Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún atá os ár gcomhair anocht. Sa deireadh thiar thall, táimid ag an bpointe seo. Le fáil go dtí an pointe seo, cuireadh go leor constaicí in ár mbealach. Bhí daoine sa Teach seo ag lorg coimisiún fiosrúcháin ag baint le díolachán Project Eagle le tamall fada. Chonaic muid arís agus arís eile an Rialtas agus Páirtí Fhine Gael, le cuidiú agus le tacaíocht ó Pháirtí Fhianna Fáil, ag cur ina éadan sin. Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil sé anois thar a bheith bliain ó chur an Teachta Wallace an rún maidir leis an gcoimisiún os comhair na Dála. Ar an lá sin, shíl muid go mbeadh an coimisiún bunaithe agus i mbun a chuid oibre faoin am seo agus go mbeadh cuid de na torthaí le feiceáil agus an t-eolas ar fáil. Ar an drochuair, áfach, tháinig leasú ag an am sin ó Pháirtí Fhianna Fáil a dúirt nár chóir coimisiún fiosrúcháin a bheith bunaithe go dtí go raibh críoch leis na fiosrúcháin uilig a bhí ar siúl ag na fórsaí póilíneachta ar fud an domhain a bhí ag déileáil leis seo sna Stáit Aontaithe, sa Bhreatain agus a leithéid mar sin. Caithfidh mé a rá, áfach, go bhfuil mé iontach sásta go bhfuil achan pháirtí anois, mar a thuigim é, ag tabhairt tacaíocht don rún seo.

I welcome the fact that we are agreeing, across parties and across the Chamber, to establish a commission of investigation into the sale of Project Eagle. This is something Sinn Féin has been hailing for many years. Indeed, the amendment from Deputy Wallace reflects a statement made by Deputy Adams in light of the Fianna Fáil amendment to block the commission of investigation into this matter from being established 11 months ago. At the time, the Fianna Fáil representative stated, "To proceed with a Commission of Investigation while a formal criminal investigation is underway would, in our view, show reckless disregard for a police investigation and could potentially undermine prosecutions." I welcome that Fianna Fáil has changed its position on the question and that it supports the commission of investigation, as we do. We have suggested, as has Deputy Wallace in this instance, that the IBRC model would be the most appropriate way in which to investigate the matter.

There has been needless delay in respect of this issue. The commission of investigation should have been established. In the meantime, God only knows what has gone on in NAMA. For example, since that motion was tabled in the Dáil, we have had the sale of Project Jewel. We have seen some of the spin-offs from Project Jewel in the sense that one of the REITs bought some of the best assets. We can see the pressure this is putting on the housing market and tenants as a result.

I have no doubt that the change of mind from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil on this matter has not simply come as a result of the pressure applied politically in the House but more so from public pressure. It has become unsustainable to stand against the idea of establishing a commission of investigation given the wealth of information in the public domain.

I value the work the Committee of Public Accounts has done, but I believe that it was not necessary in this case because the information was available. We saw it on our television screens and we can read the transcripts. The documentation was available. There was enough evidence to suggest that a commission of investigation was needed. Indeed, there is nothing in the Committee of Public Accounts report that actually adds anything. It parses the evidence and presents it again but there is nothing to allow us reinforce our view that a commission of investigation should have been put in place.

I commend the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General in particular as well as the members of the Committee of Public Accounts in not letting the issue rest. I understand there was a difference of opinion in respect of one of the findings at the committee. It related to whether the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, met a person or whether that was appropriate. He had the meeting. In my view, it was inappropriate. In any event, that is not the biggest or most central issue. The biggest issue is that a State agency sold billions of euro of our assets. I am not simply referring to Project Eagle, although billions were at stake in that case also. In this instance, we have fixer fees, conflicts of interest, offshore accounts, eve-of-bid ministerial interventions and political-to-political interventions. All of these things happened. It would make for a good crime thriller, the type that a person could pick up in an airport bookshop, but this is real life and this is our money. As the Comptroller and Auditor General suggested, there is a probable loss of in the region of £190 million. This is at a time when our State cannot fund vital essential services, including those for children with special needs, people who have difficulties in accessing home help and those for children who cannot obtain access to special needs assistants in the education sector in order to ensure that they reach their full potential. This State agency has resulted in a probable loss of close to €250 billion and yet the Government, with the support of Fianna Fáil, was willing to sweep this under the carpet for a long time. Having said that, I welcome the fact that the commission is here.

I agree with the terms of reference. The first module should examine Project Eagle. I have always argued that there needs to be other modules. We will come to that as time passes by. Let us see how we get on with the first module. I have no doubt that it will be difficult. Cross-jurisdictional issues will arise and individuals may or may not comply with the commission of investigation. I appeal to everyone to engage with the commission of investigation in order to ensure that the truth emerges.

I welcome the fact that the decisions and actions of the Minister for Finance and his Department regarding the disposal of the northern portfolio will be examined. This includes examining whether communications with members and officials of the executives and meetings with potential bidders were appropriate in the circumstances. I welcome that this point is included in the terms of reference.

The Minister tells us that there was never any political interference of NAMA to sell. That is nonsense. How do I know that? We know from a recent freedom of information request from journalists Conor Molumby and Mark Tighe. They revealed new documents that call this very issue into serious question:

The Minister noted that following Ireland's emergence from the Bailout Programme, one of the Government's key priorities was to reduce Ireland's debt to GDP ratio from the current 120% to the European average of 94%. The Minister noted the wider implications and impact of NAMA's performance for the country and particularly for the banks. In this context he noted that the proceeds from a sale of Ireland's bank shares could be used to reduce the national debt and requested that NAMA consider whether it could advance the repayment schedule of Senior Bonds through accelerating asset disposals with a view to making bank assets more saleable.

For me, that statement is clear. It amounts to the Minister for Finance - the political master of the day - giving the green light to NAMA to sell as quickly as possible rather than to sell as wisely as possible. It flies in the face of statement after statement that has been paraded in the House to the effect that the Minister did not direct or provide influence on NAMA to accelerate the process. All of this needs to be dealt with by the commission of investigation.

Something is altogether lacking at the heart of this State, because we have to go again and establish a commission of investigation. It will not be the last one. There is another inquiry into IBRC. We have commissions of investigation falling around us. The reason is that this State does not do accountability. Today, events in the courts have highlighted the weakness of white-collar crime legislation and enforcement. If the House and its legislators did their job right, we would not be talking about establishing another tribunal or commission of investigation. We would not be referring to reports such as those produced by the Moriarty tribunal or the Mahon tribunal in respect of which nothing actually happened. If we ensured that the legislation was robust, then there would be no excuses for the failings of the past.

Let us consider the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. The staff of the office has been cut by 25% since Deputy Enda Kenny became Taoiseach. In 2007, Deputy Micheál Martin refused point blank to support the claims of the office to increase its workforce by 20. Bertie Ahern said that the office needed to get in line. That was at the time when the bankers were running amok and when they cost us billions of euro. We still do not have laws on reckless lending. We do not do white-collar crime in this country unless we take it from the script of the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Varadkar, which holds that the only white-collar crime relates to welfare fraud. When it comes to wrecking the economy, the country, reckless lending, fixer fees, conflicts of interest relating to billions of euro and so on, then it is a free pass.

There must be clear lessons learned. We need to establish the commission of investigation because it is the only option. We need to learn the from what has happened. We need to get our act together and legislate properly in respect of white collar crime to ensure such activities never happen again.

It is absolutely unbelievable that we are allowing NAMA to sell off our assets as this commission of investigation is ongoing. The House is agreeing to establish a commission of investigation into what has happened in NAMA. Yet, NAMA has billions of euro of our money. The money is in property - bricks and mortar - greenfield sites and so on, but it is our money and we are allowing NAMA to do whatever it wants with that money while we are investigating whether what NAMA did in a €1.1 billion transaction was appropriate. There should be a complete freeze on NAMA's sales.

See this speech in context