The DIRT inquiry shook the banks, accountants and senior civil servants but with two members of the Dail Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) associated with tax evasion schemes themselves, its credibility must be questioned.

This week, presenting the PAC's third and final report on the DIRT inquiry, outgoing chairman Mr Jim Mitchell declared the banks had "gotten off lightly" and reiterated criticisms of the Central Bank and the Revenue Commissioners for letting widescale tax evasion go on under their noses for many years.

He did concede the "buck stops at the Dail" and went on to call for some high-profile tax convictions to stress that tax evaders would be caught. Some former committee colleagues may not share this aspiration.

The inquiry gave the public an insight into the workings of the Revenue, Government Departments, the powerful position of the banks and the sometimes overly cosy relationship between the financial institutions and their auditors. With daily television access to the hearings, the public was angered to learn of the banks' "special position" in its dealings with the Revenue. But what has really been achieved?

The committee can claim its part in recouping hundreds of millions of pounds in unpaid DIRT for the State. The banks have paid £173 million (€220 million) and, but a tax legislation anomaly that allowed the banks to avail of much lower penalities than an individual taxpayer, the State's coffers would have swelled by £570 million.

The Revenue has repeatedly claimed it did not have the legislative powers to delve into the affairs of the financial institutions and so could not have collected monies it didn't know about. It had lobbied various Governments to give it the necessary legislative powers to probe the banks and this was finally granted in 1999, just months after the PAC started looking into DIRT evasion. The timing of its probe definitely helped to push these measures through but would they have come in anyway?

The Revenue is busily pursuing the individual account holders for unpaid taxes and could potentially reap many more millions. It is likely many have already used the tax amnesties to regularise their affairs; others may eventually have been picked up on the Revenue radar in the normal way.

The structures of the tax collection agency have also been scrutinised, with the PAC still pressing for an independent chairman to be appointed. In this regard, its recommendations are in line with good corporate governance practice and will probably be implemented.

The banks have all assured the committee they are model citizens and are satisfied they have paid more than their dues, both financially and in terms of public humiliation, for their part in the DIRT saga. The Irish Bankers' Federation has issued a code of conduct for members to show it has taken the recommendations seriously. The banks are studiously ignoring Mr Mitchell's calls for a voluntary act of reparation and will continue to do so.

The accountancy profession has also had a fair bit to contend with since the DIRT inquiry and is now to be regulated by a statutory Oversight Board, much to its discomfort. A similar structure has been introduced in Britain to monitor how the accountancy bodies regulate their members and it was an obvious next step for their Irish colleagues.

Notwithstanding the diligence of the PAC sub-committee during the inquiry, Mr Denis Foley's continuing service on the committee investigating DIRT tax evasion when he was under investigation for the same crime did a great disservice to his colleagues. While Ms Beverly Cooper-Flynn's committee membership has further damaged its credibility given her failed libel action.