Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

-----but when it impinges on the business in the House it is not good enough.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. The controversy around the sale of Siteserv fused together a number of issues that raised serious public concern. The legacy of Anglo Irish Bank, the enormous sums of taxpayers' money used to resuscitate the banking system and the exorbitant money spent on rolling out water meters were all linked together. Wealth, politics and policy were all woven together into a potential scandal that could simply not be ignored. In this light Fianna Fáil supports today’s Bill as a mechanism to ensure that the issues raised are fully and transparently dealt with.

Anglo Irish Bank was the nadir of the banking crisis. Some €34 billion was expended on that bank alone in an effort to stop the rot and staunch the bleed of the crisis. Countless families suffered and continue to suffer from the consequences of the decisions that caused the crisis. These repercussions are not simply financial but stretch deeper into people’s lives and the fabric of the State.

The State took action to tackle the disaster engulfing the banking sector at that stage. Taxpayers' money was used to try to salvage the banks and their vital role in the broader economy from a plummeting property market. Services and livelihoods suffered as a result of that effort. Getting value for this money must be at the heart of Government policy. This is a matter of both economic and moral importance. The grave impact of the crisis on people's lives must be dealt with fairly.

Against that backdrop and that challenge the emergence of rumours and information around the sale of Siteserv in early 2015 drew massive attention. Siteserv was sold by IBRC at a loss to the State of €119 million. The loss to the State was further reflected in other sales by IBRC and accusations of preferential loan interest rates. The idea that the remnants of Anglo Irish Bank's undersold assets linked to another deeply controversial public policy is incredible. Essentially, public money was grossly abused in order to privilege wealthy clients and it is indefensible in a modern democratic state.

Deputy Catherine Murphy and her staff deserve particular tribute for their assiduous work in this matter and in pursuing a series of damning documents under freedom of information and through parliamentary questions. Her efforts were commendable and are the reason we are here today. It is important to remember the foot dragging and rear-guard action taken by the Government on the idea of a commission. A compromised review by KPMG was an effort to stall calls for a full commission. It was only

Essentially, the commission was established to investigate and report to the Taoiseach on the substance and management of certain transactions and activities of IBRC that occurred between 21 January 2009 and 7 February 2013. Justice Brian Cregan was appointed the sole member of the commission in July 2015. Fianna Fáil pressed for a commission of investigation to shed light on the answers to the following questions. Why was there a surge in share dealing in Siteserv prior to its sale? There was a sudden upsurge in share sales in the month before the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation began to receive the first bids for Siteserv as part of a confidential sale process.

In November 2011, some 6.4 million shares were sold in the firm, compared to 121,000 in October 2011, and 4.76 million between January and October the same year.

Second, why were shareholders in Siteserv paid €5 million for an effectively insolvent company? Shareholders in Siteserv got this payment when the company was sold. Normally, shareholders get nothing if a firm that is sold is effectively insolvent. There has been no adequate explanation as to why this happened. It is also unclear why Siteserv itself was allowed lead the sale process and not IBRC.

Third, why were other bidders apparently excluded from the sale process? According to the then chairman of IBRC, Mr. Alan Dukes, there were approximately 50 expressions of interest in the sale but it was decided to exclude so-called “trade buyers” to prevent the company being “upscuttled” by rivals merely seeking inside information. In the end, Siteserv’s advisers invited just six bidders to take part. This was approved by IBRC.

Fourth, was the Department of Finance kept fully informed of the sale process and what actions did the Department take on foot of concerns about the sale process? Documents released under freedom of information, FOI, show officials at the Department of Finance, including the Minister, Deputy Noonan, were concerned about the Siteserv deal and several other large IBRC transactions. What is startling about all this is just how low and bad relations were between the Department of Finance and IBRC at the time.

Fifth, why did the Minister not provide vital information via replies to parliamentary questions, PQs? The heavily redacted FOl files contradict responses to PQs given by the Minister and indicate that less than full responses were given. The PQ replies did not include information about the higher bids or about the meetings which took place between his Department and IBRC, including one which he attended with the IBRC chairman and chief executive to discuss concerns about the sale of Siteserv. Parliamentary questions are an integral part of how we hold a government to account and how any Deputy holds a government to account. Evasive replies by Ministers undermine the spirit of the system and the importance of parliamentary accountability.

These critical issues demand answers. However, the commission has been beset by legal problems which the Minister of State has gone through and which have generated serious delays in reaching a final publication. The commission which was due to report in December 2015 has now requested a deadline extension to October 2016. The legal barriers encountered early in the commission’s work have hindered progress in what was envisaged as a swift moving commission. On these grounds this Bill should be swiftly passed and acted upon to ensure we reach the new deadline of October.

The Commission of Investigation Act 2004 has been successfully used on several occasions across a broad range of areas. It is a critical tool for the Oireachtas to uncover the truth in deeply controversial areas. In view of this, the insurmountable legal problems encountered in this case are noteworthy. We must ensure they do not occur again and make changes to the Act where appropriate.

The IBRC commission of investigation quickly ran into difficulties over issues of legal privilege, professional secrecy, and confidentiality across several stakeholders. These issues were highlighted at an early stage. Its first interim report in December highlighted these concerns and the need for bespoke legislation to address them. Fianna Fáil has serious concerns over why these matters were not adequately flagged and corrected prior to the inception of the commission. The Government had a duty to ensure the terms of reference were watertight in what is a legally sensitive area. It failed in this and we are now trying to rectify the matter via this new Bill. While we are happy to work with the Government to facilitate the passage of this Bill, we should not expect re-runs of this scenario in future commissions. It is important that lessons from this delay are understood and acted on urgently. Further commissions of investigation cannot be stymied and delayed by problems that should have been identified and addressed at the outset. The legal structures and resources of the Government are best placed to undertake this work. In particular, the fact that the Department of Finance is the source of one aspect of the legal impediments begs the question as to the level of communication in government over the terms of reference. Relying on the Opposition to identify intricate legal details will not suffice. These types of problems only further exacerbate public cynicism about our efforts to get to the truth of controversial public matters.

This is fundamentally a technical bespoke Bill that impacts solely upon the work of the commission at hand, with nine separate sections which give the commission powers to compel the submission of relevant documentation, waive legal privilege and empower it to overcome the series of legal obstacles impeding its work to date. The Government has made efforts to ensure the Opposition has been fully engaged with the changes and what is needed to enable the commission complete its work. I appreciate that the changes put forward in this legislation are required to allow us reach the deadline. Ultimately, the massive sums of public money involved demand transparency around how the sale was handled. The public have to be reassured that proper procedures were followed and taxpayers' money maximised.

The legacy of the banking crisis continues to be felt around the country. The claim that some people are privileged above others and that public money has been abused must be thoroughly and robustly investigated. There is no room for evasion or rumour in these important matters. Cynicism will continue to fester in these dark corners. The public deserves better. This commission is designed to uphold public faith, uncover any wrongdoing and ensure any lessons from this sale are learnt and implemented. We support this Bill’s passage to empower Mr. Justice Cregan to shine a light on these matters, finish his work and achieve an aim which everybody in this House shares.

See this speech in context