Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will. The Acting Chairman is always impartial, but I noticed that, when others spoke about Fianna Fáil's record in government, she did not make a similar request. I will move on, but the Acting Chairman made her point well and I thank her.

The Government's approach is one law for the rich and another for everyone else. I will ask the judge, whoever he or she may be, to consider the context in which we find ourselves, that is, solving the banking crisis. I want the judge to examine all of these matters. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and I know, we have constituents in Portlaoise and Mountmellick who fell into arrears with their banks that, in some cases, had received offers from voluntary housing associations to buy those properties so that the people could continue living there. In many cases in my constituency and elsewhere, though, banks have insisted on vacant possession.

They have told those who are in arrears to get out of their houses. They have threatened to take them to court. They want them out of these houses because they intend to sell them and they want to control the process. They have said they will sell the houses and decide on the levels of proceeds to be accepted. They have said that any negative equity will be attached to those whose houses are sold. They have said they will follow these people for these moneys for the rest of their days. That is the approach. That is what is happening here in the Irish banks.

I know the judge - whoever he or she may be - will read the Dáil transcript in relation to the terms of reference. The biggest issue the judge will have to determine will be why Siteserv was allowed to manage its own process. Issues like money for the taxpayer, cash in the bank, debtors and whether the amount actually accepted was the highest bid, an in-between bid or the lowest bid all follow on from the fact that Siteserv was allowed to control the process. If IBRC had done to Siteserv what other banks had been doing to other people, it would have said to Siteserv: "You owe us the money, we are taking control of the situation, you cannot pay back what you owe us, we are taking a big loss on behalf of this, we are taking control of the sale process, you just get off the pitch and out of the way, we want vacant possession from your company, we are putting in a receiver and we will decide the sale process." Those situations need to be examined by the judge. Why was Siteserv allowed to control the process? All of the other matters followed on from that. If Siteserv had been removed from the process from the outset and had been controlled by IBRC, the trade buyer issue would not have arisen. If it had been sold by a receiver on the public market, rather than as part of the in-house operation that IBRC allowed Siteserv to control, many more offers might have been received. That is where this problem started. The problem with Siteserv continued from there. We are here today because of this insider dealing between wealthy individuals and the State.

See this speech in context