asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he will make a statement concerning unreported losses of £10 million by an Aer Lingus subsidiary outlining how this has reduced the value of his shareholding; the steps he has taken to deal with this matter following receipt of the special accountant's report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Aer Lingus Subsidiary Losses.
On Friday evening last, I received from Craig Gardner the report of their accounting investigation into the affairs of Aer Lingus Holidays Limited.
The Craig Gardner report has confirmed that Aer Lingus Holidays Limited over a period of years incurred previously unreported trading losses of £7.3 million, of which £3.6 million was incurred in the year ended 31 October 1989, and £3.7 million in earlier years. The report also reveals unreported property losses amounting to £2.1 million in the years 1988 and 1989 and unaccounted for property borrowings of some £700,000.
I am seriously disturbed about certain aspects of the Craig Gardner report concerning false accounting and the unaccounted for borrowings.
Having consulted the Attorney General, I formally referred the report yesterday morning to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána for further investigation.
Yesterday afternoon, I issued instructions to the board of Aer Lingus: (i) to furnish to me immediately a detailed report on the measures which have been taken to improve the internal system of financial control within the Aer Lingus group; (ii) in particular, to satisfy me that there are now adequate controls in place to ensure that irregularities such as occurred in Aer Lingus Holidays Limited cannot be repeated anywhere in Aer Lingus or in any of its subsidiaries; (iii) to take disciplinary action, where appropriate, in the light of the Craig Gardner report and advise me in due course of the action taken; (iv) to take appropriate civil action, where necessary and let me know the outcome; and (v) to make arrangements for a phased and orderly withdrawal by Aer Lingus Holidays Limited from the tour operating business at the end of the current season.
I regret that it is not possible to publish the Craig Gardner report or make any further comment on the matter. I am advised that its publication or further comment could prejudice any legal action which might be necessary.
Would the Minister agree that on 3 May 1990 — column 692 of the Official Report — he informed the House that the Craig Gardner report should be formally presented to him within two weeks, that he was confident that it would indicate the exact ratio, if any, between fraud and anything else that took place and that he would make a full statement on the matter? Would he further agree that what we are talking about here is fraud or attempted fraud on a massive scale? Would he agree that an attempt was made to cover up this matter, led by himself when he told reporters only three weeks ago that this was a rumour and that his Department do not investigate rumours, despite the fact that he had been informed of it as early as 24 January, on his own admission, in this House? Would the Minister now tell the House what has happened to our shareholding? It is not the Minister's shareholding. It is in his name because he is the Minister.
Questions, please.
Has there been a massive fraud or what exactly has happened?
I would recommend to the Deputy that he listen carefully to the reply.
I have listened carefully for too long.
If the Deputy wishes me to answer the question I will do so.
The House is entitled to know if the Minister was informed of a cover up on this matter. There is £10 million worth of taxpayers' money involved and the Minister's bland reply will not suit. We are entitled to know the position.
Is the Deputy finished now?
The Minister did the same on 3 May——
Deputy Mitchell, we must proceed in an orderly and proper fashion. This is Question Time. We shall proceed by relevant succinct supplementary questions and the Minister will be afforded an opportunity of replying.
I want to completely reject that anything other than very rapid action is being taken by me in this whole area. On Friday evening last I received the Craig Gardner report; on Monday I consulted the Attorney General; on Tuesday I referred the matter to the Garda Síochána and on Tuesday evening I issued the board of Aer Lingus with five specific and detailed instructions as to how they should behave, including an instruction to take disciplinary action, to take appropriate civil action, to withdraw from the holiday business and to satisfy the Government that this will not happen again. If the Deputy can suggest any other course of action or any shorter time frame I will gladly listen to it.
We will move on now to the next business.
Would the Minister——
Please, Deputy——
Excuse me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.
You have asked them already. You will ask supplementary questions in accordance with the Chair.
I will ask supplementary questions and I will not be muzzled in this House.
The Deputy will ask one final supplementary question and then I am moving on to the next business.
I want to ask the Minister why he finds it necessary to imply that he has only now referred this matter to the Garda when he told the House on 3 May that the matter had already been referred to them. Will he confirm that there has been an attempt to cover up this matter, to keep the facts from the public and from this House, and that he has been involved in such a cover up?
The Minister will answer those questions and then we will proceed to the next business.
The Deputy is reading too many detective stories. The report to the Garda was made by Aer Lingus earlier when they suspected irregularities. What I did — and there is a difference if the Deputy listens carefully — was to refer the report which I got from Craig Gardner to the Garda. Therefore at every stage along the line this matter has been dealt with rapidly and the Deputy should not suggest otherwise. I have taken very firm action in the space of three days and I have undertaken substantial consultation throughout that three day period. I would point out to the Deputy that I regard the action I am now taking as tough and firm and designed to sort out the problem.
The only piece of——
We are resuming on the Finance Bill, 1990. Deputy Noonan is in possession.
The Aer Lingus set of accounts is the only novel piece of fiction involved in this business.
I am sure Aer Lingus would be very glad to hear that.
There is £10 million worth of taxpayers' money involved and this is not a matter to joke about. The Minister has a constitutional duty before this House.
I have asked Deputy Noonan to resume the debate on the Finance Bill.
(Limerick East): I would do so if you could bring the House to order.
The best way to bring it to order would be by the Deputy responding to my request to continue from the point at which he was contributing before lunch.
(Limerick East): I will do that but I am not in the habit of trying to shout down other Deputies.
It is time you learned.
(Limerick East): I would have thought that is the function of the Chair.
Not to shout down; we never shout down, we appeal to the better judgment, as we did with Deputy Mitchell, and it succeeds.
The Deputy should nip it in the bud in case he is replaced.