After seven months of trundling along, the Oireachtas banking inquiry has captured headlines for the all the wrong reasons in the past 10 days.

It emerged last week that a member of the investigations team supporting the work of the 11-person committee of TDs and Senators had made serious allegations of improper behaviour against other investigators, under cover of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

In a four-page statement released to The Irish Times last night, the whistleblower outlined serious concerns about how the allegations have been handled since April. The person concerned also expressed disquiet at perceived shortcomings in the terms of reference drawn up for a review of the whistleblower's allegations to be carrried out by senior counsel Senan Allen on behalf of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service.

In essence, the allegations are that some parties due to appear at the inquiry were given preferential treatment by certain investigators; off-the-record telephone calls and meetings took place; extensive leaks were given to one newspaper; and pressure was applied to exclude certain witnesses.

The whistleblower also claims they were instructed to disregard redacted material and were prevented from “exploring valid lines of inquiry”.

These are serious allegations. The work of the investigations team underpins the public hearings held by the committee members. If the allegations are shown to be correct, it will taint the work of the inquiry to date.

There is also the question of how the Houses of the Oireachtas Service has handled the allegations. The claims were first made on April 25th, but it took almost three months for the majority of the committee members to be made aware of them.

The whistleblower claims to have been transferred from their duties on April 27th. On May 6th, it is alleged the Houses of the Oireachtas Service produced a report containing “false and defamatory” statements to discredit them.

It is also claimed a “false announcement” of their resignation was made in the week beginning June 1st and their desk was cleared. Notification of the suspension of their salary was made on July 15th and it was due to take effect last Tuesday.

It is claimed that the Houses of the Oireachtas Service insisted the salary remain suspended, in spite of opposition from the majority of the committee members.

It must be remembered that these are allegations and not proven facts.

Beyond announcing a review to be led by Mr Allen, and its terms of reference, the Houses of the Oireachtas Service has kept its own counsel to date.

This is unchartered territory for the Oireachtas. Pressure is mounting for a fully independent inquiry, removed from the Houses of the Oireachtas Service. This would surely be a sensible move.