Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It probably was. That was the very first contribution I made in the Chamber and here I am four years later and we are still discussing the same individual and his business dealings. Given the fact we were discussing the recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal as far back as March and April 2011, it says a lot about the democratic revolution the Government promised that those recommendations still have not been implemented in 2015. In fact, I remember the Taoiseach saying at the time that he would break the culture between politics and business and that never again would this be allowed to happen. We had spent €50 million on a tribunal and it was public money. We had an obligation as legislators to ensure that we cleaned up our act. The fact the recommendations are still sitting on a shelf in the Taoiseach's office says a great deal.

Many people have spoken about things in relation to Denis O'Brien, Siteserv and IBRC, but this motion is about the terms of reference of the commission. The Minister for Finance met with Opposition party leaders and Deputy Mary Lou McDonald to get their input. While he has taken on board some of their concerns, he has not addressed all of them. I want to touch on one or two and state why I, as a Member of the House, believe the Minister should reconsider.

On the ability to look at a capital loss of €10 million, the Minister will say he has given the judge scope to look at transactions below that threshold if need be and if it is in the public interest. However, there is no obligation on the judge to do so. That is something which should be reviewed. In our amendment to the terms of reference, we have put a figure of €1 million on it. That would be a far more appropriate figure. Another issue is in relation to the role of the Minister and that of the Department. I am led to believe that under the terms of reference, the commission will look at whether the Minister for Finance was kept informed of the dealings within IBRC. It needs to go beyond that because we are dealing with public money. We must also look at the fact officials within the Department of Finance had raised concerns and the Minister sought to downplay them by way of discussions with the relevant individuals concerned. The Minister took their word over that of the officials who were raising these very grave concerns within his own Department. We need to look not only in terms of being kept informed but at the role of the Department and that of the Minister to see whether appropriate action was taken. Given his responsibility for ensuring that public money is protected and spent properly, was the Minister proactively ensuring that was the case? There was a responsibility not just to keep himself informed by way of discussions, but also to take steps to ensure that there was proper governance and accountability within IBRC at board level. That is something that needs to be looked at and, as such, Deputy Doherty has included it in our amendment.

If the commission of investigation is to have any credibility, it must produce an interim report. We have mentioned October as a possible date for that. There is a public perception, rightly or wrongly, that this has been put on the long finger and that the interim report date of 31 December 2015 is too far away. If this commission of investigation is to have public confidence as well as the confidence of all Members of the House, we must look at the commission being able to report sooner than proposed in the terms of reference. There is no doubt that there is a disconnect between the body politic and the public at the moment. It is something we all have a responsibility to rectify. The commission of investigation is critically important not only to get to the root of what it is due to investigate, but also to look at the processes and relationships between all of the various stakeholders, including IBRC, the Department of Finance, the Minister and the special liquidators. That needs to be taken into account.

My final point relates to the proposed cut-off date in the terms of reference. It states that the commission will consider matters from 2009 right up to the night of the liquidation. That is not adequate. We need to look at transactions and dealings post the night of the liquidation. We need to be looking at matters right up to the current day. In order to have any public confidence in the commission of investigation and to ensure that all of the facts are investigated in a timely and proper manner, we need to extend that deadline. We need to be able to go beyond the night of the liquidation to look at other areas.

See this speech in context