At weekends, Government buildings are usually as silent and deserted as the Overlook Hotel in the film The Shining.
But one such building, Agriculture House in Kildare Street, was abuzz with frenetic activity all weekend.
The reason was the danger of an imminent collapse of the banking inquiry. It followed members’ reaction when they received the 750-page draft report that the inquiry’s investigation team had prepared.
The building now hosts the small team trying frantically to recover the project.
The phrase that was most used over the weekend was “not fit for purpose”.
In truth, having spoken to members of the team, that was a kind description. All were archly critical of the report. “You wouldn’t believe it. It was terrible. We just could not stand over it,” texted one member.
Draft report
It seems the draft report was prepared by a number of members (at least three) from the inquiry’s investigation team, each taking responsibility for different sections.
But when they tried to marry their work, it made for a hotchpotch. More fundamentally, members were also critical of what they described as major omissions, mistakes and (wrong) assumptions made in each section.
One member said he read one chapter and was then flabbergasted to find the next contradicted it. Several members were concerned about what they saw as fleeting references to the Irish Nationwide and Permanent TSB. Others were concerned about the treatment of Anglo Irish Bank (now IBRC), which was not given the same focus as Bank of Ireland or AIB.
Another issue was that there was no reference to Minister for Finance Michael Noonan’s comments that then ECB head Jean-Claude Trichet had told him a “bomb” would go off in Dublin if bondholders were burned.
‘Lack of critical analysis’
“There was a lack of focus. There are huge gaps . . . there is a misunderstanding of the costs of the crisis. There was too much emphasis on the oral testimony to the detriment of the half a million documents,” said one source. “There is a lack of critical analysis and . . . balance.”
The prevailing view among committee members is that only portions of that draft can be salvaged and the report will have to be substantially rewritten. The problem is time: in reality the committee has only a week, unless it decides to work through Christmas week.
Some are of the view that the report is beyond repair. Said one member: “We need to write from scratch in a week a report that is balanced and fair and tells people what happened and why it happened. It’s impossible.”
Joe Higgins said the Act was nonsense and there should never be another inquiry under it. Others, like Michael Darcy of Fine Gael are slightly more optimistic.
Michael McGrath of Fianna Fáil said last night the report would be a challenge. He said it needed to be long and detailed to set out each issue in a full and fair way, but this would be very difficult.
“We need a report that deals with all the main issues, that provides part excerpts from public testimony covering both sides. That will allow the readers to reach their own conclusion on the issues. As a committee we are not allowed to reach any findings of fact on any evidence that is contradicted.”
The banking inquiry has cost €4.9 million to date.
