Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Taoiseach the status of the commission of investigation into the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC; and the projected costs. [7363/17]

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

4. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the status of the commission of investigation into IBRC. [8367/17]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.

The IBRC commission was established on 16 June 2015 under the Commission of Investigation (Irish Bank Resolution Corporation) Order 2015. Mr. Justice Brian Cregan, a judge of the High Court, is the commission's sole member. The timeframe for the final report on the first module of its work, on the Siteserv transaction, is the end of December 2017.

Up until the end of January 2017, the commission had spent €1.555 million. As outlined in the commission's interim report, it does not reflect third party costs which may arise for payment in due course. The commission has tentatively indicated an approximate cost in excess of €10 million for its investigation into the Siteserv transaction. This assessment was shared with the Opposition leaders when I consulted them, but their strong view was that the investigation should proceed. The estimate does not take account of the cost and time impact of any legal challenges which may be taken. The commission is independent in the performance of its functions and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any aspects of its work.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most people have two concerns about the Cregan commission, namely, that it would progress speedily and curtail costs as far as practicable. The Taoiseach said it was expected that the preliminary report on the Siteserv part of the investigation would be completed by the end of December. Is it still on track to happen by the end of December and has there been any escalation of the costs? Have any discussions taken place with the investigation regarding likely ongoing costs or any mechanisms to mitigate costs, or is it believed that it would be inappropriate to do so?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is still on track. The commission is independent and I have no information on anything else other than that it is on track for the end of December. Regarding third party costs for the IBRC commission, in its interim report of April 2016, the commission signalled that the special liquidators had informed it that the costs incurred by them in assisting the commission are €2.786 million, comprising their costs up to 31 January 2016 of €2,333,750, exclusive of VAT, and legal costs to 15 March 2016 of €453,248, inclusive of VAT. The Department of Finance informed the commission that its external legal costs were €246,000, inclusive of VAT.

In addition to Mr. Justice Cregan, the commission's staffing complement comprises a solicitor, an assistant principal officer and a legal secretary. The commission also has sanction to engage the services of two senior counsel and five junior counsel, as required. All legal service fees are paid at rates approved by the Government. The per diemrates for a senior counsel are €788.28 and a junior counsel €394.14. It is very much reduced from what it used to be during past years. People often ask whether the €10 million in the estimate was included in the Department's Vote. There is €4.763 million in the Vote for this year, which includes provision for the IBRC and Fennelly commissions. While the IBRC commission is due to report on the Siteserv transaction by the end of the year, there is provision for the commission to be asked to investigate other modules at that stage.

It is not possible to predict accurately at this stage the level of costs which will arise or when they will arise. It is likely that the third party costs will fall for payment only after they have been considered and adjudicated on by the commission. It seems likely, therefore, that they may not arise for payment until 2018. As Deputy Howlin is aware, it is ultimately a matter for the commission. In the event that costs for the commission are above the €4.763 million and fall for payment in 2017, alternative funding will need to be identified from within my Department or from elsewhere.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach will recall that the commission of investigation into IBRC, like the one into Project Eagle, was one the Government avoided for a very long time before conceding the need for it. It is welcome that the Taoiseach is indicating that he is confident the commission will complete its work on the first module within the timeframe agreed, by the end of the year. We were also told the Taoiseach's Department would set aside €10 million to pay for it. However, last week, the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach failed to show it. Does the Taoiseach have any information? If it is not in the Estimate, from where will it be paid? When will the commission of investigation into Project Eagle commence?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have already answered the Deputy's question. There is €4.73 million in the Vote for this year for the commission of investigation. It includes provision for the IBRC commission and the Fennelly commission, which is due to finalise its report by the end of March. To date, the Fennelly commission has cost €3.03 million.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will it finish in March?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I gave a further extension to Mr. Justice Fennelly, and I expect it to finish in March.

In the context of the queries on costs raised by Deputies Howlin and Adams, the IBRC commission of inquiry is due to report on Siteserv at the end of 2017, so we do not yet know the costs and, therefore, I cannot comment in that regard. If there are third-party costs, they would only fall for payment after they have been considered and adjudicated on by the commission. They would then not arise until 2018. If it transpires that they require to be paid in 2017, however, the money would need to be found from within the Department of the Taoiseach or elsewhere.

Reference was also made to Project Eagle. I met with the leaders in September 2016 and we heard their views on the issues of public concern. I received a number of submissions following that meeting. We met again on 4 October and agreed, in principle, that the Government would establish a commission of investigation under the Act of 2004 to investigate matters of significant public concern regarding NAMA. The Committee of Public Accounts has been holding hearings on this also. I referred this to Deputy Doherty at the committee meeting on Estimates recently. The committee had received a large amount of evidence from NAMA and many other interested parties, including some from outside the jurisdiction. I understand that the Committee of Public Accounts is to issue its report shortly and that statements on the establishment of the commission of investigation into NAMA were taken in the House on 1 February 2017. It was indicated on that occasion that the sensible thing to do is wait for the report of the Committee of Public Accounts before deciding on the next steps.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the IBRC and Siteserv inquiry and the full range of investigations that are currently under way, it might be no harm if the Taoiseach could send me a note with details of those investigations and the projected costs relating to them.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that from Moriarty onwards?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, just the more recent ones.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Moriarty tribunal was 20 years ago and my Department is still paying for it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mean the inquiries we have initiated in respect of Siteserv and other matters. These inquiries are all symptomatic of a failure by existing mechanisms and systems to deal with issues and complaints when they arise. There is something wrong with our culture in terms of our ability to transparently deal with issues professionally, be it complaints relating to An Garda Síochána or in the context of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement having the capacity to investigate commercial wrongdoing and so on. This is also having a huge impact on the taxpayer.

Parallel with these inquiries, we need to have a programme within the public service and within our existing mechanisms to ensure that part of the remit of the vision of any organisation involves providing timely, professional responses to issues that arise. Consider, for example, the volume of issues that go to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. It is extraordinary. GSOC has almost become paralysed on foot of the volume of work it has on hand and its lack of resources and capacity. One is obliged to wonder, in the context of the overall picture, what it is all about. This volume of complaints must speak to something that is wrong with within our system. I put this to the Taoiseach in respect of the inquiry into Siteserv and the IRBC. Project Eagle is a classic illustration, where €4 million or €5 million ends up in an offshore account and nobody bats an eyelid. People were saying the problem was "Over there, and not over here". It is just bizarre that any State institution would have a view that it was fine because the potential wrongdoing was on the purchaser's side and not on that of the vendor, and that the issue would not need to be examined. Of course it is not fine. That kind of culture needs to be nipped in the bud.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will send a letter to Deputy Micheál Martin and the other party leaders on the up-to-date position of the commissions of investigation that have been established. The Deputy previously suggested the establishment of a permanent inspectorate for public inquiries that would be professional, deal with issues in a timely fashion and have the experience to know which direction should be followed. For his information, the proposal was considered by the Law Reform Commission in 2005 when it dealt with the report on public inquiries, including tribunals of inquiry. I am open to the idea. The Law Reform Commission made three points. It said that, over time, an inspectorate's staff would become experienced in investigation and would be paid salaries rather than a daily rate, resulting in savings to the Exchequer. Second, the office would have easy access to precedence and guidance on procedural issues. Third, it would provide a one stop shop for those seeking information on inquiries.

The commission also listed some disadvantages. Although there were a number on inquiries at the time, there was no guarantee that there would be a need for a similar body in the future. The commission also said that public inquiries are, by their nature, ad hocand their structure and personnel should reflect this. Having weighed up the advantages and disadvantages, the commission did not recommend the establishment of a permanent standing inspectorate. It did, however, recommend the establishment of a central inquiries office that would be charged with collecting and managing a database of records and information regarding public inquiries. This would provide those charged with establishing and running public inquiries easy access to precedence, guidance on a wide variety of matters pertinent to their inquiry - including legislation - procedural issues, the drafting of terms of reference and administrative matters.

It should be borne in mind that the Law Reform Commission report was published in 2005, the year after the enactment of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. Obviously, since then we have had a number of commissions of investigation. Any decision to establish a permanent inquiries inspectorate or a central inquiries office would have to take into account the experience gained in the intervening period, as well as the Law Reform Commission's report and other relevant factors.

I would be open to having a rational discussion in the House about this matter. Protected disclosures are flooding in and they are very complicated and complex. Ministers have a duty and a responsibility for them, but cannot actually talk about them. While other cases are to follow, many of the cases raised with me by Deputy Micheál Martin a few years ago are still coming back in. They were examined by senior counsel but people are still dissatisfied. Perhaps the House should consider the idea recommended by the Law Reform Commission. I may put this in train and see what will come of it.