I reiterate my earlier comments. I hope the report will be before the High Court later this year. The inspectors do not report to me, nor do I receive information from them, but, given that there are now four inspectors who are working extraordinary hours to get through a large volume of work, that is my hope and that of others.
The case was taken by the bank, not the inspectors who sought information from the bank. The bank indicated it wished to co-operate, but wanted court clearance. I was never that optimistic it would win. The Cayman Islands have built their reputation on confidentiality in regard to these matters. I was hopeful the bank would win and it would have been better if the inspectors could have obtained all the details they desired, but it would be wrong of anyone to assume they do not have a large number of names as they have considerably more detail than they had when they received Gerard Ryan's report in September 1991. The report included, as was stated in the affidavit, the names of at least 120 persons. Since then other names have come into the public domain through both the Moriarty and Flood tribunals. Additional names have come into the possession of the authorities here and the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners referred to a larger number of names yesterday.
Given the powers of the inspectors, which exceeded those of Gerard Ryan, including the power to interview third parties which Mr. Ryan did not have, and that they are receiving co-operation from some people, which I welcome, I am optimistic they will produce a thorough report. It will not be as thorough as it might have been had they received the names and details from the Cayman Islands, but the additional information they have received will also help them. I could not, therefore, describe the judgment in the Cayman Islands, disappointing and all as it was, as a fatal blow to the inquiry.