In The Sunday Times last Sunday there was an article concerning the sale of Siteserv to Millington under the ageis of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. The article was based on freedom of information documents the newspaper had secured from the Department of Finance in the form of memoranda. Any reader of the article would have to come to the conclusion that there are grave concerns about how that company was sold.

There were a number of such concerns. I pay tribute to the Independent Deputy Catherine Murphy, who has doggedly pursued this issue for well over 12 months, if not longer, through parliamentary questions and so on. In the beginning she was told by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, that he was satisfied that the best interests of the taxpayer were met in the sale of this company. We know that IBRC sold Siteserv at a loss of €105 million. We know that the legal advisers acted for both the purchaser and the seller. We now know that the financial adviser Davy, which was advising the company but whose fundamental obligation was to its own shareholders and not the taxpayer, recommended a payout of €5 million to the shareholders to induce them to sell. Therefore, in a company that owed the State €150 million, the shareholders and directors, five of whom were, I think, clients of Davy, got €5 million. Trade buyers were excluded on what I would consider to be relatively spurious grounds and there were reports of other companies that wanted to bid higher but were spurned. Latterly, as Independent Deputy Catherine Murphy was putting her questions, the Minister revealed somewhat more in answers to parliamentary questions, and outlined all of the concerns I have outlined as being concerns of his officials. We have now learned that there were two separate reviews of the deal, one by Department of Finance officials and another by Central Bank officials. There are huge potential conflicts of interest all over this deal. Let us remember that we are talking about a company whose subsidiary, Sierra, went on to win the largest contract to install water meters and has now become a very profitable company in itself.

What is new?

The point I am making is this. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the Government, and particularly the Minister for Finance, did everything it could to protect the taxpayer, given all of these questions? A separate memo also states, rather alarmingly, that officials had concerns about other large transactions under the aegis of IBRC. These were taxpayers' assets that were being disposed of. Will the Taoiseach initiate an inquiry into this - a proper inquiry to get to the bottom of it? It is important because it goes to the very heart of how the taxpayer was or is protected, or not protected, in terms of the sale of State assets and also in terms of the specific deal in question.

It is a serious matter that the Deputy raises. I did not see the article to which he referred, although I take his point that this is based upon articles or documentation received from the Department. While the Deputy has asked a number of questions, I do not have the information to reply in detail to him. Perhaps it might be better if this were responded to in some detail by the Minister for Finance, either by Priority Question or by Topical Issue, or, indeed, by discussion at the Oireachtas committee. I do not want to say something that I cannot stand over here.

The Deputy has raised a number of issues. He has previously questioned the sale of Siteserv in March 2012, which was approved by the board of IBRC. I do not have the detail of what the Deputy is talking about in that regard. I will find answers to the questions the Deputy raises, but I do not want to commit to an official investigation until I am satisfied that answers can be had to the questions that Deputy Martin and Deputy Catherine Murphy raise in regard to IBRC.

Frankly, I find it incredible that the Taoiseach could come in here on a Tuesday and say to me that he has not read the article in question. I find that very difficult to comprehend. Did anybody bring it to the Taoiseach's attention in his Department? Did the Minister, Deputy Noonan, ring him about it? Did anybody alert him to the fact that Government memos were going to be released under freedom of information and that the article in The Sunday Times contained such very serious assertions? It was stated:

Arguably, no payment should have been made to shareholders given the precarious position the company was in. Examinership would appear to have been a reasonable option.

In addition, trade buyers were excluded and there was the question of "whether [having] the company running the process was the correct decision", and so on.

The Taoiseach is leader of the country and is in charge of Government. There are people out there in mortgage arrears whose cases I have been raising with the Taoiseach for the last month. They do not get paid off when they owe a bank a lot of money. We are talking about a company that owed €150 million. The advisers on the sale of the company recommended that they got the top end - €5 million. Five of the shareholders were clients of this company. This was all going on under the Taoiseach's nose and he was just oblivious to the whole thing, if we are to believe him today.

Thank you, Deputy.

It goes very much to the heart of how IBRC was doing its work on behalf of the taxpayer. Did anybody at all alert the Taoiseach to this over the last number of days? Did any of his officials contact him to say there was a very serious article on the front page of The Sunday Times? I know Deputy Catherine Murphy asked about this on Leaders' Questions, so the Taoiseach would have been aware of the issue. It is not as if it is completely new issue to him, as it was raised before on a number of occasions.

Thank you, Deputy.

The problem is that it has been drip, drip, drip. It has taken nearly a year and a half for people to get the most basic information from the system in regard to the transaction itself and how the deal was conducted.

A question, please.

The problem is this. The person in mortgage arrears who turns up in court to have their house repossessed is watching this.

Hundreds of them.

They are watching a different set of people operate to a different set of rules. Small businesses and small companies-----

No justice.

We have all learned about their cashflow issues and how they were put to the pin of their collar by banks and everybody else. They are also watching aghast at all of this.

Sorry, Deputy; we are over time.

The only way one can respond in an effective way, because this feeds anger and resentment-----

It is morally wrong.

-----is to have a proper inquiry to make sure nobody is getting favourable treatment over the vast majority of people out there who have challenges and difficulties in their lives because of the crash.

I do not have the opportunity to read every newspaper article that is written about matters of current affairs across a vast spectrum of the various elements of the media. The Deputy is well aware that I am not informed of the release of freedom of information requests, which come in by the hundred to different Departments, nor, indeed, have I any access to deliberations on what should or should not be released. There are official personnel in every Department who handle those requests completely independently.

No, but on Sunday the Taoiseach would have been aware.

They are released as per the law in respect of requests that are made to them.

In regard to mortgage arrears-----

The Minister for Finance said it would be-----

Order, please. The Taoiseach has the floor.

In regard to mortgage arrears, as I have already outlined, the Government has committed to going beyond the introduction of the Insolvency Service of Ireland, and will put in place, hopefully, a number of further options for consideration by persons who are in distress with their mortgages. The Government, as the Deputy is aware, is acutely sensitive to the issue of people losing their homes or the roof over their houses. The Deputy may throw his eyes up to heaven if he likes.

We are talking about this deal. Come on.

Show some action.

This is part of the catastrophe the Deputy left behind him and it is still not sorted out. Yes, there are many thousands who are in difficulties with their mortgages. Over 100,000 sustainable solutions have been put together, and I think that encouraging-----

What about Deputy Penrose's Bill?

-----but it is not sufficient, on the one hand, for banks not to have passed on interest rate reductions when they are borrowing money themselves at a much lower rate than they are charging, nor is it right and proper that banks fail to do deals when sensible and practical solutions are put on the table. It is in those areas-----

What about shareholders getting €5 million from a company that owes so much to the taxpayer?

It is in those areas that the Government is committed to bringing in a number of further options.

With regard to what happened in March 2012, the board of IBRC met and approved the sale of Siteserv - Deputy Martin did not mention it by name, but that is probably one of the cases he was talking about. Under the relationship framework at the time between the Minister for Finance and the bank, which had been in place since July 2009, the board of IBRC was required to engage with the Minister for Finance on certain key issues, which included any material acquisitions, disposals, investments, realisations or other transactions, other than in the ordinary course of Anglo Irish Bank's banking business.

It should be noted, however, that that framework did not include any specific monetary thresholds which would trigger a compulsory or mandatory consultation with the Minister for Finance.

The Taoiseach knows why.

It should also be noted that at that time the ordinary course of the bank's business was to conduct an orderly rundown and ultimate liquidation of the bank, which happened. As such, IBRC's efforts as a secure lender to maximise the recovery of its loans to Siteserv was considered in the ordinary course of business. For that reason, and because of the framework relationship, IBRC was not required to consult with the Minister for Finance on this matter in advance of making the decision to approve the sale of the company referred to in the question.

That is not correct. That is misleading.

Deputy Martin has asked a number of questions.

I have a point of order.

There are no points of order on Leaders' Questions.

I have a very important point.

The Deputy has asked a number of questions. I have said I do not have the detailed information but I will respond to him in detail on the questions he has raised.

The Taoiseach read out the existing mandatory framework. It is a very important point. The officials from the Department of Finance told the management of IBRC that it was to act as if the framework relationship that came into place two weeks later was already in place, which meant that it should have been notified because it considered a loss of over €100 million. The Taoiseach should put that on the record.