In the wake of the mammoth Siteserv report, seven years in the making, Government leaders have resolved informally to shut down the commission of inquiry into the State-owned Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. Judge Brian Cregan’s conclusion that impropriety in the company’s 2012 sale to Denis O’Brien was in Siteserv and not IBRC provides political cover. But the saga is not over. Disturbing conclusions remain to be examined by the Revenue, the Corporate Enforcement Authority and the official assignee in the bankruptcy case of a company co-founder.
The judge found the sale to O’Brien was based on “misleading and incomplete information” that Siteserv provided to the former Anglo Irish Bank, with a process “below the surface” concealed from key protagonists. That is unacceptable. Serious questions arise for Sitesrev co-founders Niall McFadden and Brian Harvey, and for senior independent director Robert Dix and O’Brien’s adviser Dermot Hayes. The argument that the best available deal was struck must be gauged against the judge’s unambiguous conclusion that the sale was “tainted by impropriety”.
Despite finding fault with IBRC’s role in a €5 million payment to Siteserv investors and its failure for 13 days to realise O’Brien was in exclusive buyout talks, the judge found IBRC executives worked “honestly and diligently” to protect bank interests and approved the deal “in good faith”. It is no stretch to see this as a basis for the Government to argue the commission can be safely wound down without investigating 37 more IBRC deals in its remit. A Dáil motion may be required. But after the Siteserv years there is zero enthusiasm to proceed with similar scrutiny of more deals. Still, any substantive claims or evidence of any wrongdoing should be brought to the attention of other authorities.
IBRC wrote off €118 million from Siteserv’s debt, crystallising a taxpayer loss that spurred Dáil ructions when Catherine Murphy TD questioned O’Brien’s bank engagements. Judge Cregan rejected her assertion that the businessman received a “favourable interest rate” but she claimed vindication in other findings. The judge said she was “fully entitled” to refuse disclosure of the sources for her information on the deal, upholding her parliamentary privilege. As with information from other anonymous sources, the inquiry gave no evidential weight to Murphy’s witness statement. Still, there was plenty of evidence elsewhere to support the conclusion that the deal “was not commercially sound”.
READ MORE
For all that, the affair highlights yet again the lack of an effective State mechanism for the swift investigation of matters of public concern. Commissions of inquiry were supposed to prevent excessive costs and delay in public tribunals of inquiry. But this one heard evidence behind closed doors over 256 days. There must be a better way.
