Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The process of Garda reform is much very under way. We have an acting Garda Commissioner who I met last week. He is not retiring and will be in place until we are in a position to recruit a new Garda Commissioner, which we intend to do as soon as possible. Discussions are under way with the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland and the Policing Authority to make that happen because it is important that we have a new Garda Commissioner in place sooner rather than later and that this individual will be able to bring in his or her own team. I do not think one person alone can change An Garda Síochána. When I was in Seattle the week before last, I had the opportunity to speak with Kathleen O'Toole who informed me about she reformed and modernised the police service in that city. She told me that it was somewhat similar to what we had in Ireland, with gardaí running IT systems and HR - things that policemen are not really best trained to do - and how important it was that the new Commissioner would be able to bring in his or her own team.

It may be worth informing the House that a memorandum was brought to the Cabinet this morning by the Minister for Justice and Equality to give the Policing Authority approval for the first time to appoint a superintendent of An Garda Síochána who is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI. This is a very practical example of reform that is under way. For the first time, somebody from an outside police force - in this case, an officer from the PSNI - can be appointed to a senior position in An Garda Síochána, so that is an outside appointment to a senior position. I think we will see more of that in the weeks and months ahead.

I cannot answer questions on behalf of third parties who are not Members of this House or who formerly served here.

Also included in that €27 million was a figure for a further bailout of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. The main criteria for access to the fund were inconsistent and prohibitive. They set the bar so high that only the banks would be eligible. On closer scrutiny it is now obvious from responses to freedom of information requests that neither the banks nor the five other successful lenders met the qualification criteria as set down by SBCI.

Furthermore, the three main banks did not set up a special purpose vehicle, SPV, or produce projections as per the criteria. This resulted in no transparency as to where the money was going and the purpose for which it was used internally in banks. Apart from the three established banks funded by the SBCI, five other private non-banking companies were successful in securing SBCI funds. Of these five, four are only involved in leasing and property finance, and not working capital. Coincidentally two of the new non-banking lenders which received SBCI funding of €91 million are headed up by former senior executives of failed banks. One of these new companies was also handed an equity injection of a further €30 million by the NTMA, which is the parent company of SBCI.

From work by various accountants it is now apparent that the majority of companies in receipt of this fund are using the funds to improve the liquidity of their balance sheets as opposed to lending to SMEs. We need to establish if SBCI is operating in contravention to the Acts.

See this speech in context