Committee for Finance
OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
Sale of National Asset Management Agency Assets in Northern Ireland: Mr Máirtín Ó Muilleoir MLA (Minister of Finance)
5 October 2016 NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
Committee for Finance
Sale of National Asset Management Agency Assets in Northern Ireland: Mr Máirtín Ó Muilleoir MLA (Minister of Finance)
5 October 2016
Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mrs Emma Little Pengelly (Chairperson) Ms Claire Hanna (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Jim Allister Mr Jonathan Bell Mr Paul Girvan Mr Ross Hussey Mr Gerry Mullan Mr John O'Dowd Ms Caitríona Ruane Mr Philip Smith Mr Jim Wells
Witnesses: Mr Ó Muilleoir Minister of Finance
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I invite the Minister to take a seat because, to keep everybody right, I want to deal with the police correspondence on this as part of the preamble to the Committee's questions being asked.
As members are aware, we have received correspondence from the PSNI about the ongoing criminal investigation. Caitríona, you are absolutely right: we had this discussion in the Committee, and the Committee agreed that the appropriate person to carry out the investigation was the Commissioner for Standards. I know that there are other issues there. In addition to that, we understand that the commissioner has suspended his investigation because of the ongoing police investigation. Therefore, for the sake of absolute clarity, the Committee agreed to invite you along, Minister. We agreed not to carry out an inquiry — we do not have terms of reference for an inquiry around this — but simply to extend to you as Minister of Finance the opportunity to come along. You have made statements in the media in relation to what you knew or, more accurately, what you did not know around all of this, so we felt that it would be appropriate to give you the opportunity to come along today and speak to us about that and put on record your position on a range of the issues.
I ask all members to be cognisant of the fact that there are ongoing criminal investigations. There is advice here from PSNI serious crime branch to be cognisant of that. We understand that that investigation is of course at an early stage, and we do not have any information around that, so that is not on the basis of any detailed information. There is that ongoing investigation, and members should be aware of that. When members are asking questions, I ask everybody to refrain from drawing
1 conclusions, because the case has not been investigated and all of the evidence weighed. I also ask members to refrain, if possible, from badgering the witness. I want to give all members the opportunity to speak and ask questions.
Mr Ó Muilleoir (The Minister of Finance): Are you talking about Caitríona Ruane badgering the witness?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I will not, as Chair, allow questions to be asked repeatedly to the point of badgering the witness. I want everything to be carried out with decorum.
Ms Ruane: For clarification, presumably it is not "the witness" but "the Minister".
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Yes.
Ms Ruane: OK. Thank you.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: A Chathaoirligh chóir, go raibh maith agat as an chuireadh. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman, for the invite. We have a couple of officials outside doing hard time, waiting to address the Committee at 3.00 pm. Why do we not let them go today?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I apologise.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: We can return to rates and budgets. I think that we will have a really good conversation, and I do not think that it will be over in an hour. It would be unfair to make the officials wait, unless you are determined to speak about rates and budgets. How determined a crew are you?
Ms Hanna: The Public Accounts Committee in Dublin sat for 10 hours last week.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): The preference of members was to talk about these related issues.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: We should let the officials go, with your permission.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Are members content with that suggestion?
Members indicated assent.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thank you. Can someone pass that message on? They could be out there for another hour.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Again, Minister, apologies for the delay. Obviously, we are running significantly behind schedule.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is OK.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Unfortunately, we received the correspondence from the PSNI at a very late stage, so we had to consider that.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is a bit like being read your rights and having the Miranda rights put in front of you. I appreciate that. I had a good discussion with Detective Superintendent Geddes outside. I do not envy him his job in trying to get the Committee, never mind everybody else, to cooperate with what he desires to see.
Madam Chairwoman, I was in Newcastle this morning. It was a wonderful day for being beside the beach, but I wanted to make sure that we were here to address the Committee. I understand that these matters are complex and complicated. You were having a fight when I came in. I am not sure what that relates to, but maybe I will find out as the session goes on. Maybe "fight" is too strong; you were having a heated discussion. Mr Allister was holding his own, I am glad to say, although we may return later on to ask, "Did he coach Jamie Bryson? Has Jamie Bryson been in his room?" —
2 Mr Allister: Certainly not.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: — or "Had he seen any of this correspondence?".
Just to catch a little bit of the correspondence, if I may, I will open with this. You made another honourable mention of my good self in some of the Twitter text messages. Whether I am mentioned two times or 200 times, I had no knowledge of this communication. I welcome the opportunity to talk to you directly. I said this in the Assembly and in the media, but there is no reason why it should not be said to the Committee: I had no knowledge of the communications and no hand, act or part in the correspondence or exchange between Messrs Bryson, O'Hara and McKay. I learned about it when on a beautiful holiday in the Basque country in August. Mr Allister knows the dates. I am not sure of the exact dates, but it was about six weeks ago. The first thing that I did on my return was to state, without any ambiguity, that I had no knowledge of the exchange. I suppose that, ultimately, the great public out there pay their money and make their choice. For my part, I have been very clear that I had nothing at all to do with the correspondence.
I said this in the Assembly, and it is worth saying it here because you wrote to ask me about any communications with Mr McKay, Mr O'Hara or Mr Bryson: I had none. I said that in the Assembly, and I am happy to say it again today. We all have too many social media channels, but neither Twitter nor Facebook nor Snapchat — Paul Girvan is a bit of a digital revolutionist, so he might know all the rest of the channels. There were text messages and emails. I have no communications at all to provide you with. I said at the time that there was a bit of party politicking going on. It is sort of amazing that, in a place created for politics, some people might want to speak out to the advantage of their party. I think that it goes with the territory. I did not take it terribly seriously when my dear colleagues, Ms Hanna and Mr Smith, were asking whether I would step aside. The only stepping that I will do will be stepping up.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I think that the entire Committee wrote to you and asked, with the exception of your colleagues.
Ms Hanna: For the record, I was not at that meeting. I was also on my holidays.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am not referring to a meeting. Was there a meeting? I was talking about comments in the press afterwards. Let us get that on the record.
You asked me, and you were very kind: I did not answer the first time you asked me to step aside, and I did not answer the second time. I presume that you were teasing me both times, because anybody who knows of my commitment to the process that we are involved in knows that I will only step up in that regard.
I want to say one other thing about Mr McKay — I missed some of the latest iterations of the discussion, although I am sure that someone will enlighten me later on.
Mr Wells: We will.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman, I am glad that you have a fairly strong control over the Committee, especially on my right — on my hard right. I am not a hanging judge. There may be some hanging judges here — I will not make that allegation — but I am not a hanging judge, so I will not say anything that will prejudice Mr McKay's right to a fair hearing. Speaking outside, Mr Geddes said that fairness would go to the heart of whatever inquiry he is involved in. Much as I respect this august gathering and Committee, the PSNI inquiry into these matters is, I think we will all agree, more serious than the business at hand, whether that leads to an inquiry or to just a discussion or conversation with me. I will not say anything that will prejudice his right to a fair hearing. On those grounds, I am happy to chat with you. The more it can be about the Finance Minister, rather than Daithí McKay, the better, but I am here to be as helpful as possible.
I do not want to usurp the rights and the role of the Assembly's standards commissioner. There are actually two on this case — the Welsh commissioner and our local commissioner — which shows how complex it is. They have stood aside while the PSNI investigation of the matter continues. I do not know if Mr Geddes was able to give you a timeline of when that might conclude. I have also been on record as saying that no one will be fuller in their cooperation with the Assembly's standards commissioner than me. I respect his office, and, with all due respect to this Committee, he is the guy who calls the shots with regard to any inquiry. There may be some things that you ask for that I will not
3 give you, but I will certainly give all and anything and any cooperation that the Assembly standards commissioner wants.
Is that a fair opening, Madam Chairwoman?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Yes. Thank you for that opening. Clearly, there are serious issues here, and people are very concerned. What happened has been in local newspapers and out there. It will be for another place to look at that, examine it and come to judgement on it. Unfortunately for you, you have been named by a member of Sinn Féin in that correspondence, and therefore the Committee is clearly of the view that you have questions to answer.
We have heard you say publicly that you had nothing to do with it, but today I want to extend the opportunity to you to answer a series of questions — I have questions I want to ask about aspects of it — which will give you an opportunity to put what happened on the record. You have said that you feel that you have nothing to hide, but there are different aspects and nuances of it. I am sure that you appreciate that. Most of my questions can, I think, be answered with a simple yes or no. As you have stated, there are ongoing investigations, and, Minister, you are within your rights to decline to answer. The meeting will be reported by Hansard, so it would be appreciated if, for the record, you would say that you are declining to answer a particular question. I will run through a number of questions and then open it up to the Floor.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman, let me say first that I will disagree with you right from the off: I have no questions to answer about this. If two guys over in the coffee room are talking about me, whatever they are involved in, someone may say that I have questions to answer about it. I have no questions to answer about whatever they are talking about there — two guys in the pub or three guys on Twitter. However, I respect your right to hold a Committee meeting; that is why I am here. I am given to long answers, but, if the questions are repeated, I hope that you will forgive me if I refer you to what I have said a few minutes before.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Absolutely. I know that some of the questions will touch on your opening statement, but many of them are simple yes or no answers.
Did Daithí McKay inform you that he was in private contact with Jamie Bryson?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Would it not be wonderful if life was reduced to yes or no? In this, it is black and white. As I said in my opening statement, there was no hand, act, part, knowledge of or involvement with it. It would diminish the role of this great Committee if I was to answer yes or no. There are about four noes in the opening statement.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): It is pretty simple: he either told you, or he did not.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is not pretty simple. If you continue to ask those questions, what part of "No involvement with, no part in, no knowledge of" does the Committee, with all due respect, not understand? I hope the next question is not going to ask me to repeat what I said earlier, but have a go.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): What I am trying to do — just to make it clear again: this is being reported by Hansard — is afford you the opportunity to put clearly on the record all of the aspects. We do not want to get into a situation where you state something about this, and — we have seen it before — there is a drip, drip out. I am not saying that that will happen in this case, but I think that it is fair to you to give you an opportunity in terms of all of the aspects of this.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is not only Hansard; it is going out on TV in the Assembly and so on. There are plenty of records.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Absolutely, but for the purposes of our consideration it is on the record.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Number two. The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK. You can confirm that, at no stage, was Daithí McKay in contact with, as far as you are aware — you were not aware that he was in contact with Jamie Bryson from Daithí McKay himself.
4 Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think I have answered that one. Let us go —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): From Thomas O'Hara?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Let us go to question number three. That has been answered at least four times.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Were you aware of any contact? Were you aware of the contact from anybody else other than Daithí McKay?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think I have answered that as well. That is the "no knowledge" part of the "no".
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You were clearly aware after the article ran in 'The Irish News', for example —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I had no prior knowledge of any of this stuff. Of course, it is amazing, but they did not sell 'The Irish News' in San Sebastián or Donostia when I was there. Keep going through the questions, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Did you exchange any electronic communication with Daithí McKay about Jamie Bryson in general?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think I have answered that one too. I think I have answered that fairly authoritatively.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You have references in relation to the evidence he has given. Did you exchange any electronic communication about Jamie Bryson generally?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think I mentioned about six different social media feeds, and I have no contact with any of these people. Keep going: there may be a part of "no contact" you do not understand, Madam Chairwoman. You will leave no questions for anybody else — even Mr Allister.
Mr Wells: Do not worry about that.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Have you had any contact with Daithí McKay in relation to Jamie Bryson since the article in 'The Irish News' on 19 August?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have no contact with anyone involved in this story or affair.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Did you have any phone conversations or face-to-face conversations with Daithí McKay in relation to Jamie Bryson's evidence either before or after he gave evidence?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I admire your stickability, but I refer you to my opening statement.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Look, what I am trying to ascertain here is all of the aspects of it. You made quite a general statement, and there are a number of specifics around this.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, Madam Chairwoman — a very specific, right-on-the-money statement. Right on the money. Either move on and let the rest of the Committee have a crack at this, but it is a wee bit silly.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK, to summarise —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have made my position very clear.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): We are not getting very clear answers here. Your evidence to the Committee is that you had no contact with Daithí McKay, the Chairperson, about Jamie Bryson.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Tell me this: would you consider that a clear answer?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am offering you an opportunity to answer.
5 Mr Ó Muilleoir: Would you consider it a clear answer if I was to answer that question? How many times have I answered that question so far today?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, I am trying to differentiate between conversations you may have had with the Chairperson about Jamie Bryson —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You do not have to differentiate between anything.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): — conversations that you had with the Chairperson in and around his evidence, prior to him giving evidence, conversations you may have had with Daithí McKay after he gave his evidence and any conversations you have had with Daithí McKay or anybody on his behalf after the article came out in the newspaper. Those are very different questions.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I will exercise an abundance of patience. I had no involvement whatsoever with this affair: none, zilch, nada, nothing. I cannot be of help to you in that regard.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): For the record, you are confirming that you had no conversations with Daithí McKay at any stage about Jamie Bryson.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You are watching too much 'Peyton Place'. For the record, it is all over the media. I am repeating it —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am giving you the opportunity on the record, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You are very kind: you have given me that opportunity about 10 times already today. We have been very firm — it is always a danger when you start using the royal "we" — but I have been very firm in this. I will exercise an abundance of patience: please move on and ask another question, if you wish.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Do you know Mr Thomas O'Hara?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Did Thomas O'Hara to your knowledge —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Do I get any marks for answering one of the yes/no questions with a yes or a no?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Did Thomas O'Hara, as far as you are aware, work for Daithí McKay?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have no idea.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Where you aware that Thomas O'Hara worked for Sinn Féin?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I wonder what relevance that would have to this set of communications and whatever else — my knowledge of who Mr O'Hara was? I suspect it is of no relevance, because, if I had no involvement with, knowledge of or part in, it does not matter if —
Mr Wells: Answer the question, please.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have had two interruptions from Mr Wells. We will see how he gets on when it comes to his chance to ask a question.
Mr Wells: I look forward to it.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: That is three interruptions. We will see how you get on.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, with the greatest respect, we know that Thomas O'Hara was in communication with Jamie Bryson. There has been some suggestion that Mr O'Hara
6 was employed by Daithí McKay. It is clear from the exchanges that Mr O'Hara has considerable knowledge in and around the NAMA-related issues. It is also common knowledge the way in which the Sinn Féin party system operates and that you have a huge number —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: What way would that be? Let us test your knowledge of how Sinn Féin operates.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I think it is common knowledge, Minister. I am not here to answer your questions. We have asked you here to answer questions on the public record.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is a conversation that we are having, Madam Chairwoman; I am not a witness.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): It is very clear that Sinn Féin, as a party, has a number of people employed on policy issues. We have Mr O'Hara, who knows a great deal about NAMA. I am trying to establish whether he was working to Daithí McKay or working to Sinn Féin. You are a member of Sinn Féin. If he was working to Sinn Féin, that is a very different issue.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: OK. Tell me this: are we having a conversation, or are you going to refuse to answer any questions?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, you are here to answer our questions.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have just asked you a question, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You offered to come along and answer those questions.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have just asked you a question. Are we having a conversation, or are you going to refuse to answer any questions? You just said that you are not going to answer any questions I put. Are we having a conversation, or are you going to treat me as a witness?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I suggest to you, Minister, that these are straightforward questions. Either it is within your knowledge or not that Thomas O'Hara works for Sinn Fein. There are further questions. You will appreciate that sometimes we need to break these down and establish what is happening. It is important, for example, whether you received any briefings from Thomas O'Hara.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Be my guest. I had no involvement in this particular issue, in any way. I would love to help you about Thomas O'Hara, but I do not know him. Have I met him? I do not know if I ever met him; he might have been in the same room as I was in. I have never received any briefings from him. I would love to help you with this inquiry. I hope your next witnesses that you bring in — if you treat them like witnesses — I hope that they are more helpful than I can be, but I am a blank slate on this one. Maybe we should have just talked about the budgets and the rates because, on this one, I am not going to be able to help you. But keep going.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I will continue to pursue these questions —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Good for you.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): — because I think that they are relevant. Minister, these are very simple to answer, either yes or no, within your knowledge. You have stated to the media that you have nothing to hide on this. I am giving you the opportunity to put on the record here some facts around this. I made it clear to you that I am not sitting here in judgement; I am asking you to put down a series of facts in and around this that are of concern to the Committee. I think that the employee situation of Thomas O'Hara is relevant to this.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Good.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): He is clearly working on behalf of somebody. The question is whether he is employed by Daithí McKay and working on behalf of Daithí McKay. If he is employed by Sinn Féin, he is working not only for Daithí McKay but arguably to all of the Committee members at that time, including you. Were you aware that Thomas O'Hara was working for Sinn Féin or for Daithí McKay?
7 Mr Ó Muilleoir: With all due respect to you, I have no knowledge of who Thomas O'Hara is or is not, so I cannot help you with this line of inquiry. I suggest that, if you are interested in Mr O'Hara, you invite him in. Maybe he can answer the questions. I do not believe I ever met the guy. I do not believe I have ever had any contact with him. I had certainly never heard of him until the story broke. It may be a fruitful area for Mr McKay or Mr O'Hara or, indeed, the bold Mr Bryson to discuss when they come in, but I cannot help you with any knowledge of Mr O'Hara and what he did or did not do.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): So you are clearly stating to the Committee that, as far as you are aware, you do not know Mr Thomas O'Hara, you have never met Thomas O'Hara, you have had no communication from Thomas O'Hara and you have never been briefed by Thomas O'Hara, especially in relation to NAMA?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: That is a very good summary, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Are you confirming that is the case?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am saying that that is right on the money as well.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK. I want to read something. You were in for the previous discussion. In relation to the disclosure that we have received, there is a reference to you:
"Try to get Martin to say something in the meeting, even let him see how comprehensive the document is, so as he knows it's not" —
I know that Jim is here, so I will not repeat the language at the end of that; I do want to offend anybody. That has been stated by this Thomas O'Hara, whom, you indicated, you have never met and did not know of. You are not aware that he works for Sinn Féin.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Tell me this, Madam Chairwoman —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Do you have any comment to make about that? How do you feel about that?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Maybe you will help me. I was in the room, but I was answering emails and speaking to people. I am sorry, what was the revelation, if that is what it can be called, today?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): We have received the full transcript of the exchanges —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: From whom?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): — and you are referenced by —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: From whom?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): This is from Jamie Bryson, who sent this to Jim Allister. Jim Allister has forwarded this information.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It has been laundered through Mr Allister's office. That gives me a lot of confidence.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): But that information —
Mr Allister: I do object to the comment "laundered"; I really do.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Good for you.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Let us be careful. What we are talking about here are serious matters. Your name is mentioned by a party colleague of yours, Thomas O'Hara, twice in this. I want to give you the opportunity to say. You have said that you have nothing to do with this, but I want to allow you to put on the record whether at any time you did or said anything in the Committee,
8 during the DFP/NAMA inquiry that the Committee was undertaking at that time, at the request of Thomas O'Hara or Daithí McKay.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I do not know who Mr O'Hara is. I have never had any contact with him. On the issue of Mr Bryson's evidence, I received absolutely no advice, counsel or directions from Mr McKay. I go back, because I said this at the start: I did not catch it entirely, and I have not actually seen the full transcript. I do not know if it would be enlightening to see the full transcript or not, to be quite honest, but it really does not matter if I am mentioned two times or 20 times or 200 times: I had nothing to do with this. Thank you for what I would call a fair question; I hope that was a fair answer.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK. Do you know who Tom Huncheon is?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am afraid not.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Have you ever been contacted by a man called Tom Huncheon —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): — as far as you are aware?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Help me. I have never heard of the guy. Who is he? Is he a friend?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): All we know about him, Minister, is that he has got an email address called [email protected]
Mr Ó Muilleoir: So, does he exist?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Regardless of whether the man exists — we have no information about him — it is referenced again by your party colleague, Mr Thomas O'Hara.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: He is not my party colleague.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): As far as you are aware, have you at any time had any email contact from the email address [email protected]?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: So, this is a man — we presume it is a man — and we do not know if he exists, and you are asking me if I had any contact with the man who did not exist, the invisible man. I have never heard of the guy.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I will give you some background: this appears to be some sort of postbox for information back and forth around evidence to the DFP/NAMA inquiry by Sinn Féin.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I never heard of him.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): There is some suggestion here that documents were sent to this Hotmail account. I ask you to put it on the record: have you, as far as you are aware, had any contact from that email address?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Not only [Inaudible.]
Mr O'Dowd: Could you put on record the link to Sinn Féin?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Well, it is suggested that — well, OK, I will say that a Sinn Féin member, Thomas O'Hara — the Minister seemed confused as to why I was asking him that. I am saying that there is some suggestion that this was used as some sort of postbox email address for the evidence from Jamie Bryson, which was subsequently received by Thomas O'Hara, a Sinn Féin member.
9 I just wanted to give you the opportunity to confirm that you have had no contact from that Hotmail address, as far as you are aware.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have never heard of the invisible man, and he has never been in contact with me.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK, moving on. Again, you can answer this, or you may decline to answer this —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You will have to ask it first, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You have indicated that you have had no contact with Daithí McKay. You have had no contact with Thomas O'Hara and do not know who Thomas O'Hara is. In terms of the Committee inquiry in the previous mandate, did you receive any instructions or requests in terms of anything that you were to say or do in that Committee from Sinn Féin?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I understand that your questions are on a list and you are reading from it. It may be difficult to listen to or take on board what I have said previously, but I have answered that one too — a few minutes ago. I will leave it like that; I think that that is enough. I do not know how many questions that you did not hear the original answer to you will ask again. But, sure, keep going.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I want to offer you the fullest possible opportunity in terms of all aspects of this. There are a number of questions.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You are very kind. As you pointed out, it is in Hansard. If you go back and check Hansard, you will see that I have answered that question. I am happy to take the next question.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): The key aspect is that there is a serious allegation. I do not think that there is any way that you can get round that the previous Chairperson and somebody who, it is speculated, was employed by him — we do not know that yet, and you have not shed any light on it — a possible employee who was acting on behalf of the previous Chairperson were involved in collusion, discussions and back and forth in terms of evidence to an inquiry that you sat on. I am trying to tease out what role you had and what information you knew. You are indicating to me that, as you sat on that inquiry and Committee, you received no instruction from Sinn Féin or anybody associated with Sinn Féin about what you should do and that you had no conversations about what you should do in any part of that inquiry. You were operating absolutely singly as a member of that Committee in terms of all decisions, acts and questions.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You were doing well there. You sounded a bit like me, but you then went a step further and said something that I never said. I have never said that I did not have pre-meetings around the inquiry or did not talk to other people in Sinn Féin around the inquiry. I am happy to say again and again that I had no involvement in or communications, advice, directions or anything else in relation to Mr Bryson's evidence.
Let us not make the mistake of putting words in my mouth. We are here to discuss one issue. There were other issues during the NAMA inquiry around PIMCO, Fortress and Cerberus. The inquiry went on for some time so, of course, I would have spoken to colleagues in Sinn Féin around those matters. However, on the issue under discussion here today and why you are gathered together in Committee, I refer to my original statement: I had no involvement of any type in the communications, dialogue or whatever you call it — the inappropriate behaviour. I had no knowledge of it of any type.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): To be fair, I am trying to clearly differentiate. That is why the questions are very specific, even though you have not answered a great many of them. Let us separate out the general inquiry. You said to us that you had pre-meetings. Presumably, those were on a party basis, which, presumably, is not uncommon. However, you are telling us that at no point during a pre-meeting, despite the fact that you had pre-meetings, did the issue of Jamie Bryson giving evidence come up and that you had no discussion about that. Minister, that is why I am trying to get at the detail of this. Perhaps you were out of the country at the time or were distracted by something else and were not involved in that. It would certainly strike people as unusual that you had a discussion but yet were privy to no discussions whatever with any of your party colleagues, anybody in your party, no party employees or the Chairperson of that inquiry. That is what you are saying to us today: you had no conversations about Jamie Bryson's evidence before or after he gave it.
10 Mr Ó Muilleoir: Again, you are doing well. You actually sound a bit like me, but then you go too far ahead. To suggest that, when Jamie Bryson came in here, I at no time said to big John O'Dowd in the Assembly, "Jamie Bryson's in — the man himself — on Wednesday. How do you think that evidence will go?" or that we did not speak about it leading up to it is going too far ahead. I am sure that all those things would have happened in the normal course of events. You will know that it was a big moment for the Committee. In fact, I think we debated it in several meetings beforehand. Paul and I would have disagreed about whether to allow Mr Bryson to speak in public, as it were. I stand over the decision to allow him to speak in public. I am not saying that I never discussed the fact that Jamie Bryson was coming to the Committee. It actually went on for several weeks.
To give you your due, Madam Chairwoman, you put it well: I had no involvement in that particular affair, communications or direction. I had no knowledge of it. You did well in summarising my position, but you then made a wee leap, which I did not say. Certainly, on the issue of trying to usurp or subvert the role of the Committee, prepare witnesses or have a discussion outside the room to prep witnesses, I am afraid that I had no involvement in all of that whatsoever.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I appreciate that the Minister likes to operate at a high level on many of these issues. You made a very general statement about having no knowledge or involvement with it, yet you have just said to the Committee that, of course, you had conversations with party colleagues and others in relation to Jamie Bryson's evidence. I have been trying to tease this out and give you the opportunity to indicate who you had those conversations with. You have said that you did not have them and have told us who you did not have them with. You said on record that you did not have any conversations with Daithí McKay about this.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, I am not saying that. The NAMA inquiry went on for nine months. This inquiry is about the attempt to usurp the role of the Committee, an attempt to subvert the Committee, an attempt to go behind closed doors and try to prep a witness. Whatever happened in that regard I had no knowledge of, no involvement with and no part in. You can be sure that I said to a few Members of the DUP, whether in the cafe or the corridors, "There is a big debate going on here". Judith Cochrane would have discussed it. To give her her full right, she had a different view from mine on whether Jamie Bryson should give evidence in public. So, obviously, whether it was Sinn Féin, the DUP, the UUP or other Members, we would have been saying that for some time. It was the biggest debate. I do not remember if it was two meetings or three meetings. However, you see, we are not investigating that. You are not actually investigating anything, but you have not asked me here to discuss that. What you have asked me to discuss is any light at all getting in, any linkage, any connection, any thread that can link me to the affair surrounding Messrs O'Hara, Bryson and McKay. Here is the rub. It is a long time since I was in Donostia/San Sebastián, but, in that period, those who were throwing the mud have not been able to get any thread, any scintilla of evidence, any little square patch of evidence linking me to this disgraceful and inappropriate behaviour. I am trying to be as helpful as I can, and we are not even out of the blocks yet, there are other people —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I think —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just let me finish, Madam Chairwoman. I am happy for you to think and have your opinions. At the end of the day, people will listen to the witnesses and come to their conclusion. However, we have been here a wee while and there is still nothing whatsoever that diverts or deflects me from what I said at the very start, which is that I had no hand, act or part in these communications and knew nothing about them until they broke when I was on holiday. I am happy for you to pick that scab, scrape around that and do what you can around it, but there will not be any difference, and the questioning will not lead to any link at all from me to this affair.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Surely the Minister can understand this: I asked you a series of questions about what communication you did or did not have, and you were saying that you did not have any communication, did not talk about this evidence etc. You are now saying to us that, of course, you had pre-meetings and conversations and that that went on for months. What I am trying to identify — it is a very legitimate question — is what those conversations were about. Arguably, Minister, if you have a pre-meeting, presumably it is to decide what course of action you will take. I am not saying to you that you may have known what was happening. That is for somebody else to investigate. I am saying that, if you were sitting with Daithí McKay presumably as your policy lead and as chairperson in your pre-meeting and he was saying, "Look, you ask these questions. You intervene there. This is the way that we are going to vote", that is very relevant to what we are trying to look at.
11 Mr Ó Muilleoir: Good for you, Madam Chair, but I have answered that question too. I have said that I took my own counsel on this, received no direction, no advice, no prior knowledge, no attempt to tell me what I should or should not do with Mr Bryson's statement. In fact, when he made his statement — Mr Wells and Mr Girvan were there, but I am not sure who else was on the Committee at that time, maybe Ms Hanna — it then dictated the pace of the questioning. I had not heard the statement before then. There was no attempt by anyone to intimate that that statement would be made or would be coming out. I am happy to help you, but no one advised me. I know that other people have had a chance to go through the evidence by watching the video and so on, but I read through the Hansard report the other night and I stand over my statement, which has been made many times here: I had no knowledge of this affair and no involvement in trying to usurp the role of the Committee, which I defended forthrightly. I had no knowledge of it and none of my questioning was influenced by anyone else, whether they be members of the DUP, the Alliance Party or Sinn Féin.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am sure that the Minister will understand the concern about some detailed transcripts that we have there. Clearly, this man, Thomas O'Hara, whom, by your own record, you have never met and do not know and who has never been in contact with you — that is your record — has a significant amount of knowledge in and around the NAMA/DFP Committee inquiry-related issues. There is no doubt about that from reading this. There is a significant amount of knowledge. Not only that, this man whom you have never met and do not know mentions you, just using your first name, on two separate occasions with regard to what you were going to do at the Committee. With the evidence that you have given, if I were you, I would be very angry that this man is making promises to Mr Bryson, indicating that you will be able to jump in and saying what you will be able to do. Now, you are saying that you had no involvement with any of that, that you had no knowledge of what was being promised by a party member on your behalf and that you certainly did not act in accordance with that, but we have heard and you have admitted that you had pre-meetings in relation to this. We have a situation where —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, no, no —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Are you saying that —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Pull up. Hold those horses.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You had indicated that you had a series —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Hold those horses, Madam Chairwoman. Hold your horses. I have stated many times that I had no knowledge of this, no pre-meetings, no advice and no direction on this particular affair of communication between Mr Bryson, Mr McKay and Mr O'Hara. Again, you were doing well, but do not railroad me into anything I did not say. Madam Chairwoman, I do not —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am allowing you a lot of space here to answer, OK? I will clarify the question.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: OK —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am going to clarify the question for you, OK?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, Madam Chairwoman, you did not ask a question about —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am not talking about this incident: Jamie Bryson's evidence is what I am asking you about. What you are doing is conflating the two issues. You are conflating the email exchanges and the alleged conspiracy. My question to you, legitimately, is about what discussions you had about Jamie Bryson's evidence. Now, you have stated that you had conversations with party colleagues and others about Jamie Bryson's evidence. Of course, it is up to you whether you want to answer this, but, for the record, did you have pre-meeting or party discussions in relation to Jamie Bryson's evidence, separate from —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I do not mind you fielding questions or coming back on questions, but, just for the record, you said that, if you were me, you would be angry. Well, anger is not a good emotion, Madam Chairwoman, so I do not think that any of us should be angry about this.
12 The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Your party colleague is saying that you are some puppet on a string that will react in a certain way.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I know that Mr Allister and Mr Wells are keen to interrupt, but let us have the Minister of Finance being allowed to answer a long question followed by a long supplementary question. Whatever way you wish to approach the question — I am on record as saying that I was shocked when the revelations were made — the great thing about it is that what I said on my arrival back at work the first morning remains the case. It remains the fact of the matter. It remains irrefutable. It remains unquestionable because it is the truth: I had no involvement whatsoever in this matter.
I will save their blushes by not naming the members of the DUP, Alliance Party or SDLP, including my good colleague Dominic Ó Brollacháin. We would have had discussion around who was the witness that day, whether it be Paddy Kearney, Mr Bryson or the Law Society. We would have had discussions. You see, that is not the nub of the matter. The nub of the matter is whether any of those discussions indicate that I was involved with this communication and the attempt to usurp the right and role of the Committee — that is the nub — or whether anyone tried to dupe me into doing so. On both, I am unequivocal and clear: I had no involvement in it, and no one told me what to say at that Committee. I cannot be much clearer than that, but test me. Maybe I will try again.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I thank the Minister for that answer. I want you to understand what we are trying to get at, regardless of whether you had knowledge of the exchange. You have said very clearly on record that you had no knowledge of the exchange or that there had been contact. These are serious allegations, and people are rightly concerned. Jamie Bryson is seemingly indicating here that he will use any old name because the Committee cannot check it, so he will just tell them a source. He was misleading the Committee in a matter of such importance, and this was something that was known by Mr O'Hara. If you were told in a pre-meeting, "Right, we are going to vote this way. We are going to vote to allow Jamie Bryson's evidence. You must jump in and say that this is critical", then what I am trying to establish, regardless of your knowledge, is whether you were influenced in the way you acted. You are indicating that you did not know about this, but the question, ultimately, is whether you were influenced by the coaching, collaboration and collusion that appears to have taken place. There is a clear difference there, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thanks, Madam Chairwoman. It only took you half an hour to accept that what I am saying about having no knowledge of and no part or involvement in the matter is the truth.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am stating it as a fact that you have said that on record.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just to go back, I want to mention two things. You are fully entitled to consider these as serious allegations; to me, they are part of a sorry affair. Really, whether I was mentioned twice — I am not sure whether I was mentioned three times, 300 times, 200 times, twice or once — does not matter to me. Maybe the allegation was made 15 times, but it is the same as the two guys standing in a cafe talking about me now or two people down in Kelly's Cellars on a Saturday night. They can say, tweet or Facebook whatever they want, but it will not change the facts of the case. I will state them again: first, there was no involvement in the attempt to usurp the right of the Committee; and, secondly, no one directed me in my evidence. No one said, "Jump in here. Don't jump in there". In fact, I stand over the questions I put that day. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I will try to resist stepping into the irony of "He said, she said, and some man in a pub makes this allegation". You were part and parcel — this is what we are looking at — of calling somebody, and this is what the controversy over the evidence is about: hearsay evidence, direct evidence or allegations without proof. That is what we are trying to look at. Many would probably say that there is irony there. You have made many statements about —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Are we going to discuss irony now?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): There are serious issues in this. We are trying to give you an opportunity to speak on the record about that. There will be an investigation of all of this.
Mr O'Dowd: Not by this Committee. By whom?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): By the police in the first instance.
13 Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman, it sounds like an A-level question now: let us discuss irony. If I was mentioned 40 times, four times or two times, it makes no difference to me. I had no involvement in it, so I do not really care, if it is two guys in a café or somebody else. I stand over our approach, as other members do. I think that I speak for the DUP: it stands over its decision that Jamie Bryson should not have been allowed to give evidence in public. I cannot remember how Judith Cochrane voted in the end, but I think that the Ulster Unionists voted with me, and I stand over the decision. That does not take away from the fact that there was clearly an attempt to usurp the right of the Committee, which I condemn. I had no knowledge of it. We are now moving into irony: it will be like a response to an A-level English language question. Hopefully, that has been helpful.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I want to allow other members in, because I know that there is a range of questions. There is no doubt that to be accused of something, when you are innocent, with no proof whatsoever is not good. It is not what Committees should do.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Do not worry about it.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): There will be investigations. They have happened a number of times, and I do not think that they have done Committees any good.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Would you rather —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): We are trying to tease this out. You are there to say, "I didn't do this". It is now on the record that you did not. In terms of that investigation, it is about openness around that. Before I move on to other members —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman, do not be worried about me. I am totally relaxed about this; I am totally chillaxed about this. I do not really care whether I am mentioned twice or 200 times: I had no involvement in this. I appreciate your sympathy and the fact that you are —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I think —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just to finish, Madam Chairwoman; I know you are going to move on. I appreciate your sympathy and your concern for me, but I am not in any way distressed or concerned about this matter, because what I have said has been proven to be right in the time since. I admire the fact that you have gone through all of your questions and we are exactly where I was with my opening remark: I had no involvement, no part in, no communication with any of the players. But, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I think we have had some further insights into conversations that you have had. I am glad that you are chillaxed about this, because most people are not. They are serious allegations —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well, you would be surprised, Madam Chairwoman. Maybe it is not a very sensible thing, but I could probably say that I am out and about morning, noon and night — more than any other Member of this august Assembly and certainly more than any other Minister. They have more sense; they are at their desks trying to do their work. It is funny out there, you know. I was at a conference at the Slieve Donard Hotel this morning, I have been in Banbridge, I have been in Enniskillen a couple of times and Omagh. In relation to my involvement in it no one is concerned at all. I am happy to make an exception for you and the members of the Committee, but, when I meet the IoD, the CBI, the small business associations or NIIRTA, believe me, this is not on the agenda. It is not item 1 on the agenda. It is not even item 20, but I am doing you the courtesy and respect of being here to answer your questions.
If you ask me, what people are concerned about is the NAMA/Cerberus scandal. They are concerned about the fact that there was a bailout three times — three times — for the people involved at the heart of this scandal and nothing has happened to the golden circle involved in it. First, when the golden circle broke the bank and there had to be a €65 million bailout, which made them whole again, and it went on, of course, when the bankers continued to get their bonuses. That was the first blow to the poor: as our great friend Yanis Varoufakis says, the poor suffer what they will. That was the first one, but the second was when Project Eagle came about and was sold, and €5 billion became around £1·3 billion. What an act of magic that was. They took the debt burden of Project Eagle, and they loaded it onto the shoulders of the ordinary working people of the South of Ireland.
14 The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): And the members want to talk about that issue later on —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am not finished, Madam Chairwoman —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am going to bring you back to the actual point of why you are here.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You may, but I am not —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): There is no doubt that is of interest to people. There is no doubt about it, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am not finished; I will have my day as well. I will speak for those who had the burden of that debt transferred to their shoulders, and the ordinary working people in the South of Ireland and their children and their children's children will be paying off that debt. That was Project Eagle. As if that was not bad enough, it was corrupt at its core; it was a dirty scheme. The people who are carrying the burden, who will have to cope with the emigration and the unemployment and the hardship, will have to look on, while the golden circle, who bust the country had another run at it, a second bailout. Madam Chairwoman, I have not finished — a third bailout. Those who benefited from —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, we will discuss this later on. I know that the members are keen to ask questions. They have heard you speak about this before and have asked you to come along on a specific issue. This is a very good segue to my final question before I invite members in, which is this: how many other witnesses or property developers did you meet during that period?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Let me just finish this, and then we will come on to your question. I will have my say in the Committee or anywhere else —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You talk a lot about the poor and those who are burdened, but we know that you met some of the property developers —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: The Finance Minister will have a say at the Committee. Here is the third bailout for the golden circle. After the deal was done, and the money was moved to the Isle of Man, and the ordinary people were left in negative equity, they shared the spoils. Some of the golden circle who bust the country emerged back —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, those matters are under police investigation, and the Committee is being very careful about drawing conclusions in relation to those issues.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thank you; thank you.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You are drawing a number of conclusions here, I have to say.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thank you, and I will draw more conclusions, Madam Chairwoman. The third bailout for the golden circle was linked to the NAMA/Cerberus deal, because it was not just a rotten, sordid, stew of corruption that affected Project Eagle's sale —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): As the Chairperson of this Committee, I have a responsibility for legal considerations, and the NCA has given me indications particularly on drawing conclusions. There is an investigation under way, and, at the end of it, there will be conclusions and judgements. None of us can sit here and say what did or did not happen, quite frankly. You have not answered — [Interruption.] Sorry, John, do you have a comment?
Mr O'Dowd: I think that you have just spent half an hour doing that.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I have been trying to tease out with the Minister, legitimately, absolutely legitimately —
15 Mr O'Dowd: No, you have been trying to reach conclusions about who Jamie Bryson was or was not in contact with and trying to reach conclusions on whether the Minister was or was not in contact with Jamie Bryson. That is an investigation that the PSNI has asked us not to get involved in. I think that we can explore this, but you cannot put out what the NCA has asked us not to do in relation to NAMA and then do the exact same thing in relation to this.
Ms Ruane: Exactly.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): As we discussed, we are not carrying out an inquiry into this; the independent commissioner will look at these issues. I want to afford you the opportunity —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): — I have said this time and time again, to put on record —
Ms Ruane: It sounds like you are trying to be the independent commissioner, Chair. That is what it sounds like.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I absolutely accept that your party colleagues are very much in support of you on this one, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I would hate for you to fight over me, Madam Chairwoman. Do you know what will happen here today? I will finish my point. I do not mind if you ask the first member to come in, but I will finish the point.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, this came up in the previous inquiry, and what I am trying to get at is the integrity of the previous inquiry about what happened and what was and was not reliable. I want to bring other Committee members in here. The one thing that was apparent throughout that was that a number of Committee members came to a judgement in the middle of evidence sessions before hearing certain evidence. We have had a discussion about trying not to do that in a Committee inquiry. You can put certain things to people and allow them to answer those, but at no point are we reaching conclusions or making judgements on anything. There are investigations ongoing. To be fair, Minister, you have been stating a number of positions about what had happened there. I know that you are very keen to say that — you have done it before — but you are here to speak about a certain issue, and I will bring you back to that issue. I want to bring in Jonathan Bell.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Let me just say, before Jonathan comes in, that I did reach conclusions around the NAMA/Cerberus scandal —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): In the middle of the evidence.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: And I have made judgements. I want to finish the point about the third bailout for the golden circle. After the NAMA/Cerberus deal was done, they re-emerged and got back the land that was seized by NAMA in Project Eagle. They came out of the woodwork, were made whole and received their land.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): This is a bit of a distraction here, Minister, to be fair.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is not a distraction if you are from the Markets area of South Belfast, where I was last night, at a public meeting. Someone who was supposed to be bankrupt in the first deal, which bankrupted an entire state — the €65 million, or rather €65 billion — and was supposed to have lost out on the Project Eagle deal re-emerges, and we have in the Market area — an area like Sandy Row, Donegall Pass or Tiger's Bay — a 14-storey tower block in the middle of an estate. Let us be clear about who is suffering, how the rich got richer and how the poor will suffer what they must. I will not be silent on the stew of corruption that was the NAMA/Cerberus scandal. I hope that, whether it is through Kevin Geddes, the NCA, the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Garda Síochána, those responsible for what was a dodgy and dirty deal are brought to justice. I am happy that I was able to help you so far today, and I look forward to working with members. Let us not forget why we are here. This is important: what has happened between Messrs Bryson, O'Hara and McKay —
16 The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am giving you a lot of leeway, Minister, I have to say.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just to finish, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Finish up quite quickly, please.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I will be brief. This is important, and I respect and accept the right of the Committee to ask questions about it, but it is not as important as the corruption that surrounded the sale of Project Eagle and the hardship caused by that to ordinary people.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Thank you.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the leeway.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Thank you. We are all conscious of time. I know that you have answered a range of questions, but I come back to the point that the Committee is seriously concerned about what it considers to be — I know that all things are relative — a very serious issue, particularly in light of the issues about somebody misleading the Committee, not being honest about sources, not being honest about any evidence and causing damage to people's reputations and names. Those are all serious matters as well. I want to bring in Jonathan, who indicated first, as well as a number of other members.
Mr Bell: Minister, when did you first have contact with witnesses to the NAMA Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No idea. Can somebody — Mr Allister is usually good at this — tell me when the NAMA inquiry investigation started? Does anybody know? You are all studying this and are on the cusp of another investigation, so somebody must know.
Mr Bell: When was your first recollection, Minister, of having contact with witnesses to the NAMA Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have no idea. Somebody help me. When did the —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): July 2015.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think that that is a good date, Jonathan — July 2014.
Mr Wells: 2015.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Sorry, 2015. Thank you, Jim. They would need to read out all the witnesses because we heard from quite a few people. We heard from Ministers, from Peter Robinson and from Martin McGuinness. Maybe you could be more precise.
Mr Bell: What communication did you have with witnesses to the Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think I said to Mr Robinson, "Shall I call you Peter or First Minister?", and he said, "Call me Peter". I do not know whether I had any communication with the Law Society. Were the banks in or NAMA? I cannot help you. If somebody wants to provide a full list of all of the people who gave evidence to the Committee, we can go over that.
With respect, Jonathan, let us all get to the point. If there is anything in this line of questioning that wishes to connect me to the acts of Mr O'Hara, Mr Bryson and Mr McKay, let us get to it, because the answer will be that I had no part in it. Keep on.
Mr Bell: Did you have any indirect communication or contact with witnesses to the Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well, Mr Robinson and I would occasionally nod across at each other in the Assembly. Other than that — it is an interesting area that you are exploring. We are here to deal with Mr O'Hara, Mr Bryson and Mr McKay.
17 Mr Bell: I will ask you again: what contact did you have, directly or indirectly, with any witnesses to the Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think that I answered that. I think that Mr Robinson and I would nod across the Assembly occasionally.
Mr Bell: Is that the sum total of it?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, I have not finished.
Mr Bell: OK.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You will have to take your time. I think that you would have to supply all the names of witnesses. What I would do at that point, when you in your wisdom, Jonathan, said, "I am going to draw up a list of all these witnesses" — Jim was not the Clerk then, unfortunately, so he cannot help us — I would say, "This is a very interesting line of enquiry. I wonder does the Assembly have a standards commissioner who could investigate the matter". I would send you packing. I would say, "Get to the heart of the matter: McKay, Bryson, O'Hara and the communications that tried to usurp" —
Mr Bell: Did you have financial involvement with any of the witnesses to the inquiry?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just to finish, what I would say is that with all those —
Mr Bell: Minister, the question is this: did you have any financial involvement, directly or indirectly through your numerous businesses, with any witnesses to the inquiry?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: That is actually the next question. I am still answering the question before that. What I would say to you, when you came forward with that —
Mr Bell: This is a diversion, Madam Chair. Can I ask the Minister to answer the question of whether he had any direct or indirect financial involvement with any of the witnesses to the NAMA inquiry?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You were talking, Madam Chairwoman. He is looking for a direction before I answer the question before this question.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am getting an indication about that.
Mr Bell: The question I am asking, Madam Chair, as, I suspect, the Minister knows well, is whether he had any financial involvement with any witness to the NAMA inquiry.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Yes, but I am —
Mr Bell: Yes, you did?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Does the Minister want to answer that question?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thank you, but I will answer the question before that one first. The answer to that question is that if Jonathan, in his wisdom, wanted to quiz me, grill me, interrogate me or ask me questions about the entire NAMA investigation, I would direct him to the office of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): You understand — just to put it on record — that there is an investigation. I think that a complaint has been made regarding a financial relationship between you, as director of the newspaper group, and one of the witnesses, and you had not declared any interest at that time. That is the subject of an ongoing investigation. Again, it is a matter for you, Minister, to put on the record. It is your opportunity to say that you did not have any —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You are very kind.
18 The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): If you want to decline to answer, please say, "Decline to answer", and we will put that on the record.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have to answer the question before that, and then we will decide whether we decline to answer. The answer to the question before that is that, if Jonathan, in his wisdom, wanted to replace the office of the Assembly standards commissioner, then I would say to him, "Jonathan, why the hell do you think we have an Assembly standards commissioner to investigate MLAs? If you want to turn this hearing into a round-the-houses discussion about Máirtín Ó Muilleoir or the NAMA investigation, good luck to you". I am not sure where the office of the standards commissioner is — I think that it is in this Building somewhere — but that is where I would direct you.
Secondly, Sammy Wilson — God bless him, I did not know when his name would come up — made a complaint in relation to me and my constituent Gareth Graham. The Welsh Standards Commissioner had to hear it, because the boul Sammy had insulted our local commissioner so much so that he retired, resigned, stepped back or stepped aside from that investigation. I am very confident that, when the Standards Commissioner for the Welsh Assembly reports, he will find that I acted in line with proper procedure at all times.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK, we will put you down as having declined to answer.
Mr Bell: Minister, the question is this: did you have any financial involvement with any witnesses to the Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman —
Mr Bell: First would be the answer yes or no, and second, if the answer is yes, would be which of the witnesses you had the financial involvement with. That is what the public are interested in, and your evasion is becoming more and more interesting.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Is it? Madam Chairwoman, you need to be careful when you say that I declined to answer. I actually gave a very full answer, and I will give it again for the good of the health of Jonathan. If Jonathan, in his wisdom, thinks that he will use the Committee — this is early days, as we are going right around and have not got to Mr Wells yet — to drag Máirtín Ó Muilleoir or the whole NAMA investigation into this Committee meeting, he has another think coming. As I said before, when the good Gerard Elias, Standards Commissioner for Wales, reports on the latest complaint from Sammy Wilson — and it is not the end of them. For a guy who gave us all a great turn at the Committee, he is a serial complainant when it comes to these matters. I will not be doing that today.
Mr Bell: Why will you not tell us today if you any financial interest with the witness?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I was going to give you one more chance.
Mr Bell: Why would you seek to hide that from the public?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I was going to give you one more chance, Jonathan, so you have got it.
Mr Bell: Why would you seek to hide from the public whether you had any financial interest with any witness to the inquiry?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I was going to give you one more chance, and you have got it. Jonathan, for you in particular to come here —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Now, I would warn you to be very careful here, Minister —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: For you, Madam Chairwoman, in particular —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I do not want any scurrilous accusations to try to deflect from your answers. You have a question here. For the record, you can answer the question and say, "No, I did not", or you can answer the question and say, "Somebody else is investigating that". What I am hearing —
19 Mr Ó Muilleoir: You are attempting that.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): What I am hearing from your answers is "Somebody else is investigating that"; that is what you are saying. You do not want to put it on record that you do not at this stage.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No. There is no ongoing investigation of those matters at all, the matter of my constituent Mr Gareth Graham. That investigation is concluded, and we look forward to hearing the result.
Mr Bell: To put it a slightly different way, when did you first declare, as you are legally obliged to do, any relationship with the witness to the Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is hard to know when you say, Jonathan, but as the man who did more —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Again, I would —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: As the man who did more —. Well, Madam Chairwoman —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, I really, as Chairperson, am not going to allow —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: We are waiting with bated breath: is the man who did more to bust the finances of this Government —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Minister, you are here to answer questions from the Committee on this issue. I will not accept the Minister or any witness starting to attack members of the Committee and make various allegations.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have not got to Mr Hussey or Mr Wells yet.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I ask the Minister to keep calm and to step back from insulting members of the Committee. There is a question there. I know the question has been asked a number of times, so let us hear the answer.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your concern about my emotions and my anger or other things, but I can assure you when I say, as the Finance Minister, to Jonathan Bell that no one did more to damage —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I am not going to allow this, Minister. We are not going to get into an exchange in relation to various allegations away from what we are here to talk about. Jonathan has asked a question a number of times. You have been asked whether or not you had any financial interest in any of the other witnesses. There is an answer to that. The answer could be no; the answer could be yes; or the answer could be, "There is an investigation elsewhere".
Mr O'Dowd: On a point of order, you have just made a ruling that we are not going to be distracted from the subject that we are discussing. The Minister is in front of us today to discuss alleged coaching by the Chair of a witness. What has Mr Bell's question got to do with that?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): We are here to discuss inappropriate contact with witnesses in this exchange. I have indicated to all members, John —
Mr O'Dowd: No. According to the Clerk's brief:
"At its meeting on 23 August 2016 the Committee agreed to invite the Minister to provide oral evidence to make clear his involvement and contact with the then Chairperson during that Inquiry as it relates to the allegations of coaching."
I put it to you again: what has Mr Bell's question got to do with that?
20 The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Mr Bell is here. I have indicated very strongly to the Committee that I want everybody to have the opportunity to ask questions. I will not allow the badgering of a witness or badgering of the Minister to go beyond a certain point. Likewise, I will not allow the Minister to start making allegations against Committee members. I will allow some flexibility in questions connected to that, but, to be honest, it is absolutely clear in my view that the Minister started to make wider allegations against a member of the Committee, which is well outside the remit of what we are here to talk about. We are looking at contact between witnesses to the inquiry —
Mr O'Dowd: No. We are not. I am reading from the paper provided to the Committee. It says, under "Background", that:
"At its meeting on 23 August 2016 the Committee agreed to invite the Minister to provide oral evidence to make clear his involvement and contact with the then Chairperson during that Inquiry as it relates to the allegations of coaching."
We are not here to conduct an inquiry or an investigation into contact with witnesses to the inquiry, other than what has been set out. That is what the Committee agreed to do. If the Committee is to broaden the remit of its discussions, the Minister should be asked to leave, and the Committee should have a discussion and agree the new remit.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Thank you, John. As Chairperson of the Committee — I have done this at every evidence session so far — I allow for flexibility, provided the matter is connected to the issue. If we go beyond that or if we go too far, I will intervene. In my view, the question is legitimate, but it has been asked a number of times. I ask the member whether he has any further questions, and then we will move on. I do not want to get into this type of exchange, where allegations are thrown about —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I want to challenge that, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I feel that I should jump in to say that you cannot challenge —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I know that you are fond of Hansard, so let us get the challenge on the record. I was asked to come here to discuss the affair involving Mr Bryson, Mr O'Hara and Mr McKay. If anyone wants to go further, I would say this: I am so busy in the Department of Finance because no one did more damage to our finances than Jonathan Bell through the renewable heat incentive, and I am cleaning up his mess. And to think —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Look, I have to say —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Let me finish, Madam Chairwoman. To think that he would try to expand on your watch —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I will not allow you to —
Mr Bell: This is a diversion from his financial interests. The public have heard, Madam Chair.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Right. I want everybody —
Mr Bell: The Minister refused to answer whether he had financial interests with witnesses to the Committee. One final question —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Jonathan, sorry. I will speak to what the Minister has just said. Minister, we appreciate your coming to speak to us today, but I clearly stated on a number of occasions that I did not want you to enter into allegations about other members of the Committee, who are here legitimately to question you.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: They all know it.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Despite the fact that I communicated that to you twice, you proceeded to do it for the third time. I will allow the member to move on, but I want to put it on record
21 that I do not think that that shows respect to the Chair. Things will get rocky at times. People have legitimate questions, and that is all part of it. People need to calm down, listen to what is being said and speak to the issue. If you do not want to answer the question, simply say that you are not answering the question, and we will move on.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You are very kind, Madam Chairwoman. I am answering all the questions. You have made a ruling that I disagree with, because you asked me to come to speak about the communications. When Jonathan goes off the reservation, I am responding to say, "Jonathan, the reason we are working hard in the Department of Finance is because the renewable heat incentive that you carried through is costing the government". He does not want me to say it, Madam Chairwoman —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): We are going to move on to your next question, Jonathan.
Mr Bell: You can say whatever you wish on any issue, and I note that Sinn Féin support for renewable heat and other things is in Hansard. I will ask this directly: when, if ever, did you declare any financial interest that you had with any witness to the Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: As Mr Elias knows, my declarations were entirely on the record and were appropriate and correct. I will just say this, Jonathan: we are trying to repair the damage that you did through the renewable heat incentive, which is costing the Executive £20 million a year, and I hope that, when you stand up —
Mr Bell: Just in 12 months?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I hope that you stand up in the Assembly and say, "Mea culpa", because I am cleaning up your mess, as are other Assembly Members.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK, Minister —
Mr Bell: Through the Chair, I will talk to the 12 months I was ETI Minister. I am more than happy to do that at another stage. The question I asked was this: when, if ever, did the Minister, when he was a member of the Committee, declare to the appropriate authorities any financial involvement, either directly or indirectly, with any of the companies that he was involved in?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: My declarations were all appropriate and correct. Your pal Sammy Wilson put in a complaint about that, and I am happy that Gerard Elias will find in my favour on the matter. I am glad that, in going off the McKay area, we have had a chance to refer, Jonathan, to the hard work that the Department is putting in to clean up your mess.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK, Minister. We will move on, but, before we do, I want to make it very clear that our proceedings should be conducted with decorum. There are legitimate questions to answer, even if the answer is "No, I wasn't involved in that" or "I don't believe that that is within the remit of what I am here to answer". There are a range of things you can say if you feel that way.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Smith: Good afternoon, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Good to see you. It has been a while; this meeting started at 2.00 pm.
Mr Smith: You have been very patient, Minister, so thank you. As you know, today is very much about public confidence and playing a small part in helping to start a process of winning that back. I am not sure whether we are doing that at this stage, but let us persevere. I have only a couple of what I hope are reasonably straightforward questions.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I hope that they are not about the renewable heat incentive.
Mr Smith: No, they are not. I can assure you of that.
22 Mr Ó Muilleoir: Good for you.
Mr Smith: Was there a Sinn Féin pre-meeting before the September Committee meeting?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am sure that there was, because, whether it was two minutes or 10 minutes before a meeting, there is always a pre-meeting involving the key people, as is the case with all parties. I think, Philip, you would accept that you have not been just as strong in asking me to step aside in the past few weeks and accept, as the Chair does, that, when I say that I had no involvement in this, I did not. What you are asking is, "Was there a possibility at that meeting that someone set you up and you were duped into asking this question or that question?" The answer to that is no as well. I took my own counsel on Jamie Bryson's evidence. More than that, the evidence that Jamie Bryson gave was truly shocking to the public and, I thought, members — obviously, not to all members — and that dictated how we responded.
The nub of your question, Philip — this is terrible; you are trying to ask questions and I am asking your supplementary — is whether there was a possibility that I did not realise that the three people involved in the correspondence — if it was three people — used that meeting to roll out their plan unbeknownst to me. I can assure you that that was not the case, because the questions I asked Mr Bryson were in response to his evidence; I took my own counsel on them.
Mr Smith: Was there no debate in the pre-meeting about the witness of the day or any issues that might arise?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, there was nothing. You are asking if there was a possibility that, unbeknownst to me, Mr McKay — I am cutting to the chase — planted a question for me or said, "Come in here" or "Come in there". That did not happen. I read Hansard the other night, and I am content that I responded to the evidence on the day and was not used in any way. The crux of that question, Philip, goes back to where we were in August: did I know about the communication, and was I involved in it in any way? That would be a very serious matter. The answer to that, as you know and as I have been saying since the issue arose, is no.
Mr Smith: I appreciate that. You said that there was a short pre-meeting, but there was no discussion about the witnesses or what was about to come up. Was there any discussion with party staff about the agenda for the day? Before going to a Committee meeting, I and, I am sure, others around the table have a discussion on the issues, the research and any potential questions I might want to think about. Did any of that happen?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No. The relevance of your question is not whether we discussed how Judith Cochrane or Leslie Cree were going to vote on whether Mr Robinson should be asked questions in public. The crux of your question still comes back to whether anything was said that affected my evidence on the day that would lead anyone to believe that I had any involvement in that dialogue or conversation. The answer to that is no, Philip. I do not have Hansard in front of me, but, in three or four weeks, at least two if not three different Committee meetings discussed the issue. It would be unwise of me to say that I did not discuss it, whether with my colleagues in the DUP, the UUP, Alliance or Sinn Féin, but nothing in those conversations in any way would have given me to understand that communication was happening behind closed doors, behind our backs or, in fact, nothing happened on that day that was influenced by those who were in the know. Philip, at the end of the day, it comes down to ordinary people. They will have to make their call on this: am I telling the truth on these matters or not? I am happy to let the court of public opinion make its mind up.
Mr Smith: There was no post-Committee meeting discussion as a group afterwards to discuss how things went.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, Philip. I do not think that you were here at that time, but I will tell you this, Philip: the evidence was shocking. I am not standing over the evidence. As we know, Mr Bryson is an empty vessel who is filled by different people, but the evidence took us all back, except for those who knew beforehand and had seen it. It would be wrong to say that it did not fuel conversations not only in the House but outside the House, but nothing happened afterwards. That is something that I have thought about. How did someone not indicate that somebody had seen the evidence before it was given out? If we follow the newspapers, I think that Mr Bryson said that he provided his witness statement beforehand. I think that is what he said, but there was nothing said afterwards that, when the story broke, I had an "Aha!" moment, "So that's why that happened" or "That's why that was said".
23 Maybe I am not as aware of these things as I should be, but I did not see anything before or after until the story broke that indicated to me that there had been interference with the proper order of things.
Mr Smith: I thank the Minister for his comments. You made a statement or a suggestion earlier that we should have a conversation with Mr O'Hara. Maybe the Committee might want to discuss that after hearing your evidence.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): If anyone can find him.
Mr Smith: It does not mean that we cannot ask him and maybe some others. That might get to the nub of things.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You will agree, Philip, that the PSNI investigation takes precedence. I am happy to be here, and the Committee is doing its best and doing its duty, but I think that you will agree with me that it is a PSNI investigation. It is probably the most serious matter in front of us at the minute. When it clears the decks, you are talking about bringing people in and whether they are coming or not. There may be a day for that, or maybe not. It is up to the Committee to decide what it wants to do. However, I think that you will agree with me that the most serious person in the room today was the PSNI officer who was in before me.
Mr Smith: Indeed, a criminal investigation is under way, but, as you mentioned, there is also the court of public opinion and the credibility of this organisation, the Assembly and the Committee and what has taken place. Our challenge is trying to instil some confidence back into the institutions. We must do anything that we can do to facilitate that. I hope that today is a starting point in doing that.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: We are in agreement, Philip, for once.
Mr Allister: Minister, I want to focus initially on quite a narrow issue. The big decision of the 23 September meeting — that is the day that Mr Bryson gave his evidence — was whether or not he would be allowed to give it in public or in private. Presumably, at the party pre-meeting, that would have been a focus of any discussion.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Do you think so?
Mr Allister: Correct me if I am wrong, but I would have thought so.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is always a mistake to correct Jim Allister in the Assembly, but that decision was taken some weeks beforehand. We all put our lines in the sand on that. The DUP had its view on it, as did Judith Cochrane. I just want to say again, because I know that Judith Cochrane was mentioned in those Twitter messages, that she was, in my view, an absolutely stand-up member of the Committee and made the decisions on whether she would ask Mr Robinson to give evidence in public on the basis of all the evidence that she saw. We drew our lines in the sand some time before that. From early on, we said that, if it is a public investigation, let us have a public investigation. I am not blind to some of the issues — real issues — that the DUP brought up.
I do not even know what dates this happened on. You said 23 September. Was there a meeting a week before that at which we discussed the same issue? Certainly, I think that it had come up several times, so —
Mr Allister: Was it not the case that the decision to receive the evidence in public was made on the day that it was received?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Aye, but I took that decision in my mind —
Mr Allister: I am not talking about what you took in your mind; I am talking about the Committee preparing to take that decision on the floor of the Committee.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: But you are talking about my mind, because what you are saying is that, maybe, somehow or other, the decision was influenced by conversations at the time.
Mr Allister: The question I asked was this: at the pre-meeting, were there discussions —
24 Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have answered that.
Mr Allister: — and a focus on the fact that that decision would be taken that day?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, there was not, Mr Allister. The interesting thing is — some of the members who were on the Committee might remind me — that I am not sure that we thought that that decision would be taken again on the day. Mr Wells or Mr Girvan, in particular, might know better than me, but I think that we took the decision the week before. Mr Cree thought about it long and hard —
Mr Girvan: Legal opinion was sought that was to be brought to the Committee.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I have the transcript here. What seemed to happen was that there was a decision the week before to ask Mr Bryson whether he had any direct evidence. There was then a closed session to which he was to present that direct evidence. On the basis of that, a decision was to be made on that day. That is my reading of the transcript.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You certainly remember it better — well, you do not remember it, Madam Chairwoman, but you have studied it more than me.
Mr Allister, I am happy for you to focus on the meeting of 23 September or the meeting before or the meeting after, but I had no involvement in the affair at hand. Just to finish this, while I am happy to go around the houses with you, where we came in a little while back is where we will go out as well: I had no involvement of any type in it at all, and I will stand over that.
Mr Allister: Bear with me, if you would. That was a decision that would obviously divide the Committee. Some did not want to hear him in public, and some did. It came to, I think, a 6-5 vote in Committee. Sinn Féin clearly had a view that he should be heard in public. Is that fair?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am reluctant to answer for the entire Sinn Féin group in the Committee. From early on — members can again correct this — I think that everybody wanted to give evidence apart from the law agencies. Our position was that they should all give evidence in public. Somebody who is maybe better at searching Wikipedia or Hansard than me might disagree, but I think that that was our position with all the witnesses. I am not sure that he was the only one.
Mr Allister: There was a Division in the Committee on that issue.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: OK. How did that Division go?
Mr Allister: It was 6-5.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Who voted for and against? You have studied it, and it was a wee while ago.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Sinn Féin members and Judith Cochrane —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Did Mrs Cochrane — I think, on that day, did she maybe —
Mr Allister: Yes: Ms Boyle, Mr Bradley, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Cree, Mr McKay and Mr Ó Muilleoir.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: OK, so —
Mr Allister: The DUP and Mr McCallister —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Was the decision limited, Mr Allister? Was it that Mr Bryson would be allowed to come in but it would not be a free-for-all? I think that you might find that I made some of those points either before —
Mr Allister: No. The question that the Committee divided on was whether Mr Bryson's oral evidence would be taken in public session.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think that there was a long discussion about that.
25 Mr Allister: I am sure that there was, but the point that I am exploring with you is that the party — Sinn Féin — obviously had a predetermined view that it should be heard in public, and that is how they voted.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: What I said to you is that it was my opinion; I am always reluctant to get above my station and answer for everybody in Sinn Féin. As a member of the Committee, it was my position throughout that anyone giving evidence should do so in public.
Mr Allister: Yes. I appreciate that.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just to finish. People brought up very legitimate concerns about certain witnesses. We listened to those and, whatever about other people, I stand over the decisions that we made. Sinn Féin did not have a majority on the Committee —
Mr Allister: I am not faulting the decision.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: The only person I know who has more antipathy towards the DUP than Jamie Bryson is you, so I know where this may be going. My position was that people should give evidence in public. Some of our colleagues, including Mrs Cochrane, were very conflicted about that.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): Just to make the Minister aware, we have received from the previous Committee Clerk all the Clerk's papers and recommendations. The question was not necessarily whether this should be public; it was whether the witness fitted in with the terms of reference. That had been discussed for some weeks up to that point. The decision about the direct evidence and whether it should be public was taken on the basis of relevance to the terms of reference of the inquiry. It was not a case of, "Here is a relevant witness. Should it be in public or private?". We have received quite a bit of correspondence and advices from the previous Committee Clerk.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: For what it is worth, my position was and is that people giving evidence should do so in public. Certainly in this case, it was a tough call. I still think that it was the right call. I know that some of my DUP colleagues, after the revelations about Daithí McKay, Mr O'Hara and Mr Bryson, believe that their decision that it was a stitch-up has been vindicated. I have some sympathy with that view, but, for my part, I made my decision on legitimate and appropriate grounds, and I stand over the decision made at the time to allow Mr Bryson to give evidence.
Mr Allister: We know from the emails between Mr Bryson and someone purporting to be Mr O'Hara that Mr O'Hara, the night before, said to Mr Bryson:
"I'm just trying to establish what Máirtín or someone can jump upon and say: 'there's no way we can turn him away, this is credible, relevant and in the public interest.'"
Mr Ó Muilleoir: That is the two-men-in-a-pub scenario. I have no idea what they did or did not say.
Mr Allister: On the next day, you jumped into the discussion with this opinion:
"I think that the public is desperate to find out who was going to benefit from this fixed, crooked, corrupt deal. I believe that Mr Bryson will be able to help us in that."
The author of the email, whoever it was, had an expectation that you could play a role, and you did play a role, in the sense that you made the point that was hoped for. Are you asking us to believe that it was mere coincidence that the author of the email, on the night before, gave voice to a hope and expectation that you would be helpful and you were, in fact, helpful? Is that what you are asking us to believe? That it was mere coincidence.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Mr Allister, I would never ask you to believe anything. Let us not push our luck today. If you are asking the public to believe that I had any hand, act or part in this, you have a tougher job than I have.
Mr Allister: I am asking —
26 Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am answering.
Mr Allister: — do you want the public to believe that it is a coincidence that, on the night before, someone speaking of you said — I paraphrase — "I will try to get Máirtín to jump in and help". Máirtín jumps in and says something helpful, and that is a coincidence.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: This is really like 'Columbo': you have proven your point. Let me tell you that I had no hand, act or part in the correspondence or anything to do with it.
Mr Allister: You want us to believe that it is a coincidence.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Mr Allister, I will address you through Madam Chairwoman. Anyone who knows my reputation for making contributions, perhaps over-long contributions, at every Committee meeting knows that I would have made a contribution to that debate. Anyone who had been to previous meetings or listened to what I was saying publicly would have known that my position was that Mr Bryson should give his evidence in public. You say "jump in": if I remember correctly, a lot of people spoke before me. Mr Allister, you are right: the public have to believe either what I am saying or what you are saying. I am not sure exactly what you are saying.
Mr Allister: When, in that intervention, you said:
"I believe that Mr Bryson will be able to help us" on what did you base that belief?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Not only on that day, but over some time — I do not know that you gave him the information.
Mr Allister: You had not heard from him that day.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: We had not heard from Jamie Bryson? He is surely the most prolific blogger since blogs were invented.
Mr Allister: What did you ground your belief on that he could help you?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I understand what you are asking, and I am answering you: he is the most prolific blogger of our time. You must know that. I presume that you are providing some of the information for his website.
Mr Allister: I am not.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Any information at all?
Mr Allister: None.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Has he been in your room at Stormont?
Mr Allister: He has seen me about issues other than this.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: OK. Was he in your room around the time of his appearance at the inquiry?
Mr Allister: I do not believe so.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You do not believe so or no?
Mr Allister: I do not believe so.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: OK, so we are making some progress. Let me just tell you this around —
27 The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I remind the Minister that he is here to answer questions and not to ask questions of members.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I beg your pardon. I should speak through the Chair, and I apologise for that.
I think that I was fairly consistent, Madam Chairwoman, throughout the inquiry on my position on Mr Bryson. He is the blogger of all bloggers. Anyone in the Assembly who knows about what was appearing on his site, which was clearly being fed to him but was of importance, would form a view as to whether he should be allowed to present evidence to the Committee. I formed that view early on, because I believe that some of those who are filling the empty vessel that is Jamie Bryson knew a lot more about the NAMA/Cerberus scandal than the police or any other agency knew at the time.
Mr Allister: But another —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just to finish, Mr Allister, if you do not mind. You know Mr Bryson better than I do. People will make their choice. They can go down the road that Mr Allister is travelling, which is that I have been telling untruths to the Committee and that I did know something about this, or they will decide to believe me. At the end of the day, Mr Allister, I am content to let the public make their choice. Apologies; go ahead.
Mr Allister: When you said:
"I believe that Mr Bryson will be able to help us" another possible explanation is that you had that confidence because you had already seen his opening statement. Could that be possible?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, it could not be, because I did not. I admire your gumshoe approach. In fact, if we start where we came in — it is good to say it again — I had no hand, act or part in the communications. Also, Madam Chairwoman, you asked whether I had knowledge beforehand of any of the statements or relevant information. I had not, and I stand over what I have said several times. It is true of all members of the Committee except one that the evidence was shocking. That is not to say that the evidence is to believed. It is to be taken and assessed. However, the evidence was shocking, and the first time I heard it was the day Mr Bryson delivered it. The first time I heard about the behind-the-scenes communications was when I was on holiday. So, Mr Allister, that is not possible.
Mr Allister: We know, Minister, that your party and Chair had a copy of the opening statement before it was made.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well, if you know that, good for you.
Mr Allister: We know that from the emails.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well, good for you, because —
Mr Allister: That is what the email address was provided for as to where it should be sent. It is saying that it is acknowledged as received, and there are references to "good stuff" etc.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Good. So there are only two things that can happen: either I saw it or I did not see it. I have told you repeatedly that I did not see it.
Mr Allister: Do you think that your colleagues did not trust you?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Pardon me?
Mr Allister: Do you think that your colleagues did not trust you?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Wouldn't that be the day? All I can tell you is that we return to where we are. You will make your own assessment. We will go round the house and mind the dresser, but it still does not get
28 us to where you want to be. You want the public to believe that I had some part in this. I did not have any part in it.
Mr Allister: I am just exploring the fact that it is a coincidence, it seems, that the author of some of the messages has an expectation that you would help. You made a helpful contribution, but that is just a coincidence. We know that it appears that your party had an advance copy of the opening statement, and you declared that you believed that Mr Bryson would be able to help, but you did not have sight of that opening statement.
Mr O'Dowd: Could the Member point us to the email he is referring to? It might be useful.
Mr Allister: On 18 September at 20:28, the person presenting as Thomas G O'Hara — I do not think these are e-mails; they are messages of some sort.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): They are direct messages.
Mr Allister: Direct messages. There is a direct message by Bryson saying:
"Is there an email I could send draft of opening statement to?"
A few minutes later:
"Email ([email protected])".
Mr O'Dowd: How is that evidence that Sinn Féin had it?
Mr Allister: This is the person whom Mr McKay invited Mr Bryson to channel his communications through.
Mr O'Dowd: There is evidence that an individual who may or may not have been a member of Sinn Féin had a copy, not that Sinn Féin had a copy.
Mr Allister: There is evidence that some very well informed individual, who is said to be a plasterer in Portglenone, received a copy at the behest of Mr McKay to be the conduit for that.
Mr O'Dowd: I am sorry for talking across the Chair, but you suggested earlier that the Sinn Féin party had a copy. I do not follow that conclusion.
Mr Allister: It seems a reasonable belief that the Chairman and this person who is presenting as Mr O'Hara is a servant and agent of Sinn Féin. If they had it, then Sinn Féin had it. Let me ask you about Mr O'Hara.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Let me ask you this: would you accept that what you consider reasonable sometimes others do not? Very rarely in here but occasionally, some people have a view of what is reasonable that differs from what you consider to be reasonable. Would you agree with that, Mr Allister?
Mr Allister: I am sure that that is right. Can I ask you about Mr O'Hara? You told the jury that you had never heard of him and did not know who he was. Since this has all blown up, have you made any enquiries as to who he is?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No. Have you?
Mr Allister: Yes, I have.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: OK. Who is he? He is a plasterer in Portglenone, I am told. That is the first I heard it.
Mr Allister: He is supposed to be a plasterer in Portglenone.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am indifferent.
29 Mr Allister: Are you asking the public to believe that you were not even curious, never mind furious, within the party to find out about this individual who had been communicating with Bryson?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: What benefit would that be to me?
Mr Allister: You are telling us that you were neither curious nor furious enough to find that out.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have no interest in Mr O'Hara whatsoever. I know nothing about him.
Mr Allister: Did you make it your business to find out?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Let me just say this. This is the difference, Mr Allister, between the direction you are going in and the destination. If you are going in your direction and you get on your wagon train and ride out on it, you are getting to a position where I knew something about this or had some involvement with it. I had no involvement with it, and it would be of no benefit to me to enquire further into the nature of this dialogue or communication or anything else.
Mr Allister: Did Martin McGuinness ask you what you knew about it?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just to finish this. I am happy for you, as a Committee, to have an investigation, if you decide to do that, or to ask in people when the PSNI has finished. However, I have to tell you — this may be a surprise to you because I know that you are deeply interested in the communications — that I just got on with my job. It is an important job. There are many demands on me, and, when I go out and meet our friends who are trying to build businesses or look after young people in our schools or whatever —
Mr Allister: We have got that point, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: When I do that, I find that what they are focused on is trying to build a shared and prosperous society.
Mr Allister: Did the deputy First Minister ask you about these matters?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: We will come to that. It is hard to know whether this surprises you, but what you think is reasonable is sometimes not what the rest of us think is reasonable. Madam Chairwoman, I have no desire to enquire further into who Mr O'Hara is, but I am sure that it will all come out in the wash at some stage. Mr McGuinness did not ask me who Mr O'Hara was or about the communications.
Mr Allister: Did he discuss this issue with you?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No.
Mr Allister: Mr McGuinness is on the public record as saying that he has spoken to all relevant people about the matter, and you were probably the lead member on the Committee, were you not?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well, there is a man called Daithí McKay, and he might be a bit furious if you were to say that I was the lead member on the Committee. I certainly spoke to Sinn Féin and the party whip about this, by WhatsApp or whatever, from the Basque Country, and I made it clear that I had no part, act or knowledge of this.
Mr Allister: Beyond that, you have never even been asked by the party.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: That is an interesting question. You mentioned the word "trust". I thought that, when they rang me up, they were going to say, "We need to talk more about this". I was really pleased that, when I said — as do the public — that I had nothing to do with this and it was as much of a shock to me as to other members of the Committee who are here, they accepted that. Maybe, Mr Allister, they trust my word.
Mr Allister: Of course, Minister, maybe it suited to have a scapegoat in Mr McKay.
30 Mr Ó Muilleoir: Suited whom?
Mr Allister: The party.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well, you are getting into areas that, I think, lead us into Mr McKay, Mr O'Hara and the PSNI investigation and Sinn Féin. In my view, Mr McKay made a big mistake. I do not know whether he knew where it would all lead to. He took the right course of action when he resigned. That was the right thing to do.
Mr Allister: So —
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Just let me finish, Mr Allister, and then you can come in. I think that that was the right thing to do. I do not believe that anyone in this was dealt with unfairly. I go back to what Detective Superintendent Geddes said at the very start about the need for fairness in all these matters. Mr McKay will, no doubt, in time give his version of events to some authority, whether it is the standards commissioner or the PSNI. I do not believe that anyone was scapegoated. It is a fact that he made a grievous mistake with real consequences. I take on board what the Chairwoman said about the grievous nature of the communications and what Mr Smith said about undermining public confidence in these institutions, but I do not believe that anyone was scapegoated. You are going beyond my remit, because I try not to speak too often for others.
Mr Allister: I just want to draw this together. Although you were a key member for Sinn Féin on that Committee and Sinn Féin was keen to get Jamie Bryson's evidence in public, you want us or the public to believe that there was no coordination of efforts amongst the Sinn Féin members on that Committee to attain that objective and that you were kept in the dark about the contacts with Bryson. That is what you want us to believe.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think that you put that well.
Mr Allister: So, it is a matter for the public whether or not they find that credible, along with the coincidence that the author of an email anticipated help that was given and that you were in the dark about that. Is it also a mere coincidence, Minister, that pulling up the drawbridge in that way and maintaining that you knew nothing keeps you right?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I go back to where we came in, Mr Allister. I admire your crescendo: it is really like the end of 'Columbo', except that Columbo says, "Just one more thing" and has some evidence to link the person to the wrongdoing. Unfortunately, while we have been dancing round the house and minding the dresser, you have not done that, because I had no involvement at all.
Mr Allister: Sometimes, those who are most snubbed fall the hardest.
Mr O'Dowd: Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I just want to finish. I admire your chutzpah, and you have had a good run at it, but we are where we came in, Mr Allister: I have no involvement with this.
Mr Allister: With all the unanswered questions of the coincidences, of stretching the credulity of things you want us to believe and of the happy coincidence that, by pulling up the drawbridge, you keep yourself right.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: There is an old adage that, when you are losing, you keep talking, so if Mr Allister wants to —
Mr Allister: Well, we have seen that today.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: If Mr Allister wants to interrupt me, Madam Chairwoman, he can be my guest, but, if he is finished, I will finish, too, with these words. If Mr Allister wants to interrupt, maybe he will interrupt now so that I can say my parting words. I think that the public will make a call on this. I am not actually sure about your allegation, Mr Allister, because you have not got to the nub of it, but you have danced around it. I think that the public will make a call on whether I am telling the truth or Mr Allister is moving in the right direction. I am very happy with that.
31 Mr Allister: You go on believing that, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am very happy to do so. I will also say, Madam Chairwoman, that it is important to me what members in here think. You make your case, you have people listen to it, and fair-minded people will make their judgement. Maybe another day, Mr Allister and I will get to talk more about his relationship with Jamie Bryson.
Mr Allister: There is nothing to talk about.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: That is for another day.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): OK. We will move on. I think that we have aired that already, so we will move on to Claire Hanna.
Ms Hanna: I am sorry that we kept you waiting.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: My time is your time.
Ms Hanna: We had scheduled a lot of issues for discussion beyond this. We wanted to have a wider discussion on NAMA. There are lots of issues around rating — some things that we will agree with — and some very serious questions about the Budget process and the fact that, given the schedule we have been given, the entire scrutiny part of the Budget process will be written out, which is against the legislation. I think that it is related to some of the transparency issues that coaching and NAMA and so on have undermined in the eyes of the public.
I will not go over the ground that other Members have covered; I do not have the legal training. I have never even seen 'Columbo' or 'L.A. Law', so I do not feel equipped.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You are the wrong generation.
Mr Wells: You are too young. That is why.
Ms Hanna: I had a well-spent childhood. I have not had an opportunity —
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): That is probably the most shocking thing that we have heard today.
Ms Hanna: I know; it will get headlines.
Mr O'Dowd: Can you prove it?
Ms Hanna: I have not seen the full transcript. For the record, today is the first time that I saw the full transcripts.
I want to pick up on a couple of slightly related issues. I know that you were in San Sebastián. I do not know whether your local newsagent stocked 'The Irish News', but when did you become aware that the transcripts and messages existed?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think that it was at the same time as everyone else. The wonderful thing about the modern world is that you can listen to Stephen Nolan whether you are 1,000 miles or 1,500 miles away or whatever it is to Donostia/San Sebastián. I am the same as everyone else, Ms Hanna. It is not often during the sleepy days of summer that we are awoken from our slumber in this part of the world. It was around the same time. I cannot remember whether it broke the night before or that morning. I did not have the same connection as everybody else, but I found out about the unravelling story around that time.
Ms Hanna: I was away that week as well, so I did not attend the meeting that you are talking about. You obviously had a better Internet connection than I did. I want to clarify that it was either the night before when 'The Irish News' went online or that day and that it was not further in advance of that when you knew.
32 Mr Ó Muilleoir: It could not have been, Ms Hanna. It could not have been, or else I have been telling untruths to the Committee. You make your call on that one. I have said this repeatedly, but there is no harm in repeating it again because my time is your time: I had no knowledge, not only beforehand but, as I said in several interviews afterwards, no knowledge afterwards that the story was going to break in any way. I have said that before, but I think that it is fair to put it on record again that I found out around the same time as everyone else. I cannot remember what morning that was or whether it was during the week. Good luck with that.
Ms Hanna: I am not sufficiently trained or "televisioned" to badger a witness, so I will leave it at that. What steps did your party take to establish who was or who was not party to those communications?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Those are questions for Sinn Féin, and I am happy if you want to ask them of Sinn Féin. First, are you going to have an investigation? You will make your own call on that in relation to Mr O'Hara, Mr Bryson, Mr McKay and their communications. Madam Chairwoman, you will make your own call on that. If you have an investigation and you wish to invite Sinn Féin in to go through the detail of how they responded, that is a matter that you can bring up with them. I am here as Finance Minister, and I am doing you the courtesy of answering questions on issues — they are, as the Chairperson said, serious issues — about my involvement in the matter and the fact that, as I said, I did not know about it. I cannot help you with the further question on Sinn Féin, but it is your call. If you want to invite someone from Sinn Féin who can answer that, be my guest.
Ms Hanna: Just to confirm, you took that call from the Whip, and that was the extent of the formal discussion. I know, again, that the deputy First Minister has said that the party conducted an inquiry to establish who was and was not party to the communications. Your involvement was limited to that phone call from the Whip.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Is it not endearing how much Sinn Féin trusts me? I was out of the country, but I made my position clear, and I think that the test of time has shown that no one was involved in the matter other than Mr McKay. I am not sure what Mr O'Hara's involvement was, but that is where it rested. I cannot help you any more than that.
Ms Hanna: Have you spoken to Mr McKay since the story broke?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No.
Ms Hanna: I want to turn to a slightly divergent issue. You raised this as well, and you had given a little bit of leeway.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Is it about renewable heat incentives?
Ms Hanna: We could come to that, but I suppose that people are on the clock. I share completely your anger and frustration about NAMA and about the divergent way that debtors were treated, based on whether they were an individual with negative equity or whether they were a developer. I think that that is all rooted in the monumentally stupid vote in the Dáil in February 2011 for the bank guarantee, which, I regret, your party voted for. It has deteriorated from there. I want to pick up on that, because the Committee has an interest not specifically in the €200 million that Project Eagle apparently lost the Irish taxpayer but in some of the political issues related to it and what involvement the Assembly had, before your time.
I just want to clarify this: have you instructed Department officials to prepare papers etc in advance of any request from an inquiry that may be established by this Committee or by the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I must be allowed to have a small riposte to that. When I was on the Committee, I asked several times for NAMA to cooperate. Unfortunately, your sister party, the Labour Party — I know that you are not in the Dáil — but your sister party, along with Fine Gael, resisted stoutly any efforts to help the investigation that we were trying to have into NAMA. I am delighted that they have come to their senses and now say that there should be a commission of investigation.
What I have said about the commission of investigation —I think that there was a little bit in the news yesterday about the Taoiseach having agreed to it, although I still have not seen the criteria and terms of reference — is that my Department will cooperate fully. People say that there cannot be an all-
33 island inquiry, but my Department will certainly cooperate gladly with any commission of inquiry. You talk about the papers. You can be sure of one thing: people know where the papers are now because the NCA has asked for them and has come back and asked for more.
Whatever direction the next investigation takes, I think that you would expect me to make sure that there are no hidden corners in the Department of Finance. The NCA has been there already and has the full cooperation of my officials, whom I have met several times. Of course, I have met the NCA as well.
We are ready and waiting. I know that you have some influence over the criteria. I hope that the criteria take up the offer that I have made about giving full cooperation to the investigation.
Ms Hanna: I do not speak for Labour, but they had the good sense not to vote to put thousands of millions of euro onto the public balance sheet. Have you made any representations to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister about its engagement in or knowledge of NAMA, the sale and any phone call notes or anything? Have you made any representations in that area?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No.
Ms Hanna: We have been talking about reviewing evidence. Have you had the opportunity to review Mary Lou McDonald's contributions in the Dáil on the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: No.
Ms Hanna: Would you agree with me that some of the points that she made contradict slightly the stance that your party took last week in watering down through amending and voting for a motion that called for full transparency on NAMA?
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I feel that we are going somewhat off-piste here.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I was asked earlier whether I had had contact with an invisible man, but I cannot comment on comments that I did not see. You told me it was 10 hours. If you want to send the appropriate pieces to me, I will come back and answer that question.
Mr Mullan: Thank you, Minister.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Gerry, you are welcome.
Mr Mullan: I think that you have defended your position admirably.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I hope that there is no "but" in this, Gerry.
Mr Mullan: There may be. You have protested your innocence robustly. At the outset, you said that the only stepping that you would be doing would be stepping up. What I have taken out of this meeting, if anything, is that there are a number of things that we cannot ignore. One is that, from the emails, Twitter messages or whatever manner or means these things came, you were directly implicated in them. I think that you would agree to that, would you not?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: We will come back to that and the word "implication". We will ask Jim Allister to interpret "implication", but keep going.
Mr Mullan: The other thing, Minister, is that Mr McKay resigned. During your submission, you implied that Mr McKay resigned willingly and did the right thing by doing so. Further to that, 18 members of your party resigned, which gives me the impression that he did not resign willingly. How do you defend your implication that he made the right decision? Was he made to resign? It is all about public perception.
I hope that you do not take any inference of guilt or that I am making any accusations. The coaching of Mr Bryson raised a lot of questions among the public. I mentioned the fact that Mr McKay resigned and 18 people from your party followed him by resigning as well and the fact that you were directly mentioned in the emails. That has the potential to undermine your credibility. That is my worry.
34 Mr Ó Muilleoir: I will not tempt Jim Allister by asking him to define "implicated". As I said earlier, as far as I am concerned, it is the same as two men in a bar saying that I might be involved in something. Regardless of the Twitter or email exchange, I knew nothing about it, but I agree with you that these are serious matters. We will call him "Daithí" so that we do not have to worry about "McKaye" or "McKay". There might be a wee opening for the SDLP in North Antrim.
Ms Hanna: Are you giving up on it?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: There might be a silver lining in this for the SDLP. Generally, Daithí did the right thing. When you make a mistake as grievous and as grave as that, you have a choice of falling on your sword or trying to brazen it out. He made the right decision. I believe that it was his decision to make. As I said earlier, the PSNI inquiry is the most important part of all that hangs over Mr McKay. Those are my views. If it hurts my credibility that people left Sinn Féin in north Antrim, so be it; I have to stand on my reputation and credibility and take whatever knocks there are and keep on going.
Mr Mullan: You may have misinterpreted something that I said about your credibility. I do not mean credibility among your own members; I mean the general public. The fact is that you were directly implicated in the messages. One said:
"Try to get Máirtín to say something in the meeting, even let him see how comprehensive the document is, so as he knows it's not bullshit."
That is very serious. I imagine that it does not do you any favours. I make the point again that, taking into account all these matters, it leaves you in a vulnerable, if not difficult, position.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Thanks for that, Gerry. The Chair is worried about my anger. Claire suggested that I would be angry, frustrated or furious. You are entitled to your opinion. It is now 5 October, at a guess.
Mr Hussey: Do not ask me.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Well, someone in this gathering knows what date it is. The story broke on 18 or 19 August. I am feeling pretty good. I do not feel particularly vulnerable or exposed on this matter, but I appreciate your views; you are entitled to them. This is not finished. Detective Superintendent Geddes has a big part to play in where this issue goes next. A lot of people are worried about me today, but I feel pretty good.
Mr Mullan: I believe that the public finds it hard to believe that you did not know anything about all this; I certainly find it very difficult to believe. If I find it difficult to believe, I am sure that a lot of people in the public domain will find it difficult to believe.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: You may have a wee bit of party political bias, but we will set that to the side. You are entitled to your opinion. We will see how it plays out.
Mr Wells: There has been no coaching or collusion, but Jim Allister has basically asked all my questions. I have nothing that I can add to —
Ms Hanna: Check their phone.
Mr Wells: There has been no collusion; that is just as it happened. That is the disadvantage of coming in late. I do not think that I have anything to add to the questions.
Mr Hussey: Minister, good afternoon. I was frightened for a while there sitting to your right in case you glared at me, but 5 October is the date, apparently. At the outset, I will say that you are well aware of what Detective Superintendent Geddes said to us and how we should approach this. In relation to Jamie Bryson, there is no doubt that the revelations that he made were probably in the public interest. Do you agree with that? Were you shocked by the revelations?
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I was. I think that they were in the public interest, but no one is under any illusions that this guy is motivated by his hatred of the DUP. That is put in the balance, and I am on record as saying that. I have also said that his politics leave me cold. I think that I asked when he was giving evidence, "How do we know to believe you? Is it not just that you are motivated by your spite and
35 your animus towards the DUP?". I was shocked by the evidence. I suppose that you had to be in the room. It is clear that my colleagues in the unionist ranks were shocked by the vehemence of the evidence as well. That is not to say that the evidence is true — that is a different call — but it was a big news day, Ross, there is no doubt about that.
Mr Hussey: You are aware that the documents that we have in front of us that have been forwarded by Jim Allister are slightly more than 'The Irish News' had in its possession. There is also an implication that there is something missing.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I caught that earlier. I did not know that. I have never seen the entire correspondence anywhere, but you can be sure that people will point out the relevant pieces to me. I heard that earlier, but I do not understand entirely the relevance to that, but it seems to be important.
Mr Hussey: You made a comment earlier about hidden corners. A fear that I have is that another hidden corner will approach us rather than us approaching it and something else will appear. There seems to be a hidden paper trail. From that, we will, at some point, get more information out. There is no doubt that when you read through it there are implications — I make that very clear — rather than statements of fact: "Try to get Martin to say something in the meeting. Let Martin see the papers". You have made it crystal clear that you did not at any time see these. You also said that the name Thomas O'Hara means nothing to you. You asked Mr Allister whether he knew anything of Mr O'Hara. I have to say that I did not. During the meeting, I looked him up on the Internet, and, apparently, he addressed your ard-fheis fairly recently. So he obviously had an association with Sinn Féin and he is a member. He was one of the people referred to by Gerry who resigned or was asked to go. The fact that he clearly is associated with the party has a ripple effect. You, unfortunately, are being tarred by that same brush.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Those are all fair points. I do not think that it is a matter of being angry, but it is a matter of having to fight your corner. That is why I came out so robustly on these matters. You talked about hidden corners. I did not catch the entire conversation, but there is a suggestion that other parts of this correspondence might be interesting and something might jump up and bite us on the bum, but I know this: nothing is going to bite me on the bum in relation to this correspondence, communication or dialogue because I had no part in it. So we wait. Will there be light shed or further revelations? Ross, I do not know, but, for me, it is important for the discussions happening here because these are grievous allegations, but it will be academic because nothing will come out that will link me in any way to this sorry saga.
Mr Hussey: Thank you for your patience.
Mr O'Dowd: Thank you for your patience.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: I believe that you were absent for the last few meetings, so I am glad that you have attended.
Mr O'Dowd: I was just looking up Twitter because Ms Hanna referred to the fact that she was not around when the allegations were first exposed in 'The Irish News'. She was not, but the Wi-Fi must have been quite good on her holiday because she notes that the first week that she goes on holiday, she sits and watches the Committee online in a café. I assure you that when I was on holiday, I did not watch the Committee online in a café.
We have been going round in circles here for possibly two and a half hours. Members have been trying to pin some sort of association on you with what happened between Mr Bryson, Mr O'Hara and Mr McKay. The Minister may be surprised when I read the Committee's remit to him:
"As previously advised in considering the issue the Committee shall be mindful of the scope of its remit. The Committee has roles in relation to scrutiny, policy development, consultation and legislation with respect to the Department of Finance. As members of the Committee will be aware, it is not within the remit of the Committee to investigate the conduct of the Assembly Members."
Does the Minister believe that we could have spent the last two and half hours more productively?
36 Mr Ó Muilleoir: This is a very good investment of my time, and it is nice of you, John, to come to one of the meetings to stand up for me. Nothing surprises me in politics, and, as the Chair said, I may have wandered off piste occasionally in some of my answers. This was not going to be discussed in 40 minutes and I am glad that we let the officials go, but we do have urgent issues to discuss around the rates and the Budget. We will come back to those. When I was appointed I said that I was the first Minister to appear before a Committee, and I might have made myself a hostage to fortune by saying that I would like to come back often.
We have had a good couple of hours here. Could the time have been spent more productively? That is a matter for the Committee. I hope that we can get into our diaries a discussion of the budgets and the rates in the time ahead, and some of the other issues, in particular what the British Chancellor said yesterday about what the autumn statement might look like. John, how could you spend time in such great company and be disappointed with the investment of your time?
Mr O'Dowd: Right, OK. [Laughter.] The Committee has a role to play, and I have no objections to it bringing you, or anyone else, forward in this regard. However, I do not believe that the last two and a half hours have been productive. We could have spent our time much more productively, as had been previously arranged. One hour on the subject, and the rest of the time spent discussing rates, budgets and other important matters that relate to people's lives, but the day has come and gone, and we will return to that.
Ms Ruane: I thank you for coming to the Committee even when you did not need to. From the outset you have said that you want to build a strong relationship, and I welcome that. Can you clarify whether your Department will cooperate with every investigation and agency, whether in the south of Ireland or NCA? Some members do not seem to have heard that, and it might be useful for them to hear it again.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: Rinne mé agallamh le TG4, agus dúirt mé seo. I did an interview with TG4 where I said, which you might not have caught, I admit that —
Mr Wells: We did not get it because we did not understand it.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I watch little else.
Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is probably more riveting than Committee meetings. I said from day one that our Department is cooperating and will continue to cooperate. I met the NCA in Lisburn Civic Centre two or three weeks ago, and it remains in contact and continues to seek additional information or clarification. We are providing that at every turn. Caitríona, perhaps I should also say what I said in the Assembly that the FBI, SEC, NCA, PSNI and an Garda Síochána are now commissioning an investigation or indeed this Committee, and they will not have any "hidden corners", Ross, to use that term. There will be no hidden corners in my Department, past or present, in relation to the NAMA/Cerberus deal. Anything and everything will be available, but it will be available first to the law enforcement agencies and then we will take a call.
As you do know, I released additional information. There were some redactions, and we replaced those. I released the name of one of Mr Wilson's nominees. You can rest assured that anything else that the Committee has asked for I have tried to be as helpful as possible. I hope that the commission asks for the cooperation of my Department because sometimes, and I think that we found this with NAMA, it does not give due cognisance to the steps that we were taking to try to get to the bottom of the deal. Of course, the deal has come back to haunt NAMA. It dismissed the questions that were being put. I cannot remember whether it was 2015 when this inquiry started or the investigation. They dismissed those questions. Talk about being bitten on the bum: those questions and the issues that we raised have come back again and again to haunt NAMA. I hope that the commission of investigation and the law enforcement agency request my and my Department's assistance: if they do, they will receive it.
Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat.
The Chairperson (Mrs Little Pengelly): I want to thank the Minister for giving of his time today. Sometimes it has been a bit rocky, while other times have been a bit smoother. All the members of the Committee appreciate your coming along. The Minister probably put it best when he referred to the witness at the centre of all of this as an "empty vessel". The question that everybody is trying to
37 get at is who was filling that vessel. That is not to say that, perhaps, some of what he said was right or wrong, but there is also the risk that some of it was wrong. The fact is that we have, at the heart of this, a serious admission that he was willing to mislead a Committee inquiry. Everyone around the table will want to ensure that that never happens again. There are serious issues, but we appreciate your coming along and putting your view on record.
We look forward to hearing about the further investigations and their outcomes. I am absolutely sure that we will want to reschedule. I am sure that, after all this, you probably did not want to speak for an hour on rates and everything else. We will reschedule that. I know that members are keen to talk about business rates, the reform of the Civil Service and other relevant budget issues, so we will write to you on that.
Thank you very much.
Mr Ó Muilleoir (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, members.
38