It would not have been necessary to establish a commission of investigation into certain matters pertaining to transactions entered into by IBRC if the Government had properly answered questions here in the Dáil. I have been asking these questions for over three years now. I will repeat some of them today. In 2012, an Teachta Pearse Doherty and I submitted a range of parliamentary questions about IBRC. The responses were deliberately vague and obstructive. Some of these questions related to IBRC hiring Blackstone to advise it on the sale of assets. As the Taoiseach well knows, Blackstone is an American vulture capital group, which was seeking to buy IBRC's loan book. Anybody could see the obvious conflict of interest at the heart of this arrangement, but the Minister and the Taoiseach indicated in their responses that they had no difficulties with any of this. The Taoiseach also refused to answer questions about the fees being paid to these advisers, as did the Minister. In November 2011, the Taoiseach met the head of Blackstone, Stephen Schwarzman, and his associate, Gerry Murphy. During this period, the Government appointed chair of NAMA's advisory board actually sought to appoint Gerry Murphy to this board. Again, the conflicts of interest are startling. This appointment was abandoned after Sinn Féin's parliamentary questions drew attention to the matter, but we still did not get answers to the questions we raised. Will the Taoiseach tell the Dáil what he discussed with the head of Blackstone, Mr. Schwarzman, or with Mr. Murphy?

Did the Taoiseach raise concerns about the very obvious conflicts of interest in Blackstone taking on an advisory role with IBRC when it was already bidding for IBRC loans?

Thank you, Deputy.

Tá mé ag críochnú anois.

Go raibh maith agat.

In his response to questions from me during Leaders' Questions in 2012 about the relationship between the Department of Finance and IBRC, the Taoiseach refused to answer but he said that "the highest ethical standards will be employed". Does he still stand over this assertion?

I think I met the person the Deputy mentioned on two occasions. We discussed the general state of the economy and how things were moving in the right direction. It was not for me to discuss any individual company's business.

In regard to the standards the Deputy mentioned in respect of the Department of Finance, he is aware that the Minister for Finance met his party's deputy leader and the other spokespersons or leaders of the parties yesterday to hear their proposals in so far as the commission of investigation is concerned. The issue here is that the Government was very anxious to get all of the information out into the public domain and into this House as quickly as possible. The structure to do that was to ask the special liquidator to collate all of the files and present them to the Minister for Finance by the end of August to be sent to the Committee of Public Accounts and that on its examination, if it requested a further independent investigation, that the law would be changed to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General's office to do it. That strategy was overtaken by the events of the past fortnight, in particular in respect of the case in the court and also because of the range of allegations and assertions that were made. I stress that nothing has been proven against anybody in terms of wrongdoing here. That is why we are having a two-day debate now on the terms of reference, which were approved by the Cabinet this morning and which were contributed to both by the Deputy's party and the other parties opposite, in order that this matter can be dealt with authoritatively and independently by a judge to be nominated as a sole member in charge of this commission of investigation. The Minister has been very flexible in the terms of reference, as the Deputy will be aware. He has even gone so far as to say that if issues were being dealt with or contracted by IBRC before the special liquidator was appointed, the flexibility is there to follow those particular transactions through and, also, that if other particular issues arise, consideration will be given to them.

While the Members will have the opportunity over the next two days to contribute to the debate, the intention is that the commission of investigation will be properly resourced and will deal with all of the issues that are set out between 21 January 2009 and 7 February 2013, the date that IBRC was liquidated. The Government looks forward to hearing the propositions from the various Deputies here over the next period and we should let the commission get under way and do its work. That is in the public interest and it is something the Government supports very strongly.

I asked the Taoiseach the following question in February 2012:

The Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, the bank formerly known as Anglo, has retained the services of the Blackstone Group to advise it on the sale of €30 billion of loans it has across Ireland and Britain... How come these vulture capitalists are advising on this loan but are not precluded from bidding for the debts? They are advising on the sale, but are bidding at the same time. Surely, this is a conflict of interest which runs totally contrary to the Taoiseach's election promises to straighten out these issues and make them transparent.

The Taoiseach, in his response, went on his rambles around Ireland. We never got a response to these issues and now he has said that his intention all the time was to get all the information out into the public domain. The Dáil record, with the contributions of Teachta Murphy, Teachta Pearse Doherty, and myself, shows the exact opposite to be the case.

A question please, Deputy.

When I asked the Taoiseach what he raised with Mr. Schwarzman and Mr. Murphy, he said it was not for him to raise any company's business. He is supposed to protect the taxpayers' interests. He is the Taoiseach and this is public money. The billions and millions we are talking about belong to the people. I ask him again to give some clarity on this. We do not need a commission of investigation; the Taoiseach met them, and he has said now that he met them on two occasions. What did he discuss with them?

The state of the Irish economy and the improvements in the economy. The review, as the Deputy knows full well, will consist of-----

I am not asking the Taoiseach that.

I am telling the Deputy-----

I have his terms of reference here.

He has such respect for the Dáil that he is going to tell the Deputy about that.

-----that it will cover all transactions, activities and management decisions which occurred between 21 January 2009, which was the date of the nationalisation of IBRC, and 7 February 2013, the date of the appointment of the special liquidators to IBRC.

The Deputy will have to get that under a freedom of information request.

On a point of order-----

The Deputy cannot raise a point of order in respect of a reply to a question.

The Taoiseach is not answering the question.

This is what happened in this place in the first instance - questions were not answered.

That is right; he has such respect for the Dáil.

I cannot intervene in regard to answers to questions.

Deputy Murphy raised a number of issues in the Dáil and followed them through very consistently.

Because of prevarication.

She needed to use freedom of information requests eventually to get the answers.

The response of the Government was to collate all of those files with the special liquidator and present them to the House and to the Committee of Public Accounts. Deputy Murphy made a very cogent argument in respect of a number of issues.

Will the Taoiseach answer the question?

Events have now transpired that we are having a commission of investigation where all of these matters can be discussed and dealt with.

Is there a minute of that meeting? Should I put in a freedom of information request?

Which meeting are you talking about?

I ask that remarks be addressed through the Chair. Deputy Fleming is the next speaker.

As I said, we discussed the question of the improvement in the economy and the actions the Government was taking to drive that in the right direction. I must say that Deputy Murphy was very clear in her contribution here, that she had checked her sources-----

We know that.

-----on more than one occasion and stood by them. On that basis and on account of the issues that have transpired here, we now have a commission of investigation-----

They have not transpired.

-----with a broad and flexible set of terms of reference, which have been contributed to by all Members of the House and which will be debated over the next two days. It is in the interests of the public-----

That questions be answered.

-----and therefore the Government to have this commission of investigation, give the sole member proper resources to do his or her job and get on with that. The Minister for Finance will make the opening statement, I believe, at 5.30 p.m.