Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I was glad to be able to look in on some of the PAC hearings held on the Project Eagle sale. I attended the gallery on occasion as I am not a member of the PAC. My sense in listening to the questioning of the chairman, Mr. Frank Daly, in particular tallied with my wider sense that the key issue in the sale is that to a certain extent people do not trust the connection between the business and political communities in the North of Ireland. I see it in some way as an extension of the cash for ash controversy that has brought down the assembly. My sense of the reason for the different discount rates in the North or the reason one would possibly want to wrap up an entire loan and get the hell out of the place, for which language I apologise if it is intemperate, is that there is a sense that one does not quite know who one is dealing with. One does not know who the background people, agents and interests are. The "Spotlight" programme which highlighted the activities of Mr. Cushnahan only corroborates that sense. I see that as the underlying issue. It is an issue for the political system in the North if that is a true reflection. It may be inaccurate but that is my sense of the key issue here. It is a political issue regarding the nature of the trust and ability to trust, in this case in relation to Project Eagle, the sale of the loan book in the North.

The key issue that relates to us it seems to me is the part Irish agencies South of the Border played and how that has worked out. I listened very much to what Deputy Wallace said and he made some strong allegations about Mr. Hanna's role. Deputy Wallace said he fixed the price and that was his part of the arrangement. In that regard, it seems to me that the only way to uncover whether that is true, to be able to access his phone, his computer and the real detailed records is in the hands of the UK National Crime Agency which arrested Mr. Hanna last June on suspicion of that act. A commission of inquiry here would not have the same powers of criminal investigation as the UK National Crime Agency. I said in the autumn that the process was taking time which is colouring our debate here. If we had an answer to the crime agency's questions, it would colour our debate here. I understand that Mr. Hanna wrote to the PAC in November and said he could not present evidence because he was under that process. I do not believe he is under bail conditions at this time but it is uncertain whether he is still a suspect. I do not know what mechanism we have to treat with another criminal investigation system, but nine months after the arrest, we have an interest in getting a conclusion from the UK and US criminal investigations given the controversy here. Otherwise, we are flying blind in terms of what we do next and what role we have.

There is a huge issue in our debate in relation to the High Court judgment during the week regarding a previous hearing of the PAC with Ms Angela Kerins. That has huge consequences for our consideration of this issue. The judge says we do not conduct jurisdictional hearings but at the same time we have a certain freedom. There is a certain responsibility that comes with that and how we use the authority vested in us by the Constitution. It gives us significant additional authority and is an issue in terms of where we go here and whether we look to the PAC to take up that additional authority as recognised by the High Court during the week. That is an issue the PAC should be considering. I would like to know what questions remain unanswered on the PAC side in the lengthy and, to my mind viewing it from a distance, proper hearings that have been taking place.

Deputy Catherine Murphy is right that we need transparency in all things we do. One of the Green Party's proposals two years ago to the Minister for Finance, to whom I wrote directly, was that on the wind down of NAMA, there should be full transparency of all the arrangements, including prices paid, par values and every detail of every transaction for those lenders from NAMA who were not able to work out their arrangements in an ordinary commercial manner. The Minister wrote back to me on that occasion and said that was not possible. He set out a range of complex legal and constitutional arguments around the right to privacy and so on. However, what I am hearing in today's debate only confirms further the case for an amendment to the NAMA legislation that on its winding down, all such transactions would be made completely available.

There ought to be a clearer, quicker and cheaper approach to getting back the confidence of the Irish people in terms of how the different loans were worked out.

There is an issue in terms of how NAMA works out the remaining assets. I am interested in the comments of Deputy Boyd Barrett on Spencer Dock and how it relates to the current arrangements we need to make in order to integrate our transport and housing systems, and the role NAMA will play in that. It has an important job and we have to make sure it does it to the best of its ability in the next two years.

A range of questions have been raised about Bank of Ireland and the Spencer Dock site. The taxation of property needs to change. We are shutting the gates after the horse has bolted. We need to make sure that in NAMA's remaining years we maximise the benefits from the assets.

See this speech in context