Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

13. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the publication of the fifteenth interim report of the IBRC Commission of Investigation. [19244/23]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

14. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the publication of the fifteenth interim report of the IBRC Commission of Investigation. [21537/23]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 14 together.

The IBRC Commission of Investigation was established in June 2015 following consultation with Oireachtas parties to investigate certain transactions, activities and management decisions at the IBRC, beginning with the Siteserv transaction in its first module. The commission’s original deadline for reporting was 31 December 2015 but following requests from the commission, and after consultation with Oireachtas parties, its timeframe for reporting was extended on multiple occasions.

The commission’s report on the Siteserv transaction was received in July 2022 and it was subsequently published and debated in the Dáil and Seanad. In October 2022, the then Taoiseach accepted the commission’s recommendation in its 13th interim report that it should not pursue investigation of the remaining 37 transactions covered by its terms of reference as it is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by investigating them. Accordingly, the commission’s investigation is now complete other than finalising its work on the costs payable to witnesses who appeared before it.

The commission originally envisaged that it would complete its work on costs by the end of March 2023 but in its 15th interim report, dated 16 March 2023, the commission requested an extension until the end of May 2023 to complete this work. I granted the commission’s request and arranged for a copy of its 15th interim report to be published and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

From the time of its establishment in June 2015, to the end of March 2023, the commission spent approximately €13.1 million. This figure does not include third party legal costs which have been incurred but not paid and which are a matter for the commission to determine. The final cost for the commission will become clear only when all the cost orders are made and when any possible legal challenges that may arise are resolved.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for the update. I note the extension has been granted until 31 May. Does the Taoiseach expect that deadline will be met? He has given some indication of costs to date but not including third party legal costs. Does he have any expectation of what the final legal cost is likely to be?

I also raise the proposed commission of investigation into abuse in the Defence Forces and the allegations raised by the Women of Honour. I will not raise those issues that may be subject to a criminal investigation. When does the Taoiseach expect draft terms of reference to be finalised? I know the Tánaiste has committed to engaging with the Women of Honour group but will the Government seek the input of the Opposition in advance of bringing those terms of reference to the Oireachtas?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This extension is to deal with the costs and any legal challenges, meaning this may not be the last extension. The IBRC Commission of Investigation was set up under the 2004 Act. That bespoke legislation effectively turned the commission of investigation into a tribunal but behind closed doors. It dealt with one of 38 transactions. A very comprehensive report found that the transaction was not commercially sound because it was so tainted by impropriety. We need to consider if we have the apparatus in the State to catch things in real time. For example, does the Corporate Enforcement Agency have the capacity where investigations are required to be done including ones that actually will challenge some very powerful people? Do we need to revisit what apparatus we have? Despite the time it took, it dealt with only one transaction, albeit it was a very comprehensive report. We need either a Government or an all-party approach to looking at how we deal with things in a timely and cost-effective manner in the future. We either need to invest in real-time strong enforcement or we if we are going to be dealing with it through inquiries afterwards, those inquiries need to be cost effective and timely. I do not think we have that at the moment.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In its interim report, the commission noted that the State Claims Agency provides it with considerable assistance with witnesses' costs applications. Indeed, the agency is a significant entity in terms of purchasing legal services. It was previously reported that the State Claims Agency the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, had all refused to sign up to the Bar of Ireland's equitable briefing policy to promote equality of opportunity for female barristers. Is this still the case?

The Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, attended the launch of the Bar of Ireland's policy and told attendees that embedding gender equality, human rights, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession is a priority for Government. He also correctly said that actions speak louder than words. What action has Government taken over recent months to resolve this matter? Can we expect the State Claims Agency, the Office of the DPP and the Office of the Attorney General to sign up to the equitable briefing policy which includes a confidential reporting mechanism to monitor and measure progress? Can the Taoiseach offer us a rationale or a rational basis for the Attorney General, the DPP and the State Claims Agency refusing to sign up to this policy in the first place?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is worth reminding ourselves what is the essence of this. What was being investigated was a massive rip-off and loss for the public to the tune of €118 million written off by IBRC, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, to the benefit of the Denis O'Brien-owned Siteserv. The fundamental conclusion is that the IBRC was misled by Siteserv directors over the transaction. The phrase "tainted with impropriety" is mentioned an incredible 44 times in the report. In that context, it is very unfortunate that 37 other transactions will not be investigated. They were identified on the basis that they were transactions where the bank suffered a net loss at least €10 million each. Given the findings of what happened with Siteserv, whereby the public was definitely ripped off, there is a possibility that similar practices took place in those other instances. While I understand the complexity of pursuing some of these issues, simply to say "No, we can't go there" is quite unfortunate.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow night the now multi-award-winning film about the Debenhams dispute will be shown here in audiovisual room. The Taoiseach is invited, by the way, direct from the shop stewards. Vincent Browne will be hosting a question-and-answer panel afterwards. The film highlights very serious questions about, obviously, the treatment of the Debenhams workers, but also how the whole insolvency was handled - certainly questions and possible corporate impropriety for which those workers suffered very grievously. As I think I mentioned to the Taoiseach previously, I, some of the workers and some of the film makers brought to the Corporate Enforcement Authority some of the stuff we found out, some of which is portrayed in the film if the Taoiseach gets see it. It will go on general release in week or two.

This relates to Deputy Paul Murphy's point about Siteserv.

If somebody steals something in a shop, the police are called and the person can be chased up and potentially prosecuted and imprisoned very quickly. The Corporate Enforcement Authority, however, essentially has no resources to do anything. When we told it there are very serious questions, it said that while it took on board what we were saying, it was restricted in its ability to tell us if it even found anything. It was not even clear to me to whom it reports. The contrast between the way white-collar impropriety or outright crime is pursued as against what happens to ordinary people who may be accused of crime is pretty stark. This is what this sort of thing highlights. Does the Taoiseach not think this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of the Deputies asked about costs. From the time of its establishment until the end of March, the commission has cost €13.1 million, but this excludes third-party legal costs that have been incurred but not yet paid. These are a matter for the commission to determine. I do not have an estimate on that, unfortunately. Since it was established, the commission spent €6.2 million on its own legal costs, which related to two senior counsel and six junior counsel it is sanctioned to engage. All legal service fees are paid at the rates provided by the Government. The per diemrate for senior counsel is €788 per day and for junior counsel it is €394 per day. The commission also had sanction to engage on a consultancy basis the services of three independent experts at a rate of €150 per hour up to a maximum of €750 per day. One of the experts is still involved in the assessment of third-party legal costs claims received by the commission. The commission may also engage, as required, counsel to assist any litigations it is involved in. Up until the end of March, the commission issued 21 directions, with third-party legal costs to be paid to witnesses who appeared before the commission. The amount directed for payment by the commission was €1.5 million, approximately. The State Claims Agency has also sought recoupment from the Department in relation to each of the directions received, to the value of just under €800,000.

On the issues raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy around the appropriateness of commissions of inquiry more generally, we now have the Corporate Enforcement Authority and the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, NBCI. I am not sure commissions of investigation are the best means by which to examine commercial transactions. The suggestion has been made that we would have a more permanent inspector for public inquiries. This would require detailed consideration. It was considered by the Law Reform Commission in 2005. That listed some advantages and disadvantages. Having done so, the commission did not recommend the establishment of a permanent 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 with regard to public inquiries. This would provide those charged with establishing and running public inquiries easy access to precedents and 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 2004, only one year after the Commissions of Investigation Act was enacted. Since then a lot has happened and a lot has changed. We have a lot of experience now of how commissions do, and sometimes do not, work.

On the wider question of white-collar crime and corporate enforcement, as raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett and others, the Government is ensuring we have a regulatory framework that promotes and ensures a culture of compliance and good ethical standards in matters of both public and corporate affairs. For example, last year as the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I established the Corporate Enforcement Authority that has autonomy and resources to thoroughly investigate suspected corporate wrongdoing. We are increasing staffing levels by nearly 50%, doubling the number of gardaí, and the authority's budget has been increased by nearly 30%.

An all-of-government implementation plan is in place to progress the recommendations of the Hamilton review into economic crime, which was published back in April 2021. It sets out 22 actions to enhance enforcement and prevention capacity in the criminal justice sphere. Six of those actions are already completed and a number are advanced. I will give the House a few examples of what has been done.

The Criminal Procedure Act was enacted in 2021. That allows for pretrial hearings to take place, which will improve trials for white-collar crimes, organised crime, and other complex offences, and will make it less likely for juries to be sent away during the trial, making the court process faster and more efficient. The Judicial Council has been engaged in relation to the development of judicial training in respect of complex economic crime and corruption cases. The advisory council against economic crime and corruption was established last summer. It is chaired by former Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. James Hamilton. There is also a forum of senior representatives from the relevant operational bodies, which was established in June 2021. That forum meets quarterly to discuss issues of shared concern. They also feed into the work of the advisory council against economic crime and corruption. The Competition (Amendment) Act was signed into law last year, again during my term as the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This strengthened considerably the powers of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. Budget increases have been provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to augment staffing and resources to deal with the increased workload relating to changes in the nature and volume of criminal investigation files received by An Garda Síochána and other specialised investigative agencies. Budget 2023 also provided for the allocation of five extra staff to the special financial crime unit.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also asked about the equitable briefing policy and the failure of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and other offices to sign off.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the Deputy. I do not believe I have the answer to that question but I will come back to the Deputy by correspondence on that.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were a number of questions here, the responses for which did not relate to the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation commission of investigation, so I might come back to Deputies by correspondence if that is okay.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach.