Yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach a number of questions about the inquiry into the sale of Siteserv and other State-owned assets by IBRC. He did not answer the very basic question I put to him, namely, why the Department of Finance refused to waive its rights regarding the documents it sent to the commission of investigation. I asked the Taoiseach if it was his position that no officials in government knew anything about this until last week. He stonewalled and did not answer the question. We have learned from the judge's statement published yesterday that the Department of Finance knew about this matter long before last week. In fact, the Department of Finance sent legal submissions to the commission of investigation citing and claiming confidentiality over the majority of its documentation. The Department of Finance was also aware of the position of the special liquidator, KPMG, in asserting confidentiality rights over all of the documents requested by the commission regarding Siteserv. According to page 13 of the judge's report, the special liquidator has asserted a duty of confidentiality over all of the documents. The report was sent to the Department of Finance by the judge.

When can we get a bit of truth and simple honesty on this? When did the Minister for Finance find out about this? Is it the position of the Taoiseach that Department of Finance officials knew about this matter since August and September? It appears from the judge's document that they knew about it definitively by early October, but told nobody in government. The Department of Finance said it got legal advice. Could the Taoiseach tell me who gave it that advice? Was it the Attorney General or external legal advisers?

I refer to the role of the special liquidator, KPMG. It was originally the adviser to the sale of Siteserv.

We are over time.

Incredibly, it was also originally asked by the Minister for Finance to lead the investigation. Is the Taoiseach not now thoroughly embarrassed by the decision to ask it to investigate, given that it has emerged as the main obstacle in the progression of the investigation and has claimed that the public interest does not override the necessity of the utilisation of these documents by the commission?

It seems to me as though Deputy Martin deliberately wants to confuse the situation. His party and everybody else in the House welcomed the setting up of the commission of investigation. Its purpose was to examine all cases in which there was a write-off of over €10 million to determine whether they were done in accordance with appropriate procedures. That was and remains the objective of the commission of investigation.

Yesterday, I pointed out to the Deputy that I received a letter from the judge on Friday which pointed out to me what the Deputy just said, namely, that all of the documentation received from the special liquidator had an assertion of confidentiality over all of the documents that it submitted. He made the point that, in addition, it has asserted legal advice privilege over all of the documents containing legal advice. It is simple honesty. That is a fact, as stated to me formally in writing by the judge.

He made the point that his commission had determined that a duty of confidentiality applies to all of those documents, something I told the Deputy yesterday. Furthermore, I told him that the judge pointed out that the commission had determined that the special liquidator is entitled to claim privilege over any documentation containing such legal advice. That is the truth from the judge. He also went on to say that the Department of Finance had made a similar claim of confidentiality and privilege over some of the documentation provided by it and he pointed out that the commission, under his direction, was in the course of preparing a similar determination in respect of that. Both of those determinations were made available publicly by Mr. Justice Cregan yesterday. That is a fact and, as I said to the Deputy yesterday, I am not hiding anything. The judge went on to say that because of these determinations he was not able to proceed.

The Deputy is asking me about a commission of investigation which was established by the Oireachtas-----

No; I am asking about the Department of Finance's knowledge.

Yes, the Deputy is, and I am not in a position to answer questions about what the Department of Finance has said or sent to the commission of investigation because that is a matter between it and the Department, which is a party to the commission of investigation in the first place. I am not entitled or authorised by law to investigate, comment or hold discussions with the Department. That is the law and the Deputy knows that because he was here when the Act was passed in 2004.

When he asks whether Government officials knew about this, I can tell him that Government officials in the Department of Finance have been in consultation and contact with the commission of investigation because that is part of the work that the commission of investigation has to do.

Was the Minister kept informed?

The Department I represent and the ministry that I hold is only the receiving and sponsoring Department. The cost of this comes from a Vote of the Department of the Taoiseach. I am not entitled, under the law on the establishment of commissions of investigations, to answer the Deputy's questions.

What law? Which section sets that out?

I do not know what contact existed, and with whom in the Department of Finance the commission of investigation was involved, nor am I entitled to know.

Can the Taoiseach point to the particular provision in law that prevents him from speaking?

It sent material to the commission with a recommendation in respect of confidentiality. In the past, as I have pointed out, judges have overruled that in the public interest.

People in the private sector argue about Chinese walls, and that is the KPMG argument. It claims it can be adviser to and investigate the sale, as well as taking steps legally to say the investigation cannot go ahead under a different aegis. It is incredible that the Taoiseach of the day would claim there is a Chinese wall syndrome at the heart of Government in regard to an investigation into the sale of a company which involved the write-off of €119 million. Taxpayers lost €119 million on that particular sale and there are many issues pertaining to it.

The Taoiseach said in the House that the utilisation of privilege is a matter for one Government Department and not the entire Government. The Government stated that it established the inquiry in order to vindicate the public interest, yet a Department of that Government, which is the key Department, has stated that it took legal advice and laid claim to confidentiality over documents that are of central importance to the commission. It is an extraordinary assertion by the Taoiseach which does not hold water.

When I was Minister for Health, I waived legal privilege and took a decision-----

-----on the workings of the Lindsay tribunal. Many people will remember that well, because we were asked to waive legal privilege, something that many people, including those in the Law Library, did not like. Many people did not want it to happen, but I took the decision. It is inconceivable that the Department of Finance would lay claim to confidentiality without the Minister for Finance knowing, without the issue being discussed by the Government and without a wider knowledge in government that the issue was a problem three months ago, not last Thursday.

The impression the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have been giving-----

Thank you.

-----is that this was all a big surprise to them last Thursday-----

Sorry, Deputy, please respect the Chair.

-----when the judge formally wrote to them.

Thank you.

We are fed up. We had it with the Fennelly inquiry, and we are fed up with not getting straight answers on Leaders' Questions at the beginning of a process.

You have a short memory.

There is all this obstruction and obfuscation going on time and again.

Please respect the Chair, thank you.

This House is being dismissed on an ongoing basis by that type of obfuscation and it is not good enough. I said at the outset I want the simple truth. When did the Department of Finance know?

Thank you.

I asked the Taoiseach this yesterday and he could not tell me and he refused to tell me.

Thank you.

The Taoiseach would not tell me yesterday.

Thank you.

I have to come in again today to ask him and, of course, he then says it knew but there were Chinese walls and they cannot even dare talk about it.

Deputy Martin should have done Mr. Angry in government.

Where is the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan?

Deputy Martin is a party to the Oireachtas which set up the Commission of Investigation Act and I support it. I cannot believe he came in here this morning to invite me in my capacity as Taoiseach to break the law. This is what he wants me to do.

Which law? What section?

Deputy O'Dea should know.

The law of the establishment.

He is making it up again.

Please allow a reply to the question.

One would need the Army to protect that law.

He is asking me to engage with the Department of Finance to find out the answers to the questions he is asking me. This is prohibited under the Commission of Investigation Act. He can talk all he likes about Chinese walls-----

The claiming of privilege by the Department of Finance is not-----

Which section?

Please.

-----but I am prohibited by law from inquiring about it.

The Taoiseach is answering questions he has not been asked and this is his classic trick. He answers questions he was never asked.

Deputy Martin should please allow a reply to his question.

If I were to engage with Department of Finance senior officials or even the Minister for Finance about the engagement-----

The Taoiseach was going to get the Army to protect them at one time.

-----between the Department of Finance and the commission of investigation he would be the first person to stand up and say I was deliberately interfering in the process, because of some other side analysis or allegation.

No.

Yes, he would.

We want the investigation but we are second-guessing now what we might-----

He wanted simple honesty-----

Yes, but the Taoiseach could not tell me yesterday.

-----and the facts and the truth. They are published here-----

The officials knew but they did not know.

-----under the signature of Mr. Justice Cregan, who wrote to me formally setting out the position.

Thank you, Taoiseach, we are over time.

Yes, the Deputy did waive legal responsibility and legal right, and he waived legal responsibility and every other kind of responsibility when he was in the Ministry of health, and it ill behoves him-----

Come on. Is that the best the Taoiseach can do? Answer the question.

-----to come in as the leader of his party and suggest to me that I should deliberately break the law in respect of the Commission of Investigation Act.

That is what he said.

Waiving privilege is not breaking the law.

The Taoiseach is now hiding behind an omnibus.

Please settle down. I call Deputy Adams.

Deputy O'Dea should know better.

Deputy Kehoe should at least be in a position to tell the Taoiseach what law he is breaking.

He cannot find the section. It does not exist.