The chairman of the DIRT inquiry told reporters yesterday that the sub-committee remained intact and would not be drawn into "any side-show" following the revelation that ACC Bank wrote off interest payments on a debt of one of the members.
Mr Jim Mitchell said the committee's work would be unaffected and was working "extremely well". He did not think the issue would affect the committee's influence. "Our report, like our proceedings, will be fair and objective," he said.
He reiterated the committee's statement, issued yesterday morning, that a full disclosure by Mr Bernard Durkan had been made to its lawyers "in a separate, individual, confidential process" prior to the proceedings and they were, "and are still" satisfied there was no conflict.
The statement says lawyers were satisfied Mr Durkan's disclosure "did not create a conflict of interest or a perception of such a conflict so as to debar him from membership of the sub-committee".
Mr Mitchell, who is suffering from a back ailment and is due to undergo surgery, said proceedings might be disrupted next week.
Commenting on the controversy over Mr Durkan's interest payment write-off, he said he had been told that ACC Bank was not making an issue of it. That bank's chairman had reported the matter to the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, last week, who brought it to his attention. He had mentioned it to the lawyers, Mr Durkan and, then, to the other committee members. The information which came from the Minister had puzzled the committee "and still puzzles us".
ACC Bank representatives, who appeared before the committee last week, will return today for further questioning. But Mr Mitchell said Mr Durkan's financial affairs would not arise nor would it affect the questioning.
The issue was closed and was not a matter for further consideration. "As far as the committee is concerned, the committee is intact," he said.
He did not want to comment on the story being leaked to the media. But he said if there had been any wrongdoing, it had not been "in the committee". "Quite honestly, I think you should be asking questions elsewhere," he said.
Asked if he was embarrassed by the revelations, he replied, "Certainly not". He had no cause to be embarrassed. There had been "the most rigorous" vetting of all members of the sub-committee before the proceedings began, he said. The committee had gone to great lengths to ensure members would be able to stay in attendance throughout the proceedings and he had been satisfied "months ago" about its composition.
Asked whether he believed the committee's reputation had been damaged in the eyes of the public, he said "public perception was drummed up".
None of the members had wanted to know about the other's financial business, he added. During the vetting, members had been asked about any debts they might have, and shareholdings. "I think it even extended to our close family."
He said potential conflicts of interest may have one of the reasons why other members of the Public Accounts Committee, which has 12 members, did not become part of the sub-committee. But many members would not have been able to make the time commitment.