We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Seanad
‹ Order of Business

NAMA investigation

Summary

Senator Coghlan says alleged misconduct involving a former NAMA employee should be left to the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation, while Senator O’Brien insists the Garda already has the information.

Yes.

In the context of the issue relating to NAMA that has raised its ugly head, there is a need to keep matters in perspective. The Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation must be allowed to get on with its work. We know that NAMA has taken all appropriate action and has reported the matter, which relates to a former employee. If Senator Darragh O'Brien has any further information on this matter, he should go to the Garda with it.

Comment on this

The Garda has the information.

Comment on this

As politicians, we must studiously avoid engaging in Ballymagash-style politics and chasing cheap headlines.

Comment on this
Paddy Burke An Cathaoirleach Fine Gael

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Comment on this

Of course. There are bad apples everywhere as those in Fianna Fáil know. We are all subject to original sin and we are all human. There is capacity for good and bad in everyone. Let us not run away with ourselves. The matter in question is being dealt with. I accept that it is serious, but it is not the House's place to deal with it; rather, it is being dealt with by the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation.

Comment on this

Therefore, it is not for us to ask questions.

Comment on this
Paddy Burke An Cathaoirleach Fine Gael

Senator Paul Coghlan to continue, without interruption.

Comment on this

Senators should be calm because the matter is in hand. Capable people are dealing with it and NAMA has taken all appropriate action. I will not state everyone is perfect, but those at the top in NAMA, including the members of the board and senior officials, enjoy our trust. We should not say anything about a former employee because the matter is in hand.

Comment on this