I am referring to the promised legislation to set up the statutory inquiry into Project Eagle and NAMA. Is the Taoiseach now aware of the identity of the official from within Government Buildings, and most likely within his own office, who last October contacted The Irish Times and told that newspaper that irregularities had been cited by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report into Project Eagle and NAMA? That fabrication provided the justification for a Cabinet decision, in part, on that matter and a subsequent announcement of a commission of investigation. If the Taoiseach does not know the identity of the official, does he believe he should find out who that person is and why that person would act in that manner, particularly in light of what was said on the floor of the House during this morning's statements on NAMA and Project Eagle?

For you, a Cheann Comhairle, there is a question for the House. Should the House not have a concern that an Oireachtas statutory inquiry was decided upon by the Cabinet and announced in large part based on a false and spurious premise?

I do not know the individual that Deputy Deasy is talking about. What I do know is that I met with party leaders last September with a view to hearing their views on the issues of public concern arising from NAMA and Project Eagle. I subsequently received a number of submissions from party leaders on the matter. I met them again on 4 October. It was agreed in principle to establish a commission of investigation under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 to investigate into the significant matters of public concern arising from this in relation to NAMA. This will be based on terms of reference providing for the sale of Project Eagle to be investigated in the very first module of that commission of investigation.

At those meetings, the party leaders also acknowledged that there would be significant limitations on the commission's work given the location of potential witnesses and documentation outside the jurisdiction and the ongoing criminal investigation as well as the likely cost of the commission of investigation. Subsequent to those meetings, the public accounts committee held extensive hearings during the autumn in relation to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and has heard from many key witnesses as well as from NAMA itself on a number of occasions.

I understand that the PAC hopes to bring forward its report on the matter shortly. My view is that it would be sensible to wait for the PAC to produce its report and have it published and consider its findings before moving to the appointment of a commission of investigation.

I do not know the name of the official that the Deputy referred to.