Before I put my question, has the Taoiseach any explanation for the absence of the Labour Party in the Chamber?

Sorry, this is Leaders' Questions.

Yesterday, when I asked the Taoiseach when the Minister, Deputy Noonan, informed the Taoiseach about his Department's deep concerns over the sale of Siteserv and the other IBRC deals, he did not answer the question directly, but he gave the impression that the Minister did not brief him on these issues. How could that be when this involved hundreds of millions of euro in taxpayers' money and when officials in the Department of Finance raised repeated, serious concerns with the Minister and sought an independent review?

Then, when in 2013 the Minister was winding up IBRC sooner than expected, this was clearly a big issue. Was the Taoiseach not briefed on this then? The Minister knew it had cost hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money and hundreds of millions in gains for insiders. What did he tell the Taoiseach? We know that on 6 February in the Dáil, speaking on the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Bill, the Minister said, "I wish to acknowledge, with much appreciation, the significant efforts the directors and staff of the IBRC have made to the stabilisation and maintenance of value in the IBRC". This statement is totally at odds with the deep concerns within his Department, so how does it square with the facts we now know regarding the concerns expressed within the Department of Finance?

The Government is supposed to protect the interests of the taxpayers, yet the Taoiseach said in response to me yesterday that the Minister, Deputy Noonan, did not deal with each of the 30 or so transactions of over €100 million which are now part of the review. If this is so, is this acceptable to the Taoiseach, given that Department of Finance officials have expressed such serious concerns regarding these transactions? Leaving aside any other interpretation, if what the Taoiseach is telling us is true, does this not show gross incompetence on the part of the Government?

On the contrary. As I have said to the Deputy, the framework structure set up by the previous Government meant there was no connection or no interference or questioning from the Department of Finance in respect of these major transactions, nor was it compulsory that the Minister for Finance of the day would be informed. That was the situation that applied when the sale of the company in question happened.

When he got the opportunity, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, changed that structure to make it mandatory that he would be informed of major financial transactions by IBRC. The documentation that was released under freedom of information to the journalist who requested it was posted on the Department of Finance website. That is a record, if you like, of the issues of concern to the Minister and the Department at the time and of the actions taken to ensure the best interests of the taxpayer were protected. The documents confirm that the chairman of IBRC provided the Minister for Finance and the senior officials he appointed with strong assurances that the transaction involving Siteserv, including those aspects of the transaction with which the Department officials had concerns, had been thoroughly assessed by the IBRC board - this was confirmed by the chairman - and that the board of IBRC was satisfied that the transaction was managed in the best possible manner to achieve the best result for the State. It should be noted that IBRC had a fiduciary responsibility to the bank's shareholders and in light of that legal responsibility, the chairman and the board would have considered and provided such assurances, following careful consideration of the issues.

In light of the assurances the Minister for Finance received from the chairman that this transaction had been properly considered by the IBRC board, assurances he accepted, the Minister and his officials took steps in line with the improved relationship framework to ensure the Department's role of challenging the board and the executives of IBRC was in the best interests of the taxpayer and was strengthened by the actions the Minister took. Clearly, the Minister kept the Government informed of the progress that was being made in respect of the negotiations on the famous promissory notes, an issue the Deputy has raised on many occasions, which because of that legacy required that the Government would have to raise €3.1 billion every March to pay interest that was due. That matter was brought to a conclusion following those negotiations.

All of these matters will be part of the documentation now sent in by the special liquidator to the Minister, with the independence of a High Court judge to adjudicate on any perception of conflict of interest. The Dáil, the Committee of Public Accounts and other appropriate Oireachtas committees will consider that report, where all the information is available. If people have further concerns following that, considering there has been an analysis by the IBRC board, by the Central Bank and now by the special liquidator under the direction of the Minister, we can have a further analysis, if the House wishes, by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sure everybody has complete trust and faith in that independence.

The problem is that I asked the Taoiseach a number of direct questions about his knowledge at different times as this scandal unravelled, but he never answered even one question. He said - I noted this - that it was not compulsory for the Minister to be informed by his officials. However, it is a matter of record that he was informed by his officials and for three years, the serious concerns at the Department of Finance were kept from the Dáil and from citizens. This occurred despite significant numbers of questions from Deputies, including Deputy Pearse Doherty, who was stonewalled by the Minister, from 2012 onwards.

Why in his answers to Deputy Doherty did the Minister not disclose what was going on? Why did he withhold information from the Dáil? Essentially, the Dáil has been misled on this issue, the Taoiseach did this again today, and there is a cover-up of the facts.

The Deputy should be very careful about making accusations.

I am being very careful. I am here to hold the Government to account and I do so within the rules.

The strategy began to fall apart when freedom of information replies were given to an Teachta Catherine Murphy. The Minister received a recommendation from his officials to have an independent review of some of these deals, but he refused to do that.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the Dáil has been misled on this IBRC scandal? That is what the record looks like and the opaque answers given today by the Taoiseach to very simple and straightforward questions are part of that tradition.

I have stayed away from asking the Taoiseach about the review because I did not want him to get caught up in the gobbledeygook that he usually spouts. Why are asset acquisitions by NAMA from the IBRC explicitly excluded from the review that has been set up? How is that squared with the much-vaunted commitment to openness, transparency and the new way of doing politics?

As I stated to the Deputy already, the relationship framework set in place before the time of the Minister, Deputy Noonan, did not require that the Minister for Finance would be informed in a mandatory fashion of serious financial transactions of that order.

He was, though.

A year later.

When the Minister had the opportunity, he changed the framework and appointed a senior civil servant. The evidence from the freedom of information documentation shows the level of concern and action taken by the Minister for Finance in this case. The Deputy has continually spoken about cover-ups and many other issues.

I asked questions.

The framework structure set in place when Siteserv was dealt with did not require mandatory reporting to the Minister for Finance but it does now. The review now being ordered by the Minister-----

He knew nothing about anything.

-----from the special liquidator goes back to 2009 and right up to 2013. It includes all those cases, and I understand there are 30 or possibly more of the order of over €10 million.

It excludes cases involving NAMA.

All that information is being collated and compiled, and it will be presented in a report to the Minister for Finance by the end of August. As I stated yesterday, in the event of any perception of a conflict of interest in that review, he appointed a High Court judge to adjudicate on those matters. All these transactions, beyond Siteserv, are covered in that period.

Except for NAMA.

That is covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

This has been examined by the IBRC board, which has recommended very strongly that it did its job.

Does the Taoiseach stand by his civil servants?

It has been examined by the Central Bank, which did not take any action. The issue is now the subject of this review. The Government will have no difficulty, if deemed appropriate, with the carrying out of a further independent investigation by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, for example. We cannot direct that independent office. The Government has no difficulty in changing the legislation to accommodate that.

All of these issues will be put on the table with respect to the taxpayer being defended and accountability for transactions and commercially sound decisions being made. It is all included.

Except for NAMA.

That is covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General.