be trusted to act for the interests of Ireland and not the interests of that golden circle, which is by now well and truly tarnished.

See this speech in context