The final report by the Oireachtas banking inquiry is facing a delay of up to six weeks and is now unlikely to be completed until early next year.

The committee met in private session last night to discuss its hearings for September where committee chairman Ciaran Lynch confirmed the inquiry is up to six weeks behind schedule.

The committee had hoped to compile its final report by the end of November but the delays mean it could potentially run into January.

This would almost certainly end speculation the Government is going to call a November election.

The inquiry has to agree a final draft report before the Taoiseach can dissolve the Dáil or the work of the committee will fall, as the committee will be dissolved and no findings would be made from its work.

The main cause of the delay is the investigation of allegations made by a whistleblower who worked with the committee.

The claims are now the subject of an investigation by senior counsel Senan Allen

In a four-page statement released to The Irish Times recently, the whistleblower claimed the Houses of the Oireachtas service, which provides administrative support to the Dáil and Seanad and employs the banking inquiry staff, had engaged in “repeated acts of penalisation” against them, in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

The whistleblower, who wishes to remain anonymous, first made allegations of improper behaviour by members of the investigations team on April 25th.

This person then produced an 86-page report detailing their allegations, which was provided to the Houses of the Oireachtas service.

The whistleblower claims that the terms of reference for a review of the allegations to be carried out for the Houses of the Oireachtas Service by Mr Allen while including consideration of the claim that certain participants received favourable treatment do not detail or substantiate the allegations which include “off-the-record telephone calls and meetings” and “improper pressure on certain investigators to exclude certain relevant witnesses”.”

It is also alleged that there was “significant ongoing and detailed leaking of information by a certain investigator” to a national newspaper.

And the whistleblower claims that they were “routinely instructed to disregard redacted material” emanating from an unnamed institution, which “in my view could have proven to be extremely relevant to the proper processing of the investigation”.