Seanad debates

Wednesday, 12 October 2022

Report of Commission of Investigation (IBRC) into Siteserv Transaction: Statements

 

10:30 am

Photo of Eugene MurphyEugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Senators are aware, the Taoiseach is the specified person and the Department of the Taoiseach is responsible for certain administrative functions regarding the IBRC commission. Unfortunately, the Taoiseach cannot participate in today's debate due to prior commitments. He has asked me to attend in his place and extend his apologies to the House.

The commission was established in June 2015 following the making of a Government order, which was approved in draft by this House and the Dáil. The commission's terms of reference, which were also approved by both Houses, were the subject of extensive discussions between all parties in the Oireachtas both at the outset and during the lifetime of the commission.

In summary, the commission was required to investigate all transactions, activities and management decisions at the IBRC other than those relating solely to the acquisition of assets by the National Asset Management Agency, which occurred between 21 January 2009 and 7 February 2013. They either resulted in a capital loss to IBRC of at least €10 million, or are specifically identified by the commission as giving rise, or likely to give rise, to potential public concern in respect of the ultimate returns to the taxpayer.

In November 2015, the commission submitted an interim report that indicated 38 transactions came within its terms of reference. The interim report also raised significant issues regarding legal professional privilege, banking confidentiality and its terms of reference. As a result, following consultations with all Oireachtas parties, bespoke legislation was enacted in 2017 to provide a new legal basis for the commission. The commission's terms of reference were also amended following consultations with Oireachtas parties.

Under the commission's amended terms of reference it was charged with, in its first module, investigating the Siteserv transaction, which had been identified by Dáil Éireann as a matter of significant public concern. The commission was also charged with, in its first module of work, reviewing and reporting on the principles and policies within IBRC in respect of the setting of interest rates generally during the relevant period.

The commission's terms of reference also provide for investigating matters relating to: (a) the processes, procedures and controls which were operated by IBRC; (b) whether there is prima facieevidence of material deficiencies in the performance of their functions by those acting on behalf of IBRC, including the IBRC board, directors, management, the staff of the wealth management unit and agents; (c) whether it can be concluded that the transactions were not commercially sound; (d) whether any unusual share trading occurred; and (e) whether the Minister for Finance or his Department was kept informed, where appropriate, in respect of the transactions concerned, and whether he, or officials on his behalf, took appropriate steps in respect of the information provided to them.

The commission sent its report on the Siteserv transaction to the Taoiseach on 29 July 2022. Following consultation with the Attorney General, the Taoiseach arranged for the report to be published and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 7 September 2022. The commission's report runs to more than 1,500 pages. Unsurprisingly, in a report of its length, it goes through all aspects of the Siteserv transaction in detail. The commission has made extensive findings of fact which are of great concern to the Government. It is clear from the recent debate on the report in the Dáil, and media commentary, that these concerns are shared across the political spectrum.

I think it would be useful to briefly highlight some of the commission's main findings. For example, the commission determined that it can be concluded that the bank made its decision to approve the sale of the Siteserv group in good faith but based on misleading and incomplete information provided to it by the company. The commission found that there were two parallel processes during the sale process. One of these was below the surface and meant that decisions were made in the course of the Siteserv sale process which were clearly and manifestly improper, and which undermined the integrity of the process. The commission also determined that it can be concluded that the Siteserv transaction was, from the perspective of the bank, so tainted by impropriety and wrongdoing, that the transaction was not commercially sound. It found that the bank might, subject to certain assumptions, have recovered up to €8.7 million more than the €44.3 million it agreed to accept in the sale.

It is worth putting on the record that many of the allegations made in the Oireachtas and elsewhere were not upheld by the commission. For example, the commission found that many aspects of the transaction, and the behaviour of a number of parties, including in IBRC itself, were appropriate. It also found that the procedures and controls that were operated by IBRC at the relevant time regarding the Siteserv transaction were fit for purpose and that there is no evidence that any unusual trading in Siteserv shares occurred. The commission also established the approach taken by the IBRC regarding the setting of interest rates for individual loans, and how these decisions were reached, and made no adverse findings.

The report did make a number of negative findings regarding some individuals who were closely involved in the sale of the company. I think that everyone in this House will agree that people be held responsible for their actions but, of course, it is also important that we do not prejudge anything and we must wait for the outcome of the follow-up investigations, which are to be completed as a result of the commission's findings. In this regard, the commission recommended that the report be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities concerning a number of taxation, company law and bankruptcy issues. Accordingly, as per the commission's recommendations and on foot of advice from the Attorney General, the Taoiseach arranged for the report to be brought to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners, the special liquidators of the IBRC, the Corporate Enforcement Authority, the Central Bank and the official assignee in a bankruptcy case. These bodies are now responsible for conducting any appropriate investigations on foot of the report.

I thank Mr. Justice Brian Cregan, who was the sole member of the commission, for his work in compiling the report. Clearly, it was a very onerous task. He deserves great credit for his thorough analysis of a very complex and detailed commercial transaction. However, I believe that the length of time that the commission took to complete its report on the Siteserv transaction raises broader questions about the effectiveness of the commission of investigation model. To illustrate this point, it should be noted that it took the commission over seven years to produce its report on the Siteserv transaction. During that time the commission has cost over €12 million approximately, excluding third-party legal costs incurred by witnesses who appeared before the commission, which have not yet been paid. The commission signalled in its interim report dated 25 July 2022 that after it had finished the report on Siteserv it would begin to work on the third-party legal costs. I understand that this process is now under way. The final cost of the commission will only be known when the commission makes its determination on these third-party costs. It is clear that the total cost is going to be extremely high in any case.

The commission signalled in its interim report dated 25 July 2022 that it would provide its report on the other 37 transactions covered by its terms of reference before the end of this month. I understand from the Taoiseach that he has now received this report and that he is currently considering it. Before the contents of the report are made public the Taoiseach is consulting with the Attorney General and further details will be provided when that process has concluded. It should be noted that the commission previously indicated that there will be significant, if not insuperable, difficulties in progressing the investigation into the other 37 transactions.This is because, for example, many of the companies involved are located outside the jurisdiction of the State or no longer exist if they have been dissolved or gone into receivership. I will use the limited time available to me at the end of the debate to comment on the most significant issues that are raised and to provide clarification to colleagues on the issues they raise.

Photo of Pat CaseyPat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. Those of us who were then Members of the Dáil and Seanad will recall that the commission was established by the Government in June 2015 following approval of a draft order of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Senators may also recall that the commission submitted an interim report in November 2015 which raised significant issues regarding legal professional privilege, banking confidentiality and its terms of reference. As a result, following consultation with all Oireachtas parties, bespoke legislation was enacted in 2017 to provide a new legal basis for the commission.

As the Minister of State pointed out, we are now seven years on and only last month the Taoiseach published the 1,500 page report of the commission of investigation on the IBRC transaction relating to Siteserv and the principles and policies in IBRC on interest rates. The Government accepts the findings of the commission. It believes the report shines a light on unacceptable practices by certain parties during the course of the transaction. It focuses on the soundness of one of the transactions. In this regard the commission has determined it can be concluded that the bank made its decision to approve the sale of the Siteserv group in good faith but this was based on misleading and incomplete information provided to it by the company.

As the Minister of State said, the commission found there were two parallel processes during the sale. There was the above surface process organised by Siteserv and its advisers in which the company chose bidders, evaluated the bids, decided to grant exclusivity to one bid and then signed and completed the sale. As the Minister of State pointed out, the below the surface process was where certain events occurred in the course of the Siteserv sale process without the knowledge of the bank. This below the surface process meant steps were taken and decisions were made in the course of the Siteserv process in a manner that was manifestly improper and which undermined the integrity of the Siteserv sale process.

The commission makes a number of highly critical findings about certain individuals working for or involved with Siteserv plc. It does not make any critical finding of Mr. O'Brien. The commission has also determined that it can be concluded that the transactions were not conducted in a manner that was reasonable from the perspective of bank and that decisions were made and actions taken in the course of the transaction that were not reasonable from the perspective of the bank. The outcome of the transactions was also not reasonable from the perspective of the bank. The commission has also determined that it can be concluded that the Siteserv transaction was, from the perspective of the bank, so tainted by impropriety and wrongdoing that the transaction was not commercially sound.

The report states the bank could have recovered up to €8.7 million more than the €44.3 million it agreed to accept in the sale. The headline price of the alternative bidder for Siteserv was €4 million more than the headline bid of Mr. O'Brien. That could have been pursued. The company agreed with Mr. O'Brien a reduction in the sale of the proceeds of €1.8 million through working capital adjustments. There is no evidence that a rival bidder would not have been given the same adjustments. Siteserv directors awarded themselves and other directors bonuses that cost the company more than €800,000. These bonuses should never have been paid. The company did not need to pay the sum of €5 million to its shareholders and could have obtained their consent to the transaction with a payment of €2.1 million less.

The report goes into other areas, with regard to the procedures and controls in IBRC share trading, interest rates and interactions between the IBRC and the Department of Finance. As the Minister of State said, and as all of us have said, the Government accepts the findings of the commission. It believes the report shines a light on unacceptable practices by certain parties during the course of the transaction. I welcome the news that the Taoiseach is arranging to bring relevant recommendations made by the commission in its report to the attention of the relevant Departments and sections.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The report of the Cregan commission of investigation into the sale of Siteserv Limited to a company beneficially owned in the majority by Mr. Denis O'Brien is a matter of public interest. Siteserv was indebted to the State-owned IBRC to the amount of €156 million arising from its debts to Anglo Irish Bank. Accordingly, the terms on which it was sold concerned the people of Ireland as taxpayers and as guarantors of the failed Anglo Irish Bank. Indebtedness of the order of €110 million was written off by IBRC. In these circumstances, there was a grave obligation to conduct the sale of Siteserv in an ethical and lawful manner designed to maximise the return to IBRC and the citizens of Ireland. The commission’s report is very lengthy and detailed but, happily, its conclusions are summarised at chapter 27. These conclusions have been laid before us as Members of the Oireachtas for our brief consideration today. I propose to comment on these conclusions.

The commission found that the sales process was conducted in good faith by IBRC but that it was tainted with impropriety and illegality as a result of the improper actions of three persons in particular, namely, Niall McFadden, Brian Harvey and Robert Dix, whose evidence the commission disbelieved and rejected in relation to crucial aspects of the transaction. Niall McFadden and Brian Harvey concluded a secret deal with Denis O'Brien and persons acting for him under which they would receive 15% of the shares in the acquiring company owned by Mr. O'Brien as a "management incentive". They collectively took steps to ensure that this side deal would be concealed from most members of the Siteserv board and from those in IBRC who were supervising the sale of Siteserv.

McFadden and Harvey abused their positions to ensure that highly confidential information relating to the competitive bidding process was revealed to those conducting the O'Brien bid. Their aim was to give the O'Brien bid the inside track and an unfair and improper advantage as a bidder for Siteserv. The commission found that the compromised sale process could have yielded €8.7 million more for the taxpayer. The presence of McFadden and Dix at a ski resort "boot camp" holiday with Mr. O'Brien at the precise time that crucial decisions were pending or being made in relation to the Siteserv deal does not appear to me to be entirely innocent or mere coincidence. The commission found that Dix improperly and inexplicably concealed this event from his fellow directors.

O’Brien had, on the evidence, made strenuous but unsuccessful interventions with IBRC to reduce or write off the major personal indebtedness of his friend McFadden to the bank. The 15% shareholding deal was deliberately structured offshore to disguise the existence of these shares from creditors of McFadden and Harvey, including IBRC. False backdating of employment documentation, to which Mr. O'Brien’s company was also party, appears to have been done to conceal and evade tax liabilities.

All of these are findings of the commission and they are all to be found in chapter 27. These facts raise the obvious question as to why Mr. O’Brien took no steps to prevent the improper actions of those who tainted the Siteserv transaction. None of these improprieties could have occurred had he lifted a finger to stop them. While the commission forbore to deal with that question, we to whom the facts have now been conveyed must ask this question and seek an explanation, if there is one. The people of Ireland cannot continue to ignore as a mere string of coincidences the findings of the Moriarty tribunal and the Cregan commission and the circumstances giving rise to the data scandal and other serious issues at Independent News & Media, INM, which are under investigation. There is an undeniable common link to all of these events. It is the tainted pursuit of greed by any means, fair or foul.

What I have said is based entirely on the findings the Government has said it has accepted in chapter 27 of the commission's report.Those findings of facts give rise to questions which must be answered. Why did these events take place? Mr. O'Brien knew what was happening and must have known he was receiving confidential information improperly, even though the commission found he did not seek it in the first place. Why did he not say to Mr. McFadden and Mr. Harvey that he was having nothing to do with them, that he wanted the deal to go through fair and square, and that he would deal with it on the same basis as anybody else?

The time has come for the Irish people to demand of those who have received great assistance from them in accumulating their wealth that they demonstrate standards of ethics and propriety in their dealings with State institutions. This is not just a hard deal done between two sets of businessman, both of whom are to be imputed with the capacity to look after their own interests. Rather, this was Irish taxpayers' money in IBRC. This was a deal which was or was not going to try to recover as much as possible for the Irish taxpayer arising from the debts of Siteserv to the IBRC of over €150 million. The Irish people are entitled to high standards. I fully accept what has been said, namely that the IBRC acted honourably and in good faith.

Let us not forget that the commission has found that it was deceived and that facts were kept from it. The result was not merely that the transaction was tainted and unlawful, but also that it probably resulted in the sale of this asset at an undervalue to a company owned by Mr. O'Brien, in which Mr. McFadden and Mr. Harvey were to have a secret offshore shareholder interest, in circumstances which give rise to the reasonable inference that the whole thing was structured to conceal from the Irish Revenue the reality of where the money was going and what money would be available by way of taxation to defray the liabilities of those involved.

I welcome the report, but we should not cover up what has happened. We should not simply say that it is for another day, or for the Revenue Commissioners, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement or somebody else to draw conclusions. These facts speak for themselves.

Photo of Maria ByrneMaria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to discuss the important issue of the IBRC commission of investigation. The report was published on 7 September 2022. I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Justice Brian Cregan. He had a major task in terms of the work involved. The commission was established in June 2015 to investigate certain transactions, activities and management decisions in the IBRC. The commission's terms of reference provided that the first module of its work would investigate the Siteserv transaction, which has been identified as a matter of significant public concern in Dáil Éireann. That has been referred to by other speakers.

The report considers the matters coming from within the commission's terms of reference regarding the Siteserv transaction in a comprehensive manner. It goes through all aspects of the transaction in an extraordinary level of detail and makes extensive findings of fact. One person was vested with carrying out the transaction, but to start in 2015 and end up in 2022 is far too long to wait for a report. I understand and compliment the judge who had to carry out complete works.

The report is 1,500 pages long and quite detailed, and has taken a considerable length of time to be finalised. Among the findings, the commission determined that the IBRC made its decision to approve the sale of the Siteserv group in good faith, something to which many speakers have referred, based on misleading and incomplete information provided by the company. The commission has also determined that it can be concluded that the Siteserv transaction was, from the perspective of the bank, so tainted by impropriety and wrongdoing that the transaction was not commercially sound.

I am glad to hear that the Government has accepted the findings of the commission and believes the report has highlighted unacceptable practices by certain parties during the course of the transaction. I was going to ask whether the Government intends to hand the findings to another organisation, but the Minister of State covered that in his opening remarks when he said it will be given to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Revenue Commissioners, the special liquidators of the IBRC, the Corporate Enforcement Authority, the Central Bank and the official assignees in bankruptcy cases. This is certainly the right route to take.

The commission found that there were two parallel processes during the sale process: first, the above-the-surface sale process organised by Siteserv and its advisers, in which the company chose bidders, evaluated the bids, decided to grant exclusivity to one bid and signed and completed the sale; and second, the below-the-surface process, in which certain events occurred in the course of the Siteserv sales process without the knowledge of the bank. The below-the-surface process meant steps were taken and decisions made in the course of the Siteserv sale process in a manner that was manifestly improper and undermined the integrity of the Siteserv sale process.

The commission made a number of highly critical findings. It determined that it can be concluded that the transaction was not conducted in a manner that was reasonable from the perspective of the bank. The decisions made and actions taken in the course of the transaction were not reasonable from the perspective of the bank. The outcome of the transaction was not reasonable from the perspective of the bank. The commission concluded that the Siteserv transaction was not commercially sound. It stated that the bank could have recovered up to €8.7 million more than the €44.3 million it agreed to accept in the sale. The figure of €8.7 million includes the headline price bid by an alternative bidder for Siteserv, which was €4 million more than the headline bid and could have been pursued. The company agreed a reduction in the sale proceeds of €1.8 million through a working capital adjustment. There is no evidence that the rival bidder would have given the same adjustment. The company did not need to pay €5 million to shareholders and could have obtained their consent to the transaction. The payment could have been between €700,000 and €2.1 million less.

The commission also found that the procedures and controls operated by the IBRC at the relevant time regarding the Siteserv transaction were fit for purpose, although the bank's failure to address a payment to Siteserv shareholders contributed to the bank recovering between €700,000 and €2.1 million less than it might otherwise have received from the proceeds of the sale. The commission found no evidence that any unusual trading on Siteserv shares occurred, which would give rise to an inference that inside information was not improperly provided to or used by any persons. The commission also established the approach taken by the IBRC regarding the setting of interest rates for individual loans and how these decisions were reached, and made no adverse findings.

I welcome the debate today. Taxpayers are the losers. The investigation has happened. In conclusion, I do not believe there is any guarantee that we will not have a commission of investigation down the road. While I welcome that the investigation has taken place and the Government is acting appropriately, it is worrying that there are no guarantees and the loss of money to the public is of concern.

Photo of Niall Ó DonnghaileNiall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I am covering these statements on behalf of my colleague Senator Gavan, who is at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. In approaching this debate I remember the advice given to me in the last Oireachtas that when it comes to situations like this, I should follow the numbers or, in this case, the money. I did precisely that regarding the formal investigation into the 2012 sale of Siteserv, a business services company. Following the money regarding Siteserv revealed a disturbing level of abuse of power among the wealthy and the elite in sections of a financial hierarchy who thought, and indeed behaved, as though they were an unaccountable power unto themselves. The first thing that struck me about this financially sordid affair is that the bank involved, IBRC, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, which was then State-owned and had received a €34 billion bailout from the taxpayer in 2009, decided to write off €118 million of €162 million owed to it by Siteserv. It settled on a sum of €44.3 million for the sale of Siteserv. An already overburdened taxpayer had to carry the loss of €118 million. Next Siteserv shareholders would be paid €5 million to ease their financial situation. There was, however, no financial gift to ease the financial burden on the hard-pressed taxpayer.

In June 2015 the commission of investigation was established. Mr. Justice Brian Cregan was appointed to lead it. In the course of his investigation many issues pertaining to the handling of the overall situation by IBRC and by individuals were unearthed. One issue was a failure by IBRC to secure €2.1 million from the proceeds of the Siteserv sale, which, of course, directly affected the taxpayer's burden. The other issue was that preferential treatment was granted to Cathkin Investments Limited, or Millington, to buy Siteserv when at least one other company was interested in buying it at a higher price - another loss to the taxpayer. The commission found that this "buddy deal" with Millington was "so tainted by impropriety and wrongdoing" that, from the perspective of the bank, the transaction was not commercially sound. In this regard the commission also found that the manner in which the transaction was conducted, the decisions and actions taken by individuals in the course of the transaction, and its outcome were all unreasonable from the perspective of the bank and, therefore, the taxpayer. As for the sale of Siteserv to Millington, the commission said this decision was made "without even considering whether to contact" other interested bidders and described this behaviour as "totally improper".

The commission also found that throughout the Siteserv sale process there were two parallel processes at play, as other colleagues have said. One was above the surface, seemingly conducted by the company in plain view, but the other was below the surface, carried out without the knowledge of IBRC. In the words of the report, this "below the surface process" "undermined the integrity of the Siteserv sale process".

The commission also criticised the credit committee of IBRC for its failure to disclose the paperwork in respect of the €5 million payment that was made to the shareholders as part of the Siteserv transaction. The commission stated that that failure contributed to IBRC recovering up to €2.1 million less from the proceeds of the Siteserv sale, to the detriment of the taxpayer.

The comments of the commission on individuals, namely, Mr. Dix, Mr. Harvey and Mr. McFadden make for pretty damning reading. They are shocking and reveal disregard which some in high places have for the requirements by which ordinary citizens abide every day. The report lifts the veil on a reckless and elitist culture that infected certain echelons of big business and high finance during a dark chapter in this State's history.

We must remember we are dealing here with a bank that the taxpayer had bailed out at huge economic and social cost. The findings of the report also reveal a sad fact that has bedevilled this State and its citizens for far too long, that is, that there is a revolving door between the corporate world and the State and that it opens at times when in fact it should be very firmly closed. It is quite clear that we still do not have robust enough safeguards in place to ensure that individuals do not move freely and with ease between the corridors of corporate Ireland and the corridors of power.

This inquiry has cost the taxpayer €30 million in seven years. We need to take stock of this process and evaluate whether it is fit for purpose, whether it delivers value for money and whether it acts as an incentive or a disincentive for further corporate malpractice. It cannot be the model we pursue in eradicating wrongdoing. It is important that, following this report by the commission of investigation, the Government charts a clear and robust pathway forward. I agree with other colleagues in looking forward to the Minister of State outlining what steps the Government plans to take next on this issue.

Photo of Eugene MurphyEugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes the statements from Senators. I thank Senators Casey, McDowell, Maria Byrne and Ó Donnghaile. The Minister of State has now more than ten minutes to reply if he wishes. It is up to him.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take less than ten minutes. I thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate. A number of issues were raised on which I think we can all agree, on both the Government and the Opposition sides. I acknowledge Senators Casey, McDowell, Maria Byrne and Ó Donnghaile for their contributions.

There has been criticism across the Oireachtas about the length of time the commission took to compile its report and the costs the commission has incurred in these times of constraints on the public purse. It must be remembered that when the Commissions of Investigation Act was enacted in 2004 it was hoped that it would enable quick and cost-effective investigation of matters of significant public concern. Back then we had experience of a number of tribunals which had run for a long time and at great cost, and there was a public mood that we needed a better alternative. In light of the experience since then, with the IBRC commission and other commissions, the Oireachtas collectively might wish to consider whether we can do anything further to improve the current regulatory framework for statutory investigations. It must be recognised, however, that commissions have to be independent in their investigations and adhere to fair procedures. Any changes to the way in which matters of public concern are investigated need to be fully thought out and considered. It may be that using the current model for investigations into complex corporate transactions is not as suitable as using it for matters concerning public administration issues where it is possible to confirm facts more easily. The ultimate objective for everyone in the Oireachtas is to ensure that, as far as possible, Ireland has a regulatory framework which promotes and ensures a culture of compliance and good ethical standards in matters of both public and corporate affairs.

The need for proper efficacy in the corporate world and for a statutory framework which effectively facilitates detection and prosecution of wrongdoing has also been referred to. The Government has made progress with a range of initiatives designed to combat corruption and white-collar crime. For example, earlier this year the Government established the Corporate Enforcement Authority, which will have the autonomy and resources to thoroughly investigate suspected wrongdoing. Staffing levels are increasing by nearly 50%, including a doubling in the number of gardaí, and the authority's budget has also been increased by almost 30%. It is also worth mentioning that an all-of-government implementation plan to progress the recommendations in the Hamilton review into economic crime was published in April 2021. This sets out 22 actions to enhance enforcement and prevention capacity in the criminal justice sphere. Five actions have already been completed in full, and a number of others have been significantly advanced. For example: the Criminal Procedure Act has been enacted; the Judicial Council has been engaged with in respect of the development of judicial training on complex economic crime and corruption cases; a forum of senior representatives from the relevant operational bodies was established in June 2021; and the Competition (Amendment) Act was signed into law on 29 June. There has also been significant progress in implementing other recommendations, including greater powers for investigating agencies to tackle economic crime and corruption, reform of the ethics Acts, and additional resourcing for enforcement agencies.

Questions have also been raised as to whether the commission will, or should, investigate the other 37 transactions that come within its remit. As I mentioned in my earlier address, the commission recently submitted its report to the Taoiseach on this matter, and when his consultations with the Attorney General are completed, the position will be made known at that stage, which I understand will be quite soon. The cost of the commission to date, the length of time it has taken to report, and the commission's views on the matter are significant factors that should be considered in deciding the best approach to take.

It would be great if there were no need to establish commissions of investigation or other types of statutory investigation in the future but, unfortunately, experience tells us that there will be instances that require these types of inquiries again. That is a theme many people referred to. As Senator McDowell mentioned, when we look at matters of fact, we need to ensure that we have structures that fully investigate people and hold them to account where matters of fact are found in these types of inquiries. We need to examine the model, and that is something the collective Oireachtas will have to consider. It is to be hoped that the lessons learned from the IBRC commission's experience and findings will be of value in ensuring such processes are efficient, effective and beneficial for all our citizens and our society as a whole in the future.

Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 2.39 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 4.02 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 2.39 p.m. and resumed at 4.02 p.m.