I raise with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, the ongoing debate around the commission of investigation into issues pertaining to IBRC and the need for absolute clarity in relation to the terms of reference the Government has proposed and guarantees that they cover key issues. The heart of this goes back to concerns raised by civil servants in the Department of Finance on the governance at IBRC. Thanks to the painstaking efforts of Deputy Catherine Murphy, we learned of that through freedom of information and parliamentary questions. At the heart of the concerns was a sense that IBRC was being mismanaged, that there were governance issues at the very heart of it and, for example, that departmental officials had concerns about the relationships between big borrowers and key personalities within the management of IBRC, including the CEO, Mr. Aynsley, Mr. Hunerson and, indeed, Mr. Woodhouse. This is all minuted in departmental information files. In responding to assertions by the Department as to whether relationships were too close - this involved Mr. McKillen, Mr. O'Brien and others - Mr. Aynsley said, "They are strong but not inappropriate" and "I might have had four of five dinners or lunches with them". That is how he responded.

Why I raise that is because yesterday evening in the Dáil, Deputy Pearse Doherty raised - Deputy Catherine Murphy raised it last week and the week before - the so-called loan extensions that Mr. O'Brien sought, which are being disputed. The terms of reference refer to contractual relationships. In the context of the loan extensions, Mr. O'Brien apparently argued that he had a verbal assurance with Mr. Aynsley and Mr. Woodhouse. The bottom line is that it seems to be a bit unclear as to whether that verbal assurance is covered by the terms of reference and by the phrase "contractual relationships". The language used in the terms of reference is tortuous. We asked for "governance at a macro level" to be put in and while that is done, it is qualified in the manner in which it is put in. The same applies to this issue. Last night, the Minister for Finance said in response to Deputy John McGuinness that it is covered by the terms of reference. I ask the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to give an assurance to the House between now and the close of the debate that the Government will come forward with language in the form of an amendment that makes it absolutely clear that the issue of the loan extensions moving into the liquidator's sphere and period is absolutely covered by the terms of reference, as are the other issues that we have alluded to.

I thank Deputy Martin for his questions. First, this is clearly a painful legacy of a bank that was not governed by proper regulation over many years. I recall clearly that when money was first put into this bank by the previous Government, we were told it was solvent shortly after it took control. We are now entering the last act of this arrangement and it is important to bear in mind that the only actions this Government has taken in respect of Anglo and IBRC have been, first, to change the control framework - under the previous Fianna Fáil arrangement, there was no official within the IBRC to oversee what was occurring - and, second, to liquidate the bank. Both of those decisions will be vindicated by the history of this.

In terms of the question specifically raised, I give the Deputy absolute assurance that the issues raised by Deputy Doherty and others are within the terms of reference. There is no doubt about this. The Minister for Finance signalled that last night and the Attorney General, who has reviewed the documentation, has also confirmed it. There is no doubt that the issues about which Deputy Martin has raised concern are within the terms of reference and will be covered. The judge will have the power to investigate the issues raised in the debate last night. I hope that gives the Deputy assurance.

I regret that, again, the Minister had to be politically partisan in his opening remarks. What he just stated in his opening remarks was exactly what the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, said during the Private Members' debate and in answer to a parliamentary question to me some time back. He had to come to the House and, humiliatingly, apologise. He also wrote to me to apologise because the assertion that nothing happened until after March 2012 was wrong. Nevertheless, the Minister comes in and says it again. I know from my own sources that there was a relationship between the Department of Finance and Anglo Irish Bank after it was nationalised going right back to 2009. We know now that there were board minutes going right back. The Minister should please not repeat the falsehood that was articulated in the House a week or two ago.

We have sought to be constructive here and we met with the Minister for Finance to get the terms of reference right. We understand that we are not going to get everything, but the language was tortuous. I must be honest with the Minister and say I would like to think the term "contractual obligation" covers the verbal assurances that Mr. O'Brien says he got from Mr. Aynsley and others, but I am not certain. I have preliminary legal advice, but I am not certain and the House deserves certainty on that point. Are loan agreements that might have taken place under the old Anglo Irish Bank outside the relevant period or not? Given the controversy that has arisen, we cannot let this hang. There is an absolute necessity for the Government to make it clear in writing that this issue is covered within the terms of reference. This issue also underlines the need for an interim report by the end of October as there are a lot of issues hanging out there now. They cannot hang out there forever. I refer to the Siteserv issue and the issue of the loan extension.

There is also interest overcharging.

It is unacceptable that it would be allowed to drag on over an indefinite timeframe and, as such, we need clarity and certainty in relation to it. Given what the Minister has said, it should be within the Government's capacity to give that certainty in writing before the close of the debate.

I have given the Deputy the assurance he needs in the House. I have given him the assurance of the Minister for Finance and the assurance of the Attorney General, who is the legal adviser to the Government. Any reading of the terms of reference clearly embraces this. It was specifically in response to concerns raised by Deputies that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, included within the investigation the issue here on contractual obligations agreed during the relevant period but not executed until after. It was very clearly in response to concerns to make sure the terms of reference covered this that they were framed in this way.

Is a verbal agreement contractual?

Deputy Martin may not like legalistic argument that goes into terms of reference, but we have the assurance of the Attorney General that the wording here is absolutely categorical that these cases will be included.

Can that be written as an appendix to the terms of reference?

I have never heard of appendices being written by Attorneys General to legal documents adopted by the Dáil and neither has Deputy Martin.

That would be a wholly inappropriate approach. We have the terms of reference and the categorical assurance that they will cover the issues of concern raised by Deputies. These are legitimate public interest concerns and it is right that we have an investigation. We have appointed a judge who will do this. All of the documentation provided by Deputy Doherty or others will be provided to the judge who has the authority confirmed by the Attorney General to pursue these issues and to satisfy the public as to how these were handled.

The Government's draft terms of reference for the commission of investigation concerning Irish Bank Resolution Corporation has a cut-off date of 7 February 2013 which is the date of the appointment of the special liquidator. Information was passed by Sinn Féin's finance spokesperson, Deputy Pearse Doherty, to the Taoiseach so the Taoiseach has all the information and not just the part of it which was read into the record of the House yesterday. I have also seen this documentation which indicates transactions, activities and decisions beyond the date set in the Government's terms of reference. The special liquidators have disposed of €21.7 billion of loans since that date and that dwarfs the sales in the period open to the commission to look at under the Government's terms of reference. We are talking about billions of the people's money being transferred to private interests in a completely opaque way. This money could have been spent on hospitals, schools, houses and in combating poverty. They include the sale of Racing Post loans which have been criticised by a bidder as being less than transparent. It includes the sales of the mortgages of thousands of people to unregulated vultures that also fall into this timeframe. Contrary to the Minister's claims and the Minister for Finance's claims, these and the period involved are not included in the Government's terms of reference and could be subject to a legal challenge or not investigated at all if the terms of reference are not amended.

One of Sinn Féin's amendments proposes that the relevant period be from 12 January 2009 to 12 March 2015, inclusive, in order to cover all of these transactions. That is what Fianna Fáil should support if the Government does not signal clearly that it will accept our amendment. Will the Government accept our amendment and change the terms of reference accordingly?

I do not accept that the liquidator has been dealing in an opaque way with loans that have disposed of. The legislation governing the liquidator provides that he must get an independent valuation of the loans and the loans must then be disposed of by way of open public tender. He cannot dispose of the loans below the value indicated by the independent evaluation - they have to go to NAMA - and he cannot dispose of them below that price.

Not true.

Stay quiet, please.

The provisions in the legislation governing the liquidator are clear and they are transparent in the way they operate. As for the issue raised by Deputy Adams in respect of the files provided by Deputy Pearse Doherty, these have been reviewed by the Attorney General and she has given the assurances that they will be covered by the commission of investigation.

There are more.

As an example.

Furthermore, these files will be provided to the judge who will be chairing the commission and he will have full access to the files that Deputy Doherty has identified. The terms of reference fully accommodate the issues that have been raised by Deputy Doherty. I can only give Deputy Adams the assurances and I hope he accepts them.

I raised those matters an hour ago.

Sorry, Deputy Mathews, you are not a leader yet. Please allow Deputy Adams to take his question without interruption.

Is it in prospect?

Talk to Deputy Broughan who is on your left. He might take you on board.

It is on the cards.

This is not a Vincent Browne rave up.

The people who are listening in to this are seeing their money being frittered away; they are seeing the way the Government responds to these issues and seeing the way the Minister has refused to deal with the very simple straightforward proposition from Sinn Féin to amend the terms of reference. Let me make it clear to the Minister that it is totally and absolutely unacceptable. Deputy Pearse Doherty made it clear yesterday that he was reading that section into the record of the House to point out one of the transactions which was being claimed had taken place in order that the Government would change the terms of reference. The Government has not changed the terms of reference. However, this is in line with the Government's refusal to deal properly with these issues of major public concern, despite them being brought to its attention for more than three years.

Another example is the mystery of the missing minutes and the Minister for Finance's failure thus far to explain when he was first alerted to the sale of Siteserv. Did the Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Enterprise, Deputy Bruton, know of the sale of Siteserv before the Minister for Finance? Sinn Féin has uncovered via a freedom of information request that the issue of Millington's purchase of Siteserv was reported to the Competition Authority on 16 March 2012 and reported to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, in correspondence from the Competition Authority on 20 March 2012 and on 21 May 2012. This issue was already a matter of major public concern. On 17 March 2012, Fiona Reddan, writing in The Irish Times, drew attention to Siteserv being sold to Denis O'Brien for €45 million in cash with a loss to the taxpayer of €105 million and an award of almost €5 million to Siteserv executives and shareholders. Why was the Government not alert to these issues, especially when it was being brought, along with all of this, to the Government's attention by the Minister's own officials? Was the Minister aware of the Siteserv deal before the Minister for Finance knew? I ask him to please tell us when the Minister for Finance became aware of this deal.

Money was not frittered away by this Government in respect of Anglo Irish Bank. This Government did not put a single euro into Anglo Irish Bank. All of the money was put in by the previous Government and the actions by this Government and by the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, reduced the cost of the debt of Anglo Irish Bank. Also, the liquidation is actually showing signs that we will get back more than was expected. No taxpayers' money is being frittered away by the actions of this Government in respect of Anglo Irish Bank. To be honest, Sinn Féin is playing a political game, despite getting assurances that all of the issues raised are being covered by the agenda.

I believe they are not.

Sinn Féin wants to find a reason to vote against this. In so far as the issue of the sale of Siteserv, it was notified to the Competition Authority among many other such mergers on grounds of competition.

And the Minister?

The Competition Authority made very clear that there were no issues of competition in respect of that sale. I accepted the advice from the Competition Authority and officials at that time.

Sinn Féin is scrambling around to find some reason to vote against the terms of reference of an investigation that is clearly going to deal with all of the issues of public concern-----

I have seen this in the past but this is a robust inquiry. We have the assurances of the Attorney General and this inquiry will deal with this issue in a timely way so that we can have a report here by the end of the year.

What is the Minister afraid of?