andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Finance whether in view of the fact that the charges made against the administration and control of Irish Estates Limited have now been widely publicised he will now in the public interest take steps to initiate a public inquiry into the affairs of the company.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Estates Limited.
15.
As I stated on 7th March, 1962, in reply to previous questions concerning the affairs of Irish Estates Limited, the allegations contained in the circular letter dated 23rd February, 1962, copies of which, I understand, were received by a number of Deputies, were conveyed to me by the writer in June last. Having made appropriate inquiries, I was satisfied that the matter did not call for any further action by me.
As I also stated on the 7th March, the Board of the parent company, the Irish Life Assurance Company Limited, have informed me that, in view of the publicity now given to the allegations, they have asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce to appoint an inspector to hold an investigation into the affairs of Irish Estates Limited under Section 109 of the Companies Act, 1908.
In the circumstances, I do not propose to take steps to initiate a public inquiry.
Is it a fact that the Minister found no reason whatever why an inquiry should be held and that the company itself requested the Minister to have the inquiry?
There is another Minister concerned. They only dealt with me as a shareholder. What I told the House previously was that, as a shareholder, I had no reason to make any further inquiries. As far as my inquiry went, I was satisfied there was nothing irregular.
Is it not a fact that the Minister is not just a shareholder but holds 90 per cent. of the shares on behalf of the public?
Yes.
In view of the fact that the Minister, as the major shareholder, felt it was not necessary to have an inquiry, why does he suggest it is because the company asked for an inquiry that he will hold it? Does he feel it is unnecessary?
They might think it is necessary to clear up this public controversy.
Would it be correct to state that the reason the company are prepared to come before this inquiry and not a public inquiry is that they believe it will be cloaked?
Is it not a fact, assuming the Minister acted responsibly when he got this request, that the Minister has in effect already held an inquiry—what amounted to a private inquiry—and he has satisfied himself there is no need to hold an inquiry, public or private? In these circumstances, surely neither the Minister for Finance nor the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the correct person to hold the private inquiry?
I am not holding a private inquiry. I do not know why the Deputy should bring down his smear to this thing.
(Interruptions.)
Order! Question No. 16.