IBRC pandora’s box set aside until after election

Some of the information emerging from the botched IBRC inquiry features telephone number-like amounts, mixed with legalese hyperbole and a dash of banking complexities thrown in.

It’s not exactly leisurely reading. Most problems encountered by the judge leading the probe are a million miles away from people’s daily lives.

The crux of the inquiry into the IBRC does matter though.

Did the taxpayer get value for money when state assets being flogged off by a bust bank, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, were sold and snapped up by businesses?

The most controversial deal, which kickstarted the commission of investigation, was the sale of Siteserv — questions about that began to circulate last year.

IBRC was set up in 2011 to wind down Anglo and Irish Nationwide — both nationalised — and sell off their distressed assets to get the best return for the taxpayer.

Owing huge amounts of money to IBRC, Siteserv was sold to Denis O’Brien-owned Millington for €45m in 2012.

The firm got a writedown of €119m in debt as part of the deal, a substantial loss to taxpayers.

What annoyed some was that a subsidiary of Siteserv, GMC/Sierra, went on to bid for and win one of the largest water metering contracts the following year.

But it is the original terms of the Siteserv sale by IBRC that kicked up the fuss. Why did some shareholders get bonuses amounting to €5m for the sale?

Why were some bidders shut out of the sale? TDs have also tried to explore if shares in Siteserv changed hands before its sale.

Separately, TDs using Dáil privilege claim Mr O’Brien may have received preferential interest rates for loans he had with IBRC. The businessman denies this.

Judge Brian Cregan has run into shaky ground in trying to steer his inquiry through a swamp of legal obstacles and impossible burdens before it has even got off the ground.

He cannot access and properly put into evidence documents from the Central Bank, the Stock Exchange, the Department of Finance or IBRC’s special liquidators.

A plethora of concerns around confidentiality clauses, legal privilege and even secrecy acts are obstructing their use.

Then there’s the timeframe for the inquiry, which now looks like it could go on for years even though the Coalition set its deadline for the end of this year.

Amid concern about the runaway costs, the judge himself has now called a halt.

There is even speculation that some under his scrutiny are considering taking legal action to protect their reputation.

That aside, growing calls for Siteserv to be prioritised for investigation could give the Coalition an easy way out.

Judge Cregan has suggested the inquiry could be tackled in modular form, with different commission members tackling individual deals. This seems to be the opposition’s preference too.

The more likely scenario is that the judges’ powers are beefed up through legislation. The other route being considered is to put his concerns to the High Court and have them overruled.

This runs the risk of undermining an independent commission and could backfire for the Coalition.

Lastly, any talk of turning the whole mess into a tribunal, with established powers, are being balked at in government circles.

In the meantime, this Pandora’s box of an inquiry where departments, business and banking overlap has been set aside for Fine Gael-Labour until after the election.

The Siteserv deal won’t be officially raised until long after voters go the ballot boxes next spring.