Tag Archives: IBRC

90221682

Former CEO of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, Mike Aynsley with the Anglo sign on Stephen’s Green

RTE reports:

“New data shows that a total of 166 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation commercial loans accounts were charged an interest rate of less than 1%. In a written reply to Fianna Fáil finance spokesman Michael McGrath, the Finance Minister said IBRC’s Special Liquidators confirmed that accounts with a rate of less than 1% were mainly related to distressed loans.”

“This was where the loan was restructured or where the borrower was in the liquidation or administration and the prospect of any future recovery was “remote”. Today’s data from the Finance Minister also shows that 920 accounts at the bank were charged a rate of between 1-1.99% on their loans. These loans amounted to €399m.”

Hmmm.

166 IBRC loan accounts charged rate of less than 1% (RTÉ)

Photocall Ireland

00111741spireblackrock00143434

From top: Anglo Irish Bank HQ, The proposed Chicago spire, Blackrock Clinic and Peter Mathews TD

Anglo/IBRC.

It was not a good bank

It was a very, very bad bank.

Peter Mathews’ complex contribution yesterday to the Commission of Investigation into certain IBRC transactions included a number of fresh allegations about overcharging at Anglo Irish Bank/IBRC and revelations about the purchase of Blackrock Clinic loans.

Economist Constantin Gurdiev translates below.

I want to talk about how the so-called profits of IBRC were inflated for a period starting in 1993 and travelling forward to the present date.

There were two ways this was done.

First was the direct manipulation of interest charges and the concealment of loaded interest, which happened in the majority of cases. An extensive exercise carried out by Bank Check revealed this.

It was an excellent exercise and gives the key facts as follows: there were 113 variable DIBOR and EURIBOR loans and 17 LIBOR-based transactions. Some 494 separate DIBOR-EURIBOR rates were reconciled and found to be loaded to a degree ranging from 0.5% in the early 1990s to between 0.03% and 0.05% in 2002 and 2003.

Some 80% of all the loans examined, relating to many clients, were found to have this loading. The statements which clients received never showed the breakdown of the base rate and the DIBOR 3-month rate plus a margin, which had been agreed by loan agreements, plus the reserve asset cost, RAC, if and when it applied.

The quantum of the loaded overcharging was in the order of 0.3%. A margin of 1.5% would comprise two elements, namely, the amount that goes to cover overheads, which is usually about 0.9% of the 1.5%, and the remainder, 0.6%, which is the profit of the bank.

A loaded secret dark pool profit of 0.3% would represent one third of the overall profits, including that dark pool profit.

That means the market valuation of Anglo Irish Bank in the 14 years up to 2002 when this was going on was overstated by one third. If it had been discovered by proper auditing the market would react with a collapse, like the St. Valentine’s Day massacre, of at least one third of the value of the bank and this would affect the shareholders, creditors and depositors.

That would happen irrespective of whether there was an international credit bust and a freeze of credit. This has been brought to the attention of the NTMA, NAMA and others but it has been ignored to date. I have the evidence here and it is shocking.

There is a superbly authoritative letter about the second element of the overcharge by Anglo Irish Bank, now IBRC. Interest was charged for 365 days across the board, when it should have been 360 days.

In the case of IBRC v. John Morrissey, this was the decision of Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan. It has been brought to the attention of the bank, which has been asked to explain what has been done about this in relation to other clients, but it has been ignored.

The terms of reference which the Government has outlined for the investigation cover the period from 2009 to 2013, which is absurd. I am ashamed that this is the case as it excludes the professional conduct of the special liquidators.

I have other examples of where clients of what was Anglo Irish Bank and is now IBRC are being mauled while special preferential treatment has been given to certain bidders on loans.

I cite the Blackrock Clinic in this respect, which is now the subject of open court proceedings. I have the court depositions and it appears from the evidence that the senior accounting advisers of Larry Goodman are former KPMG partners and very close to the special liquidators at KPMG, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Wallace.

It appears there was preferential treatment in the bidding for some of the loans of the investors in the Blackrock Clinic. This should also be investigated as there is too much darkness and too much selective, narrow stuff.

On the day after the six-month stay on involvement in any property transactions relating to NAMA loan assets, the chief loans manager of NAMA, Mr. John Mulcahy, joined the advisory team of Denis O’Brien.

KPMG were the auditors of Irish Nationwide Building Society, which had a balance sheet of €14 billion. They made losses of €6 billion which were put on the backs of the Irish people. That is wrong.

In conclusion] This is from Black solicitors, following the John Morrissey case:

‘It appears numerous illegalities have been carried out by Anglo Irish Bank and its successors over these 25 years. You, Mr. [Kieran] Wallace, have acknowledged under oath in US Court proceedings the overcharging of interest by the bank. As the overcharging has continued under your watch, you are jointly and severally liable for same, together with the Minister and Department of Finance, the Central Bank of Ireland and the Financial Regulator.’

This is really serious stuff. No response has been received to letters that issued to NAMA on 7 January 2015, to the Central Bank on 22 January 2015, to the Minister for Finance on 3 March 2015, and to the Central Bank on 9 March 2015.

We are now in June. This is serious stuff. There are loans that are being operationally processed by the originators of those loans. Now those loans are owned by third parties, including hedge funds, and they are calculating interest on an unlawful basis, even though it has been brought to their attention. This is shocking.

There is other evidence that NAMA knowingly… allowed the information memorandum for the Chicago Spire to be negligently misleading, which has resulted in unnecessary huge losses for both the Irish people and the developer. I have the evidence for that….”

Thud.

Transcript via Oireachtas.ie

Economist Constantin Gurdgiev explains:

These are mind-blowing revelations that expose more than just a systemic fraud [potentially] being perpetrated by a rogue bank. These are the revelations that show the current system wanting in respect of acting on the established legal case judgement in addressing the systemic [potential] fraud.

And the worst bit is that even that is a tip of an iceberg, for Deputy Mathews statement about potential misrepresentation of the Chicago Spire case by Nama opens up the EUR77 billion can of worms over the Grand Canal. In this context, the current planned inquiry into 2009-2013 IBRC dealings is nothing more than a fig leaf of fake decorum on a rotten corpse of the Irish Solution to an Irish Crisis.

A Bombshell Goes Off on Anglo, IBRC & Nama (TrueEconomics)

catherine

Catherine Murphy in the Dail this evening

During tonight’s debate on the Commission of Investigation into certain IBRC transactions, including the sale of Siteserv to Denis O’Brien…

When I met with the Minister yesterday I highlighted that my main concern would be that the investigation does not end on Prom [Promissory note] night and that it extends into the time when the IBRC was in liquidation.

There are many issues that straddle both time periods and it is vital that the investigation can properly follow these threads.

For example, the purchaser of Siteserv, was already significantly indebted to IBRC. We know that on the 7th of March 2013 – one month post liquidation – that he wrote to the special liquidator seeking to reschedule his outstanding loans over a further 3 year period.

We know that he claims to have been allowed a similar extension by virtue of a verbal agreement he claims he had with the CEO of IBRC (Mike Aynsley).

We also know that, according to IBRC, the credit committee had never approved such a previous agreement yet Mr O’Brien maintains it was in place and he requested that the special liquidator be made to honour that verbal agreement.

I wish the minister to clarify if the assertion of such a verbal agreement will be enough to satisfy the Terms of Reference regarding the ‘contractual obligations’ required in relation to investigating issues that straddle pre & post liquidation.

We know that the credit committee met on the 23rd of May 2013 – two months after Mr O’Brien’s approach to the special liquidator and at that time the outstanding balance owed to IBRC by Mr O’Brien was in the region of €325million.

It is worth, at this point, asking the question as to why someone, so heavily indebted, was allowed to make significant purchases from IBRC rather than being asked to pay down his outstanding loans. Were other bailed-out banks financing this buying exercise? Was he borrowing from Peter to pay Paul?

Interestingly, an article that appeared in the UK edition of the Sunday Times in January 2012 showed that in 2011 & 2012 the IBRC refinanced some of Mr O’Brien’s loans and increased their security stake in some of his investments. It seems illogical that in the same time period they allowed him to purchase Siteserv for example.

The point here is that some of the documents I am referring to relate to the Special Liquidators era hence the need for the period to be covered by the terms of reference.

In recent days, The Chairman of IBRC (Mr Dukes) has made much of the fact that the Central Bank conducted a review, prior to July 2012, and apparently found no problems.

Contradicting that assertion however is a relevant piece from the FOI documents from inside the Department when they said

“We are concerned that the Central Bank report compiled on the transaction vindicates their position. To be clear we are concerned with a number of the decisions taken by the bank in relation to this transaction.”

….Yet It was not until I received an FOI of July 2012 internal Dept memos did we learn that the Department officials were expressing serious concern over the effectiveness of the CEO and the management team and they had serious concerns over the way a number of large transactions, including the Siteserv sale had been handled.

….Another significant issue that raised its head in some of the early reporting of this controversy but has since been replaced by other developments is the share activity in Siteserv prior to its sale.

Various sources of information told me that the Siteserv share activity in November 2011 – the period during which the bidding process was underway – was irregular and that there had been a significant share spike around the time it was sold resulting in a nice windfall for some lucky investors.

Unfortunately it was indicated to me that some of those investors may not have been so much lucky as they were well-informed. Indeed the Chairman of IBRC confirmed in an RTÉ interview that Denis O’Brien for example, had been given advance notice of the sale before it was announced. Did others have similar information?

The unfortunate thing here is that while I know what insider trading is, I don’t yet know how we deal with it here in Ireland. On foot of my information regarding share activity, I wrote to the Irish Stock Exchange who advised me that it was not within their remit and that I should talk to the Central Bank.

I wrote to the Central Bank who told me it was outside of their remit. I then wrote to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement whose reply came back today to tell me that it does not appear to come within the remit of their office.

….In my speech on May 28th I referred to loans held by Mr O’Brien that were due to be repaid in full in 2011 and 2012. We know they were not repaid in that timeframe.

Effectively, once the agreed term expired, those loans were in default and became callable on demand. IBRC’s own terms and conditions allowed them to charge default interest rates yet they chose not to do so in this case.

Many sources have come forward both before and since that speech, to say that they had personal experience of being both performing and non-performing borrowers of IBRC and their experience of their loans being called in, in a ruthless fashion and other defaulting borrowers talk of the punitive interest rates applied to them.

…..The plight of the former Irish Nationwide Mortgage holders and the way in which they have been treated by IBRC compared to the very favourable environment that seems to have been provided to Mr O’Brien for example is perhaps an indication.

Catherine Murphy, Independent TD for Kildare North

Continue reading →

90190840Former IBRC chairman Alan Dukes and CEO Mike Aynsley in June, 2010

The Commission of Investigation will examine whether there is “prima facie evidence of material deficiencies” in the performance of those acting on behalf of IBRC, including board members, directors and management in relation to transactions.

It will also look at the staff of the IBRC’s wealth management unit… The interest rates, extension of interest rates or period of repayments that were given by IBRC, which resulted in a loss of more than €4m in interest, will be examined.

Unusual share trading which would give rise to concerns of insider information being improperly provided will also be investigated in relation to the transactions. The commission will report back by December 31

Hmm.

BRC commission to report back by end of year (RTÉ)

(Mark Stedman/Photocall Ireland)

90382652

Catherine Murphy (left) and Ann Marie McNally, communications and policy advisor, at the High Court on Tuesday

How did we get here?

And what have we learned?

Catherine Murphy TD writes:

Recent events seem to have taken on a life of their own but it useful to look back to where it all began.

Back in early 2014 my team and I started looking at the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the controversial water metering contracts and the uncanny way that the same names seemed to pop up at every hands turn.

Crucial to our early research was a piece that Broadsheet.ie had done titled ‘Thicker than Uisce’ and this very detailed timeline led us into many different directions that have culminated in the events of the past few weeks.

I have been to every one of the Irish Water protests, I had six months on Leader’s Questions in the Dáil from June-December 2014 and I raised the water issue on nine of those occasions.

At all times I made the point that the protests and the reaction was about more than just water – it was about something bigger; the sense that things always seem to work in favour of the big guys and never the little guys.

I made a speech in the Chamber on December 4 and again on December 10 where I raised Siteserv and some of the names that have now come into the public domain through the FOI process.

I followed it up with a series of (ongoing) parliamentary questions and FOI requests and it was April 2015 before answers began to emerge – painstakingly slowly.

Roll on to recent events – a situation where significant information from extremely credible sources comes to my attention; information which I firmly believe to be in the public interest.

I believe I have a duty, as an elected representative, to pursue the truth, to get to the bottom of the situation and to ensure that at no stage were the citizens of this country disadvantaged for the benefit of some powerful people.

In pursing that objective I used every parliamentary avenue open to me including taking to my feet on the floor of the Dáil and putting the allegations to the Minister and asking him to let people know the facts.

I never for a second considered that somebody with money and power would somehow influence how my privileged words would be, or not be as was the case, reported in the majority of media outlets across this country.

For anyone to claim that this was never the intention is belied by the letters and emails received by numerous media outlets, including Broadsheet, warning them not to report my speech.

What is really concerning is that most, though thankfully not all, media outlets bowed to the pressure. The fear of deep pockets managed to control almost the entire press corp of the country.

In the age of social media we are lucky that many citizens had the opportunity to access fair reports as is their right, however a large cohort of our citizens still rely on mainstream media and until the Sunday Times took a stand on the Sunday following my Thursday afternoon speech, those citizens were bereft of information from their elected parliament. That cannot be acceptable.

There has been a very valuable lesson in this. We have got to look at how our Fourth Estate operates. Issues such as ownership, editorial v legal considerations and public interest must be evaluated and mainstream media organisations now have to pose some very serious questions to themselves about what is more important; their role in democracy or their fear of upsetting the wrong people?

The parliament and the judiciary for their parts, must now look at our defamation laws and assess whether or not they are fit for purpose. It is not enough to know what went wrong; we must take steps to put it right to ensure we never have a repeat of this debacle.

Catherine Murphy is Independent TD for Kildare North.

Previously: Catherine Murphy on Broadsheet

(Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland)

moran:dukes

dukes:moran

John Moran, former secretary general at the Department of Finance (top left) and Alan Dukes, former Chairman of IBRC (top right) and an excerpt from the minutes of a meeting held between IBRC and Department of Finance officials on December 1, 2011

How tense?

Freshly obtained FOI documents by Catherine Murphy reveal the level of mistrust and rancour between the Department of Finance and Alan Dukes, chairman of IBRC, formerly Anglo.

They include a letter Dukes sent to former secretary general at the Department of Finance John Moran on October 6, 2011.

Followed by the minutes of two meetings between IBRC and Department of Finance officials  – on November 24 and December 1, 2011 – when both Dukes and Moran were present.

The final document is a letter Moran sent to Dukes on December 23, 2011.

1 2 3 4
Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.15.12Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.16.05Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.16.36Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.17.10Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.17.43Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.18.12
Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.18.47Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.10.10Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.11.07 Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.11.17Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.11.55Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.12.29Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.13.10Continue reading →

CGqAuT_WwAAa7iB90382972

Enda Kenny at the Mansion House this afternoon

The Taoiseach said up until recently the Government deemed an internal review by the liquidators of IBRC was the best way to find out more about the row of the sale of the company, Siteserv, to the businessman, Denis O’Brien.

But the row over Dáil reporting of related issues and the subsequent High Court hearings changed that and led Cabinet to decide to set up a Commission of Inquiry.

He said he chose to stand back from court deliberations in recent days until a verdict emerged.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny defends silence over IBRC row (Irish Independent)

Asked if the public should have concern about the extent of Mr [Denis] O’Brien’s power and influence in Irish society, Mr Kenny said:

“Obviously there are regulations and rules governing the ownership of media outlets and communications, and that’s a matter that the Minister for Communications (Alex White) keeps under observation.

“There are legislative conditions set down here. So I wouldn’t comment on an individual in particular but I do note that the Justice in his decision did say that any individual is entitled to privacy, but that clearly in particular circumstances the public good can override the requirement that that might apply.”

Taoiseach Breaks Silence (irish Times)

Pics: Jennifer Bray, (Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland)

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 21.44.08

Finance Minister Michael Noonan on Six One this evening

Finance Minister Michael Noonan appeared on RTÉ’s Six One this evening to explain why a Commission of Inquiry will be carried out into certain transactions by IBRC.

“What has changed my mind on the process [of a review into IBRC] is that, since then, new allegations have been made. There’s no evidence underpinning any allegations but the allegations are now causing public concern and the review, in my view, is insufficient to deal with the new allegations so I recommended that the Government do a full Commission of Investigation which would report but the end of the year…”

“A new set of allegations emerged, surrounding the speech made by Deputy Catherine Murphy in the Dáil and that, together with the fact that there were cases before the courts about the publication of Deputy Murphy’s speech heightened public concern and I believe, at this stage, it’s in the public interest to put the matter in the hands of a judge who, under the powers of the 2004 Act will examine everything, including the original allegations which gave rise to the review by the liquidators and  taking into account the new allegations as well…”

“There may be wrongdoing but, if there is, there’s no evidence of it in any set of allegations. And all we have is a series of allegations but there’s public disquiet, it’s increasing, it’s in the public interest to have these matters fully investigated. We can’t have a belief going around that there was actions that were improper and that, in some way or another, the taxpayer lost out…”

When pressed by host Brian Dobson about the drip feed of information, following the way in which he answered questions put to him in the Dáil by Catherine Murphy – she asked 19 parliamentary questions before she got a comprehensive reply – Mr Noonan said:

“I answered questions, absolutely fully in the way questions are answered in the Dáil. There were full answers made but, obviously, if you go for Freedom of Information and look for a full file, you’ll get background information as well. But there’s a methodology in the Dáil, if somebody feels the answers they got are inadequate. They can refer it to the Ceann Comhairle and adjudicate. Now the questions were adequately answered and of course there’s a drip feed of information – there’s thousands of documents, thousands of pages of documents in IBRC and thousands in the Department of Finance… You don’t produce full files when one specific question is asked”

Mr Noonan’s department has also released a four-page document containing the draft terms of the inquiry.

From the draft:

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 22.03.05

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 22.04.16

Meanwhile…Philip Ryan in the Irish Independent reported tonight:

“The Department of Finance has discovered a tranche of board meeting minutes from the Irish Bank Resolution Company (IBRC) which Finance Minister Michael Noonan previously said he had not received.”

“The minutes include the IBRC board meeting where the sale of Siteserv to a company owned by businessman Denis O’Brien was discussed. However, the details of the sale, including the payment of €5m to Siteserv shareholders, was not outlined in the documents… A Department of Finance source said the files, which are described as ‘board packs’ were “incorrectly filed” in the Department and only recently discovered… A Department of Finance source said the documents do not change the fact that the Minister was not made aware of the details of the Siteserv deal or any other significant transactions at IBRC.”

Hmmm.

The Department of Finance has since published the minutes from the meeting on March 15 2012:

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 22.55.55 Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 22.57.04

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 23.00.40

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 23.01.18

Readers will note the presence of former IBRC senior executive Richard Woodhouse at the meeting on March 15, 2012.

But, following a press conference held by former IBRC chairman Alan Dukes on April 24 of this year, the Irish Times reported, on April 25, that:

Mr Dukes also revealed that Richard Woodhouse, then IBRC’s head of asset management, was kept out of discussions over the Siteserv deal within IBRC, as he also managed the relationship between the bank and Mr O’Brien. ‘We appointed Tom Hunerson instead, and also Peter Rossiter, the chief risk officer, to oversee the transaction,’ said Mr Dukes.”

Anyone?

Previously: NOKPMG!

Government gives go-ahead for commission of investigation into certain IBRC transactions (Philip Ryan, Irish Independent)

Noonan says inquiry will examine preferential interest rates given to IBRC clients (RTE)

Siteserv: attacks on civil servants ‘regrettable’, says Moran (Irish Times)

90361612Denis O’Brien

Everyone stay cool.

Too late.

[Barrister] Mr [Michael] Cush handed in two sealed envelopes to the judge [Paul Gilligan], the first of which contained a letter from RTE to Mr O’Brien outlining the fact that work is being carried out by the news department on a report to be broadcast [Tomorrow] Friday, May 1st, but with no time given for when it will go out….
In the second letter written by Mr O’Brien, it refers to details of particular sums of money representing his indebtedness to Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) but it is all clearly referable to his personal banking facilities and it is “undoubtedly confidential”, counsel said.

RUN!

Denis O’Brien seeking High Court injunction against RTE in bid to prevent report being broadcast (Tim Healy, Independent.ie)

Related: A Boy Named Sue

catherinemurphyIndependent TD for Kildare North Catherine Murphy

“The Minister, Deputy [Michael]Noonan, stated that what happened must never happen again and that the Government could not get back the €34 billion put into Anglo Irish Bank, but the Government did not ask for it.

It is criminal that people are still paying for it. It is as if we took on the mortgage of the big house up the road, subsequently restructured it and were singing the restructuring’s praises because we no longer had to pay as much as we believed we would.

This is the spin, but we are still paying every penny of it as well as the interest. In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me: “The schedule for extinguishing the balance will be €500 million in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.” On 23 December, the first €500 million was borrowed and burned. He continued: “That will rise to €1 billion in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. It will double again to €2 billion” per year from 2024 onwards until it is paid, which looks to be in 2034.

I am coming to a point about the relationship between this and that awful night when we turned the IOU into a sovereign bond. We have no way of knowing what the relationship was between IBRC and the Department of Finance on that night. In the Chamber, the Minister talked in glowing terms about IBRC’s board and chief executive and IBRC was only being wound down so quickly for one reason.

However, we were not told what the relationship was. This issue needs to be addressed in the House. Why was there a sudden urgency to liquidate IBRC? Was there even a relationship? Not even the senior management knew. Remember how Mr. Alan Dukes was told that afternoon; we saw it on Twitter.

The question of the relationship is important. Many issues like that arise. According to Mr. John Moran’s diary, he met Mr. Mike Aynsley on 1 and 2 August, but there are no notes from that high level meeting. How could it be that two days of meetings were held between the most senior people in the Department of Finance and IBRC and not even one note was kept?

“Turning again to the big guys as opposed to the small guys, Mr Denis O’Brien owed IBRC millions of euro. If he had a spare €45 million lying around, why was he not asked to use it to pay down his borrowings instead of using it to purchase a company that we have been told was a bit of a basket case? Why would the bank allow someone in such debt to use €45 million to expose himself further or did he know that Siteserv would quickly turn into something profitable?”

“The inquiry by KPMG relates to this debate. If we are to have hope for the future, we need to do things differently in terms of governance. We cannot ask the same people who were part of a deal to review that deal. It will not wash.

The public knows this. I took great offence when the Taoiseach yesterday spoke about the accuracy of some of my questions and how they were written. It was beneath him and his office. He should correct that statement. There was nothing wrong with the questions I posed. What was wrong was that I was not getting answers. They had to be pulled out like hens’ teeth. This is unacceptable.”

I am concerned by section 31(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014. Under it, where a member of the Judiciary is involved in a review or inquiry, freedom of information requests are out of bounds. It is important that this issue is not just pushed off into the future and buried until 31 August, right bang in the middle of the silly season.”

I am very hopeful about this country. The claim has been made on many occasions from the Government benches that those of us on this side of the House show no evidence of having hope. In fact, we do have hope, but we may well have a different vision for the type of Ireland we want to create.

This is an opportunity to acknowledge that we should not dismiss things that are positive. Indeed, both of the Ministers, Deputies Richard Bruton and Simon Coveney, who are in the Chamber have been very much at the heart of driving some of the positive improvement we have seen. It is only fair that we acknowledge that. However, we should not be codding ourselves about any of the issues or tolerating spin; our discussions must be real. The Government would do well to remember that the public is wide awake and engaged with all of this.”

Catherine Murphy TD in the Dáil yesterday

Transcript via Oireachtas.ie

Pic: RTÉ