A high Court hearing regarding the conditions under which employees and former employees of National Irish Bank may be interviewed by the inspectors appointed to investigate certain matters relating to the bank will be heard later this month.

Mr Justice Kelly yesterday fixed June 25th as the date for hearing of issues relating to planned interviews of the employees and former employees, including whether the interviewees are entitled to refuse to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination.

The judge noted the inspectors have been advised that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to investigations of the type being carried out.

The NIB inspectors applied to the court for directions in relation to issues which had arisen in the course of their investigation relating to employees and former employees of the Bank whom they had planned to interview from May 28th last.

The inspectors' application regarding the solicitors' letters was heard in camera on Wednesday but Mr Justice Kelly delivered his decision on the matter in public yesterday.

The judge said his direction that the issues raised by the inspectors be dealt with on June 25th absolved the inspectors from the necessity to prepare an interim report by June 22nd. A date fixed for consideration of that report - June 29th - was also vacated.

Last March Mr Justice Kelly appointed Mr Tom Grace and Mr John Blayney SC, a former Supreme Court judge, to investigate the affairs of NIB from 1988 to this year relating to alleged improper charging of interest and fees to the accounts of customers; alleged improper removal of monies from accounts and all steps taken by NIB, its directors and officers, in relation to the charging of such fees and interest or removal of any funds.

The inspectors were also directed to investigate the books, records and accounts of NIB and whether other alleged unlawful or improper practices existed from 1988 or exist "which serve to encourage the evasion of any Revenue or other obligations on the part of the bank or third parties".

In his decision yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly said the inspectors had on Wednesday reported to him concerning certain matters they had encountered during their investigation and sought resolution of these. The matter was heard in camera and he had indicated he would give his decision in public.

The judge said the inspectors' difficulties related to matters relating to employees and former employees of NIB. The inspectors intended to interview those persons from May 28th last but this had not proved possible because of representations from solicitors.

He said four firms of solicitors had written to the inspectors. One firm was acting for 75 employees; another for five. A third was acting for an individual retired employee, as was the fourth. The issues raised in the correspondence from the solicitors included an assertion that their clients had a right to be legally represented when attending before the inspectors and had a right to attend before the inspectors with their own legal representation at any time when evidence was being given concerning them.

The solicitors also sought a right to cross-examine anyone giving evidence concerning their clients, advance information on questions which the inspectors proposed to ask at interview, confirmation that their clients might refuse to answer questions where the answers to such questions might possibly incriminate them and draft copies of any interim or final report prior to its submission to the court or prior to publication. The solicitors further wished their clients to have adequate time to review the contents of any such draft report, to obtain clarification where necessary and to make representations to the inspectors in respect of it.

Mr Justice Kelly said the solicitors concerns raised two substantial issues for determination.

The first was whether interviewees, in the context of an investigation under Part II of the Companies Act 1990, have the right to refuse to answer questions put on grounds of possible self-incrimination.

The second relates to procedures to be followed so as to protect the legitimate rights and entitlements of prospective interviewees.

"I am satisfied that these are serious issues and ought to be determined by the court as a matter of urgency," he said.

The judge said it was clear the court can give directions when it has appointed an inspector with a view to carrying out an investigation which was as expeditious and as inexpensive as possible.

In his view, this was an appropriate case to give directions, the judge said. He directed the inspectors to write to the solicitors firms involved informing them of the court's orders and asking them to agree on the nomination of one named individual to represent all their clients. They would also be asked to nominate a single firm of solicitors and a single team of counsel to appear before the court and argue the matter.

If this was not agreed to by 5 p.m. on Monday next, the inspectors could apply for a representative order the following day, the judge said. He hoped there would be co-operation.