Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is unfortunate that it is being held at the end of a protracted period of public discourse on an issue that could have been addressed at the outset. While I will not use the word "advice", as I do not wish to insult the Minister, the Government should have taken on board some of the views of Deputies on this side of the House. The nature of the information emanating from the debacle in IBRC around the sale of Siteserv suggested on most people's radar that even if there was not prima facieevidence of legislation being breached, there were certainly matters that would have given rise to the suggestion of some level of impropriety.

Had the Minister for Finance acceded to the request from this side of the House, we could have moved on yesterday and today to deal with issues of significant importance. From the very start, it was clear that there were issues around the way in which the Siteserv deal had gone through. For me, the warning bells rang loudly when a bust company and its directors walked away from the ashes of that event with €5 million. The matter was further compounded when the person who negotiated the sale on behalf of the State went on the national airwaves and used the phraseology, "The votes had to be bought." It may be that buying votes in the corporate world means something different from buying votes in the political world, but it should not. It should suggest from the very start that there was something wrong - if not a breach of the law, a breach of the basic moral code. When, in essence, it was taxpayers' money rather than any shareholders' money that was at stake, alarm bells should have been ringing loudly in the ears of Ministers too.

It disappoints me that the Minister for Finance allowed a veil to be pulled over it because he felt that IBRC as constituted was working supposedly in the best interests of the taxpayer. That was notwithstanding the fact that €5 million from such a deal ended up in the back pockets of shareholders and notwithstanding the fact that there was significant activity on the share register in the weeks preceding the finalisation of the deal. Obviously, there were people with inside information or who had access to information who believed there would ultimately be some payout. It baffles most people, particularly those who have experienced the loss of their family homes or other assets, or know of people to whom this has happened, as a result of the fall. Many people have taken a huge hit, whether in terms of private pensions or property or the family home. They are not given a dividend when the bailiff shows up and they are not given a sweetener to go when they are asked to hand back the keys. It does not happen. Their authority is not bought. That is why it is most troubling that the Government was not able to see it.

I have no issue with capitalism to the extent that others might. I have nothing against Denis O'Brien as a businessman seeking to make money, but someone needs to protect the taxpayer. Denis O'Brien cannot be seen - nor can anyone else - as a white knight who is rocking into town, buying up distressed assets and returning value to the taxpayer. That is not what they are doing. The Minister knows well that they are cherry-picking the salvageable assets that have long-term potential. I wish them the best of luck if they have the wherewithal to do it, but when we see the complex transactions that appear to be funded by some State assets, we can see that it is wrong. The State needs to put in place the appropriate protections. How the Minister ever accepted that KPMG could carry out an investigation that would pass the most basic smell test is beyond me. I do not care what Chinese wall the Minister was prepared to build that would challenge any structure in place in the good times; it would not have withstood public concern or basic standards in any jurisdiction where the rule of law reigns paramount. That is why this matter has been so protracted. It goes back to the question that Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the other day, which was whether someone in government is afraid of Denis O'Brien. Is there somebody who is genuinely afraid of him, such that the Government cannot stand and act in the best interests of the taxpayer while letting him do what every other businessman does - that is, look after his own interests? If it is in his best interest, he will purchase assets, but someone needs to look out to ensure that in an environment where distressed assets are on sale, interests are protected. It seems to me that if a sweetener had to be put in place to get the Siteserv deal over the line, that should have been the first flag or alarm bell prompting people to say, "Hang on a second, there is a problem here."

One then moves on to what has happened since. David Murphy in RTE, a noted and reputable journalist, put a solid story together and gave Denis O'Brien the opportunity to comment. Like many others, he was served with a legal writ. That worked its way through the courts and Deputy Catherine Murphy came to the House with further information which she put on the record. Mr. O'Brien decided to usurp the authority of the court in one instance and use a judgment in one particular case to silence the House. He silenced the national broadcaster, which was prudent in its approach, and many other mainstream media in the full knowledge that he was bluffing. That was proved when he failed to submit a defence in the case that was taken by RTE and The Irish Timesthe following week. Throughout that period, the Taoiseach failed on numerous occasions to assert the primacy and authority of the Constitution in the protection of utterances in the House and their reporting thereafter. When one puts the two things together - the way in which the Siteserv deal was allowed to languish without a proper investigation, and the Taoiseach's failure to protect the Constitution and assert its supremacy in protecting the House - one must ask the legitimate question of why the Government is beholden to Denis O'Brien. Why not put the Government's side of the story?

We have a belated acceptance now by the Government that a commission of investigation is warranted, but the caveat the was dropped in was the phrase "there is no evidence to suggest...". There is ample evidence to suggest that there was considerable wrongdoing, if not within the narrow definition of some legislation then certainly morally and certainly outside what one would have thought was the best interest of the State, which the public elected the Minister for Finance and the Government to protect.

See this speech in context