asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state (a) if he has acquainted himself with the nature and extent of the inquiry, which his predecessor stated had been conducted in his Department, into the statement made in the courts that a certain individual had received monetary rewards in respect of services in securing export licences from the Department; (b) whether the person who made the statement was interrogated in respect of it; (c) whether the person concerning whom it was made was interrogated in respect of it; (d) whether the records of the Court of Bankruptcy were examined in respect of it, or the files of the official liquidator of the company concerned; and (e) whether the person, concerning whom the allegations were made, has recently been appointed to a post by him, and, if so, the nature of the post, and the salary attached to it.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Court Statements on Export Licences.
I have read the papers in this case. I am satisfied that the inquiry made by my predecessor covered all aspects of the matter that concerned the Department of Industry and Commerce and justified the conclusion reached by him and communicated by him to the Dáil. The inquiry showed that no improper pressure had been brought to bear on the Department for the grant of export licences. In the circumstances it was not necessary to consider taking the other steps mentioned by the Deputy and they were not in fact taken.
The person referred to by the Deputy has been appointed by me to be Chairman of the Dundalk Engineering Works, Limited, at a salary of £1,500 per annum.
Does the Minister believe that if the person who made the charges has not been asked to detail or to substantiate those charges it is impossible to think that a proper, full and comprehensive inquiry could have been carried out? Secondly, if the person against whom the charges were made was not given an opportunity before a proper public tribunal of answering or refuting the allegations, surely no satisfactory conclusions could have been arrived at by the Minister or his predecessor. Thirdly, would the Minister not agree that, in view of the fact that it is more than likely that certain officers in his Department could have been concerned in these very serious charges which amounted to allegations of bribery and corruption, it was unfair to expect that an impartial and objective examination of these charges has been carried out and, in view of these facts, would the Minister now consider calling a public inquiry into these charges so as to allay the considerable public disquiet about the matter?
I am quite satisfied that the inquiry carried out by my predecessor was adequate and objective, that it completely disposed of the allegations which were made, and I do not now propose holding a further inquiry.
Could the Minister give the date on which the matter was announced to the Dáil?
June 7th, 1955.
Is the Minister aware that his predecessor told this House that all he had done was to examine the papers in connection with this matter and that it was on the basis of examining the papers that the Minister's predecessor made the statement that he was fully satisfied in regard to the position? Surely it is impossible to establish the truth without having consulted with or questioned the people responsible and the people involved in the charges?
Surely the Minister must understand that the whole integrity of his Department and his own personal honour are at stake and that, in fairness to himself and the Civil Service, he should hold an open inquiry into the matter?
All I will say is that the Deputy does not mind whom he smears.