Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for being present and reading the statement into the record on the proposal. It is difficult to see what the NAMA commission will find out that we do not already know. There are outstanding criminal inquiries into the matters relating to the commission, there is a Comptroller and Auditor General report and now this commission is proposing to do this work. This yet again tells us about the lack of absolute regulation when it comes to white collar crime and how to deal with it. We only need to refer to what we saw yesterday with the FitzPatrick trial. I will not go into that in detail. The public's confidence is at an all-time low with regard to commerce and business. People are disappointed. Sometimes we get caught up in this bubble around Leinster House but when we walk on the streets, the first thing people will ask is why we need another commission, paying another load of barristers, solicitors, experts and forensic accountants to tell us what we already know.

We know the matter came before the Committee of Public Accounts, which is an exceptional body with an exceptional record. Why are we going around the houses? We know its findings and some people may not have been happy about them. We know the Minister for Finance was disappointed with aspects of it and what the Comptroller and Auditor General spoke about. There is much information out there but we are now going ahead with another commission of inquiry. I do not doubt the capacity to find a bit more information but that is what the public sees and what I try to bring here in my daily work.

NAMA was established by Fianna Fáil and there was never any provision for freedom of information requests. That is a failure of politicians in here. That is not to single out Fianna Fáil but there was no attempt to insert a freedom of information provision. Where is the transparency and accountability?When this was established, those are the issues that should have been dealt with and taken on board, but they were not taken on board. I hope we will learn some lessons from them because that is important.

The Minister of State dealt with Project Eagle in his report. We know that significant losses were incurred, and that is an area of concern. I will not go into the detail of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report; it is on record for anyone to see. We know what the Committee of Public Accounts had to say about it. In terms of what crystallises this issue, I draw attention to a statement issued by the Minister for Finance and his Department on 29 March 2017. He dealt with the criticism of him, as Minister for Finance, in that report. He addresses the issues in the report and goes on to state: "The Minute of the meeting with Cerberus is available ... [in his Department and is up on its] website ...". That is welcome and it throws some light on the matter. I had a look at that today and it raises a number of issues. The Minister goes on to state: "The meetings with Cerberus were not an area of concern in the C&AG report on Project Eagle published on the 5th August 2016." That is there for the record. He goes on to state: "I have stated consistently that I supported the work of NAMA. I have confidence that the Board of NAMA are achieving their commercial mandate in accordance with the NAMA Act." That is what the Minister told us. The most telling bit is where he sums up by stating:

Before the Government makes a decision ... to proceed [with a commission] it will be important to hear the views of the members of PAC on a number of issues. In light of the extensive evidence [already] collected and ... [worked through and] completed [and before] ... the C&AG and the PAC and in the light of the ongoing investigations in multiple foreign jurisdictions it is important that Members in advising Government are able to answer the following questions:

what would a Commission investigate?

... [how] could a Commission add value beyond the work already completed?

what could the Commission achieve in light of ongoing criminal and other investigations, and the fact that many potential witnesses and evidence are located outside the jurisdiction?

how much might such a Commission cost and would that result in such a commission justifying the use of scarce budgetary resources?

He goes on to talk about the corporate governance issues. That statement is available and I would advise people to have a read of it because it is very comprehensive, and I have only quoted some aspects.

We do not really have an option when it comes to supporting this commission going ahead but we have a hell of a lot of lessons to learn about how this was all set up before we even get to the commission. If this will give us more transparency and provide the public with greater reassurance, then we have to proceed with it, but it will involve a huge cost to the State. There is no point in us coming in here bellyaching in nine months time about the costs and saying that we got it all wrong again.The bigger issue is how will we tackle potential white collar crime. How will we tidy up on the area of corporate governance and all the other issues? We have a duty at this point to go ahead with this and to have another investigation. For that reason, I will support it but with great reluctance because I am sure that in a year or two years time we will back in here, if we are still here, saying there is nothing new to add but that we have we spent a fortune on lawyers, experts and specialists and we have done damn all for the money. If I was asked honestly today, with hand on heart, what I would do, I would accept that the Committee of Public Accounts has done work, that the Comptroller and Auditor General has done work and, having heard what the Minister has had to say, I would move on, learn from the mistakes and ensure they do not happen in the future. I am not sure if we should be spending this large volume of money. That is not to run away from the issue but I have addressed key points and I hope the Minister of State will respond to them.