The Taoiseach's claim that the Government only found out about legal difficulties with the commission of investigation into IBRC does not have any credibility. The reason it does not have any credibility is that every time issues have been raised about IBRC the Taoiseach has done what he did today: he has stonewalled.

In 2012 Deputy Pearse Doherty and I submitted a range of parliamentary questions about IBRC. The responses from the Government, including the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, were obstructive and unhelpful. That is despite the fact, as it later emerged, that the Minister for Finance was briefed by his own officials on their concerns about this deal and other deals involving IBRC. It is despite IBRC's having sold Siteserv to a Denis O'Brien company at a loss to taxpayers of at least €105 million. It was only as a result of An Teachta Catherine Murphy's efforts that we found out the O'Brien company was not the highest bidder. The Government would not tell us that. The Government also resisted the calls for a commission. Then, when the Government eventually published the terms of reference for the commission, I wrote to the Taoiseach on 4 June pointing out that the terms of reference did not deal comprehensively with all the issues the commission would need to examine. An Teachta Mary Lou McDonald met the Minister for Finance and made the same case. The Taoiseach was well warned that the scope of the investigation was not wide enough to carry out the necessary examinations.

What advice did the Taoiseach receive from the Attorney General in respect of the commission's ability to examine confidential or privileged documents? Did this include documents from the Department of Finance? I am keen for the Taoiseach to repeat what he said in his statement a moment ago, because I do not want to make a mistake about it. He said that the commission had made a judicial determination on the admissibility of documents from the special liquidator. I heard that much. I think the Taoiseach went on to say "and the Department of Finance". Will the Taoiseach repeat that statement for me before I come back with a supplementary question?

There are two determinations made by the justice: one in respect of the documentation received from the special liquidator and another from the Department of Finance. Both are published on the commission's website today. They are there for Members to read and there is nothing secret about that.

In the letter Mr. Justice Cregan sent to me formally on Friday, he alluded to the fact that he had a determination made at that point in respect of the documentation from the special liquidator and that he was proceeding to make a similar determination in respect of documentation received from the Department of Finance.

Some 12 or 14 different commissions of investigation have been conducted under this Act since 2004. This is the first occasion on which a judge in charge of a commission has made this particular observation in terms of the law. Since the Government is keen that everyone be involved in this in the public interest and that the process be open, transparent and accountable, it is only right and proper that I accede to a request from Mr. Justice Cregan to wait until I receive the interim report and have authorisation to publish it. I understand that can be as soon as possible. Then, as a House, we can discuss the actions that need to be taken. In his determination there are a number of references to inadequacies and the restrictions upon him. Work is under way in the Office of the Attorney General on a number of things.

I would like to see the interim report from Mr. Justice Cregan before we can discuss it as a Cabinet and in the House, and determine the best thing to do. It is the first time since the Commissions of Investigation Act was established that a judge in charge of a commission has made this particular decision. As the House knows, commissions of investigation were welcomed by everybody, including Sinn Féin, as being the way to proceed. Everybody is also aware that commissions of investigation were initiated in the first instance by the then Attorney General and Government as a method of not having to go down the road of endless tribunals of inquiry. I do not think anybody would want to contemplate that.

The Taoiseach did not answer my question on the advice the Attorney General gave him. He promised a democratic revolution and said he would do things differently, not like his predecessor. It is obvious he did not mean any of that because since he has become Taoiseach every time there has been a conflict between the elites and golden circles and citizens, he has taken the side of the elites and golden circles.

I asked him to repeat his earlier statement because he said that the judge had made a judicial determination on the admissibility of documents from the Department of Finance. Does that mean that the commission could not obtain or examine documents? Does it mean that if he is making a judicial determination about this matter that he brought this to the attention of the Department of Finance? It clearly knew that there was a problem.

The Taoiseach is only now addressing the issue when everything has been forced upon him by the judge in charge of the commission writing a letter, which was subsequently leaked to the media. It appears that, whatever about any speculation on any other issue, this happened on foot of KPMG not making documentation available to the commission of investigation. KPMG had a role in the sale of Siteserv and other assets. He also knows that KPMG was the first choice of the Government to conduct a review of IBRC transactions, even though it was involved in them. At the bottom of all of this are the millions of euro that are going into the pockets of the elites and out of the pockets of taxpayers.

The Taoiseach has fudged the issue. He claimed, in his usual obtuse and opaque way, that he only knew about this last week on receipt of the letter from the commission. A Government spokesperson is quoted in, I understand, The Irish Times as dismissing these concerns as early as mid-September. The Government was aware of them. Why did the Taoiseach wait until his hand was forced today?

This is a commission of investigation. It is obliged by law, in terms of the consultation or discussion that takes place between the person dealing with the commission and those who were named or interested organisations or bodies that are involved in it, not to talk about any of these things. I do not deal in speculation or rumour. Deputy Adams has been moving in some golden circles quite recently, I note, but that is beside the point.

$500 a head.

There is no need to make an assertion of some kind of restriction or cover-up of documentation. The Minister for Finance said all of the documentation available to the Department of Finance, without redaction, was sent to the commission.

All that he requested.

All of the documentation relevant to the commission of investigation by Mr. Justice Cregan was sent.

The Minister for Finance said all that he requested was sent.

The Deputy should not assert in here that somebody was trying to restrict or not send information that is relevant.

All of this information carried with it a confidentiality warning from the Department of Finance, not in all of the papers but in some of them. That confidentiality applied in many other commissions of investigation. It can and has been overruled in the public interest by the person chairing the commission of investigation.

As the Deputy knows, we have had commissions of investigation into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, child sexual abuse, the Leas Cross nursing home, the banking sector and so on, where matters of confidentiality were overruled in the public interest. This is the first time, however, that a judge, in this case Mr. Justice Cregan, has pointed out from his perspective and independent determination that he cannot go any further. I want him to be able to go further, and I am quite sure everybody else in the House does as well.

In the interests of everybody and the accountability and transparency the Deputy has spoken about, we should be allowed to receive his completed interim report. It is to be hoped it will be released very quickly. When authorisation is received to publish it as soon as possible afterwards, it can be discussed in the House so that the Dáil and later the Seanad can make decisions about how best to proceed in order to have accountability, transparency and full compliance.

People in IBRC are also concerned that their good name is being shoved aside. In the interests of all of the transactions in respect of which there was a write-down of over €10 million, we need to be able to deal with this issue in whatever form. The Office of the Attorney General is examining some of the options that might be considered following the determination of the judge now published. I would like to wait to get the interim report, discuss it at Cabinet level and in the Oireachtas and make the necessary decisions so that the commission of investigation can get on with its business with openness, accountability and transparency and, in the public interest, deal with the issues that have been raised by Deputies, including Deputy Murphy.