Last October I stood in this very spot and raised issues about Siteserv and the water metering contract. As the months progressed the questions extended into the wider issues surrounding IBRC and how it handled certain transactions. Ultimately, the questions moved to the dysfunctional relationship between IBRC and the Department of Finance.

IBRC had one remit, namely, to ensure that citizens got the maximum return possible for the €35 billion they were forced to pump into banks, primarily the failed Anglo Irish Bank. We want assurances, for example, as to whether the €119 million written off when Siteserv was sold to Denis O'Brien was in fact the best decision for Irish citizens. Some five months on from the establishment of the commission, we are at a stalemate.

Ironically, the special liquid liquidator, Kieran Wallace, the person whom the Department originally wanted to conduct a review into the Siteserv issue, is now claiming privilege and refusing to co-operate fully. Over the past 24 hours the public interest director of IBRC has taken to the airwaves to express concern about the injustice that will be perpetrated against the board of IBRC and its reputation if the commission collapses. What about the injustice perpetrated against Irish citizens, in a situation where the public bailed out the bank but cannot know how the assets were disposed of? That is the real injustice.

It appears that the balance of law falls on protecting individuals rather than the common good. How can that be right or even constitutional? Was that even considered when the inquiry was established? The Minister, Deputy Noonan, can claim that his Department has provided unredacted documents, but he is providing them inside a circle of confidentiality. If he is providing documents, but placing significant restrictions on them, how can he claim that he is co-operating fully?

Can the Taoiseach confirm whether any debtor involved in any of the transactions has threatened legal action if the commission proceeds? Can he confirm if the Minister, Deputy Noonan, is co-operating fully in a way that will allow the findings to be available for full public consumption? When did the Taoiseach first know of the problems with the commission? Apparently letters have been flying around for the past few months between the parties concerned. Articles in newspapers have been written by Cliff Taylor and John Walsh. Alan Dukes has known about it since August.

Does the Taoiseach's Department read these newspapers? Would that have been discussed? Would the Taoiseach have been kept in the loop on this issue? Will he tell us what he means by "as soon as possible"? The 2004 Act allowed for the setting up of these inquiries to replace very time-consuming and expensive tribunals. Does the Taoiseach agree that if he wanted to shut down debate on a particular topic the best way to do so would be to set up a commission of inquiry, because there can be no parliamentary questions, no freedom of information requests, no questions to the Taoiseach and no press inquiries? Unfortunately, in this case it appears that we do not even have an inquiry.

I thank Deputy Murphy. The Deputy was one of the principal public representatives who raised this issue and welcomed the debate and the establishment of a commission of investigation. The Government was happy in the circumstances to provide that. She made the point in her observations that she was pleased that we were going to get that information, albeit in a different way. I am quite sure everybody supports a facility for absolute transparency, accountability and so on in the public interest. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, is, of course, co-operating fully with the commission of investigation and has said publicly that all of the available documentation was sent in unredacted fashion to the commission of inquiry.

I cannot communicate with Mr. Justice Cregan to tell him when to send in his interim report. My understanding is that it could be finalised very soon. I do not want to put a day on it, but I would hope that in a relatively short time we could have the interim report. If I were to say next week, I would hope that could be so, in order that we could have his authorisation to publish the report and have it reflected on here in the Oireachtas to receive the wisdom of all Deputies about how to proceed. Nobody - with one exception, I think - referred to the word "confidentiality" during the discussions that took place on the terms of reference for this inquiry and nobody pointed out what all Deputies now know to a great extent and are very knowledgeable about. This is the first time a judge has taken this particular view in respect of the Commission of Investigation Act 2004.

The Deputy asked when I found out about this. I have already put that on the record here. I received a letter from Mr. Justice Cregan on Friday, 6 November 2015. The judge did make contact with officials from the Department of the Taoiseach, as the receiving Department, and with officials from the Office of the Attorney General, and I asked that that be presented in writing. He sent me that letter on 6 November, last Friday. In that letter he pointed to the fact that a body of work had been done by the commission of investigation in respect of the special liquidators, that he had received their assertion of confidentiality over all the documents they had submitted, that a similar claim of confidentiality and privilege was made by the Department of Finance over some of the documentation received from it, and that the commission was proposing to have a similar determination drafted as it did for the special liquidator.

This is outrageous.

They are published on the website for the Deputies' perusal. He went on to say in his letter, which I will publish later today, that the commission is preparing an interim report under section 34 of the Act. Prior to the submission of the interim report to me, under the relevant sections thereof, any persons identified or identifiable from the draft report must have it under normal circumstances. He pointed out that the interim report would outline in detail the work of the commission to date and would also deal with issues that have arisen. I assume that Mr. Justice Cregan, in the interest of carrying out his business in a transparent and accountable fashion, will point out the recommendations he sees as appropriate for the Oireachtas or the Legislature, in whatever fashion, to allow him continue to do that. I do not know of anybody here who does not want that to happen as quickly, as effectively and as speedily as possible. The Government will respond, and in order to do that, we have to know what exactly it is that we have to do and the best way of going about it.

Of course I welcomed the establishment of the commission, but I think we would all have expected the legal issues to be explored before it was set up. Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Attorney General specifically said there was no impediment to the commission when it was established? Would this particular aspect have been considered? Can the Taoiseach show goodwill in at least holding an aspect of that inquiry, particularly in regard to Siteserv, in terms of the response that will be forthcoming from him to the judge in question? We all know that Anglo Irish Bank is no ordinary bank. The information, we are informed, is confidential to the borrowers. That is one of the impediments. Therefore, we all collectively pay off the debts of many of these borrowers who will have their confidentiality protected. Does the Taoiseach see this as an issue of clear public interest? Is it that the common good is the primary issue at stake? Is that the way this is being approached?

I thank the Deputy.

An issue that is being discussed at the moment - I am certainly hearing it, although I do not know whether it is just Chinese whispers or it is real - is that one of the responses might be consideration of a tribunal of inquiry. Given that the same names crop up in the context of, for example, the Moriarty report, how could people have confidence in that kind of response? What responses is the Taoiseach looking at in terms of how this inquiry can proceed without running into the legal impediments that are stalling the inquiry or possibly causing it to collapse?

I do not expect that the inquiry will collapse. Mr. Justice Cregan has pointed out in his determination the reasons for saying to me formally in a letter that he is unable to continue processing the case given the circumstances that now apply, so how can we make adjustments, legislatively or in any other fashion, to allow him to continue to do that? From that point of view, Mr. Justice Cregan has requested that I wait until I receive the interim report. Obviously, he is working on that. In the meantime, the Office of the Attorney General is looking at a range of options that have been referred to in the determination of Mr. Justice Cregan in respect of both the special liquidator and the documentation received from the Department of Finance. As I said, in answer to an earlier question, I do not think anybody wants to go down the route of a tribunal of inquiry. We have had experience of inquiries lasting ten years and costing in excess of €100 million. The issue here, which Deputy Catherine Murphy rightly raised - it was in order for her to do so - is to find out in the public interest whether there was favouritism or whether any undue decision was taken, not in the public interest, in regard to any of these transactions to which a write-off in excess of €10 million applied. My understanding is that there are 37 cases involving 200,000 pages of documentation, and the intention of the Government in setting up the commission was to be able get to the bottom of that. If there is an issue that needs to be addressed in a fair and accountable fashion, then so be it; the commission of investigation should be able to do that. Mr. Justice Cregan has pointed out how, in his decision and his judgment, he is unable to go further. We as the Oireachtas have a duty, in the public interest and for public information, to deal with that issue. In order to be able to deal with it, I need to have Mr. Justice Cregan's interim report. He has requested we wait until we receive that report before proceeding. From my point of view, as the person whose Department sponsors this inquiry and from whose Vote it is paid, I assure the House that whatever it is that we have to do or whatever we can do in order to allow the inquiry to proceed will be done.

When we get the interim report, we will have it considered by the Cabinet and brought here.

When?

We will get all the advice and then decide if a legislative proposition or whatever will allow that to happen, so the commission of investigation can implement and deal with the terms of reference that were given to it by the Oireachtas to find the answers to those questions in the public interest.

I do not think anybody believes the Taoiseach.