The inquiry into write-offs on Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) asset sales will take "several years" to complete even if granted extra legal powers, the judge heading the investigation has said.
Commission chairman Mr Justice Brian Cregan, who is examining 37 IBRC transactions involving write-offs of more than €10 million, has distributed a draft interim report to interested parties to seek their observations.
Mr Justice Cregan believes he has insufficient powers to determine how the commission can deal with sensitive financial documents - held by the Department of Finance and the IBRC special liquidator KPMG - which he says go to the heart of the inquiry.
He has asked the Government to allow him to complete the next stage of his report before deciding what measures to take to allow him to finish the inquiry.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny, the commission’s sponsoring Minister, on Tuesday said he hoped he might receive the report next week.
Legal issues
The legal issues facing the commission dominated Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, with Attorney General Máire Whelan briefing Ministers on the options that might be available to address them.
It is understood the High Court may be asked to decide whether the confidential documents can be used as evidence.
Mr Kenny on Tuesday told the Dáil Mr Justice Cregan's interim report would outline his work to date and "the issues which have arisen".
The Taoiseach said the commission would also seek an “extension of time” for the completion of its work.
“I do not expect that the inquiry will collapse,” the Taoiseach told the Dáil.
He did not want to go down the route of a tribunal of inquiry, as past cases lasted 10 years and cost “in excess of €100 million”.
A number of sources said Mr Justice Cregan’s interim report states the entire investigation could take “several years” even if granted extra powers to override confidentiality and privilege concerns.
Sources suggested the timeframe could be up to five or even eight years.
The Government on Tuesday published a 76-page determination from the judge outlining why he could not decide if the confidential documents could be used as evidence.
He said the 2004 Act establishing commissions of inquiry had not provided any mechanism for seeking a direction from the High Court on such matters. He referred to an earlier Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse 2000 which had specific powers to seek such directions.
‘Strongly discussed’
Two sources said this option was “very strongly discussed” by the Cabinet, and could form the basis of the solution.
The determination also disclosed that the Department of Finance raised concerns about its duty of confidentiality in relation to the documents as early as August.
Minister for Finance Michael Noonan and his spokesman have maintained the department was always operating on the presumption that the commission had the powers to introduce them as evidence.
