Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach if the inquiry initiated by the Government into the IBRC and the Siteserv deal would cover the buying and selling of shares in the period in advance of the sale of Siteserv, and if we would have full transparency over who bought the shares and who benefited from the €5 million pay-out.

I also want to deal with the relationship between IBRC and the Department of Finance. The Government's press release is extraordinary in that it mentions concerns raised in the Dáil and elsewhere but omits the crucial issue of concerns raised at the highest level in the Department of Finance in terms of the operation of the IBRC.

In regard to the documentation and the reports in The Irish Times last Friday, has the Taoiseach read the freedom of information documentation? It reveals a fraught relationship and significant concerns civil servants were expressing about IBRC. Why is that core relationship not being addressed by the inquiry? For example, concerns were expressed about the appointment of Blackstone without a public procurement process. The core business of Blackstone is hoovering up distressed assets in situations like this. It was given full visibility to everything that was happening in IBRC. That will not be examined by the inquiry. Issues also arise in regard to the wealth management unit in IBRC.

I understand that William Frye solicitors were brought in to prepare a report on perceived conflicts of interest between IBRC itself and its wealth management entity. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the report is published? The Department expressed a number of concerns about business conduct, including the bank's relationship with big borrowers, pay and appointments. Topaz complained to the Department of Finance about the way in which IBRC was managing its portfolio. In respect of the Apthorp apartment complex in Manhattan, there was an adverse deviation from the normal valuation approach amounting to between €25 million and €50 million. An executive in IBRC raised the alarm about that deviation but his concerns were never brought to the attention of the board. That raises fundamental questions about good practice within the bank but while aspects of this might be addressed by the inquiry, the wider concerns expressed by the Department will not be considered. That is why a commission of investigation would be preferable. Will the issues pertaining to the shares be covered by the inquiry and will there be full transparency?

Why were we not told in 2012 about the relationship between the Department of Finance and the IBRC? Why were the public and the Dáil kept in the dark for so long? Will the Taoiseach take steps to ensure publication of the William Frye report on perceived conflicts of interest and overlapping interests between IBRC wealth management and the bank itself? Has he read the FOI documents on these matters?

I answered the Deputy's question on this matter yesterday. The scale and timeframe of the review is broader than the Siteserv transaction concluded by the board of IBRC in 2012. It is expected to cover the 30 or more transactions concluded by the board between 2009 and the liquidation of the bank in February 2013. The order provides:

The review shall consider all transactions, activities and management decisions ... between 21 January 2009 (being the date of the nationalisation of IBRC) and 7 February 2013 (being the date of the appointment of the special liquidators to IBRC) ... and which either:

(A) resulted in a capital loss to IBRC of at least €10,000,000 during the relevant period; or

(B) are specifically identified by the Special Liquidators as giving rise or likely to give rise to potential public concerns, in respect of the ultimate returns to the taxpayer.

The purpose of the review is:

to investigate, in relation to each such decision, transaction and activity ... the processes, procedures and controls which were operated by IBRC in relation to Relevant Writeoffs ... whether there is prima facie evidence of material deficiencies in the performance of their functions by those acting on behalf of IBRC, including the IBRC board, directors, management and agents, in respect of any transactions, activities and management decisions identified under section 2 (A) and (B) above ... whether it can be concluded from any relevant documentation, data or interviews with relevant individuals as appropriate that any of the transactions were not commercially sound in respect of the manner in which they were conducted, the decisions made or the outcomes achieved having regard to the purposes of the Act as set out in section 3 of the Act.

I assume these include the reports to which Deputy Martin referred and that, in respect of decisions made, the review would have to take into account documentation or reports provided to the board of IBRC to allow it to make a decision in the first instance. I also assume that the purpose of the review as set out by the Minister will include an investigation of all matters relevant to decisions, transactions and activities. The Deputy referred to a specific report. I can ascertain whether that report is within the scope of the review for publication, although I assume from the order that it would be. I have read the documentation in respect of freedom of information.

The Taoiseach did not answer my questions at all. It is not good enough for him to say he assumes issues are being covered. The relationship between the Department of Finance and IBRC is not covered by this inquiry. The inquiry is ring-fenced to transactions and deciding whether commercially unsound decisions were made or material deficiencies existed. A commission of investigation would get to the core of this matter. There was a pattern of hostility on the part of IBRC towards departmental oversight. I asked the Taoiseach if he had read the documentation but he did not answer me.

I answered the Deputy.

I am making inquiries and I am finding out things. The William Frye report will be important because it will examine the way in which IBRC dealt with its wealth management unit. People could not buy it for one reason or other. Why was that?

Paddy wants to know again.

I asked about the shares. The Taoiseach did not answer my question on that yesterday and he has not answered today either. Will the share issue be covered? Who was buying shares in a bust company and why were they doing so?

The Deputy is over time.

Billions of euro were involved. Does the Taoiseach stand by his civil servants in the Department of Finance? Cliff Taylor summed matters up well in his article in The Irish Times with the following observation:

[T]he extent of the tensions revealed in the FOI documents ... is striking, and cause for concern when so much money was at stake. Was it a case of an over-controlling government department insisting on playing everything by the rule book and not being experienced in the real world of deal-making? Or was the IBRC really being run without the proper controls and procedures in place and choosing sometimes to ignore the official view?

There is sufficient cause for grave concern given the scale of the matters arising. We know the bank resisted the framework document to the extent that the Department suggested there was a risk that it might seek to take action to delay or impede finalisation of the document, which was required by the troika.

I remind Deputy Martin that unlike his own outfit, which proceeded with Anglo Irish Bank and cost us €34 billion, this Government has no difficulty in defending the taxpayer's rights in public and in an accountable fashion.

What is he hiding?

Deputy Martin demanded a commission of investigation into Siteserv. I made the point that if one sets up a commission of investigation, there is a long lead-in and possibly a long period before one receives a report. The Deputy wants answers now.

It is only as long as one makes it.

All of the files that are relevant to Siteserv, and beyond Siteserv, are in the hands of the special liquidator, who has been directed by the Minister to produce those files and to report to him by the end of August. In respect of the matter of conflicts of interest, the Minister has appointed a retired High Court judge to adjudicate.

That is not what I am asking about.

The Deputy never listens.

The Taoiseach never listens; he just obfuscates.

Please, we are over time.

Prior to the sale of Siteserv, these documents on shareholdings were public documents and on the day of sale access to them is available.

I read the reports about the journalists who had access to the shareholding file of Siteserv, to the names and addresses of people who were shareholders and the stockbrokers who bought shares for individuals.

Who had access to that?

That document was always a public document and was a public document on the day of sale. The evidence is accessible to journalists and they have examined it.

Second, in regard to the difficulties the Deputy referred to between the Department of Finance and IBRC, the freedom of information document shows exactly the nature of the concerns the Minister for Finance had. He changed the framework Deputy Martin's Government set up, where there was no mandatory reporting of major transactions to a point where it was compulsory for that to happen. He changed that and the senior person he appointed asked the questions on behalf of the Minister for Finance in respect of the taxpayer, and was right to do so. Fianna Fáil did not see fit to do that and its Government let it run, without mandatory reporting. That framework was changed.

Deputy Adams, please now. Sorry, the Taoiseach's time is concluded.

The Taoiseach is being dishonest to the Dáil.

We are now going to have a situation where the files will be prepared for the Minister, and if necessary, the Government will change the law so that a further independent objective assessment can be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General if the Committee of Public Accounts wishes to do that.

The election will prevent that. The Taoiseach knows that will never happen. Do not be dishonest and say legislation will be enacted before the autumn.

Let us have Deputy Adams, without interruption.