Vol. 411 No. 4
7 Mr. Sherlock asked the Taoiseach if, in regard to the interview he gave to RTE radio on 22 September, 1991 he will outline the reason he did not request the chairman of Greencore plc to step aside, when he made such a request in respect of the then Chairman of Telecom Éireann, and the Chairman of the Custom House Docks Development Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach the reason he did not suggest that the chairman of Greencore and Aer Rianta should step aside pending ongoing investigations in which they were involved in his interview on RTE radio on 22 September, 1991; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
9 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach the reasons he did not consult the then chairman of Telecom Éireann or the then chairman of the Custom House Docks Development Authority before asking them, in the course of a radio interview of 22 September 1991, to step aside; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together.
As I stated in my interview on 22 September 1991, I believed it was prudent in the circumstances without any reflection on the integrity or the great record of public service of the individuals concerned for the chairman of Bord Telecom and the chairman of the Custom House Docks Authority to step aside, until investigations into the purchase of a headquarters by Telecom Éireann were complete. It was very important in the national interest that Telecom Éireann and the International Financial Services Centre should not be distracted from their vital work or have it adversely affected by public controversy focused on particular individuals. I continue to believe that that was the right and appropriate course of action in the circumstances. In the type of an atmosphere that has prevailed in recent weeks any prior meeting or discussion could have been open to misinterpretation.
The chairman of Greencore was in a difficult position. He is a chairman of a public company in the private sector, and the Government do not have a right as Government to give directions to the board of a private company. The role of the chairman of Aer Rianta was not an issue at that time.
Will the Taoiseach agree that at a time when Mr. Cahill was chairman of Siúicre Éireann Teoranta, appointed by him and his Government, and the Government were telling that company every other day to rationalise and cut back on expenditure, it was wrong for a State company to lend £1 million to one of their top executives, via Gladebrooke, to buy a 49 per cent interest in a company, Sugar Distributors, when the company over which Mr. Cahill presided already owned a 51 per cent stake in that company? One year later——
The Deputy is extending the question out of all proportion.
——they bought it back, handing them a profit of £7 million from that deal. Would the Taoiseach agree that Mr. Cahill's stewardship of the company is in question and that he should ask him to resign?
First, I have to take issue with the Deputy on the rather tendentious suggestion that Mr. Cahill was appointed by me. The Deputy should have used the word "reappointed". He should also indicate that he was reappointed by the Government——
He did so.
——by the Ministers concerned, subject to the overall approval of the Government. Mr. Cahill was first appointed by a previous Government. Apart from that, the Deputy should, in fairness, await the outcome of the many investigations which are under way at present. As the Deputy knows, the Government have appointed inspectors to look into the whole situation with regard to the matters he has mentioned and which have been the subject of a great deal of public comment. There is another type of inspector looking into the proprietorship and beneficial ownership of all the subsidiary companies. In addition Greencore, as a company, have asked Arthur Andersen to provide a report. It would be better in this House if we waited to have all that information available to us before apportioning blame.
May I put it to the Taoiseach that there is a grave inconsistency between his treatment of Mr. Smurfit of Telecom, Mr. Páircéir of the Custom House Docks, and the tolerance shown to Mr. Cahill and Mr. Desmond in their chairmanships at that time? May I further put it to the Taoiseach that he had meetings with the chairman of Greencore at which he suggested that NCB stockbrokers and Mr. John S. O'Connor and Company, Solicitors, should be appointed for the privatisation of Greencore and that as a consequence of that meeting he is in no position to take any action in relation to Mr. Cahill's position?
I reject that with contempt. That is totally untrue and it does the Deputy no credit to make this sort of unfounded allegations.
The Taoiseach had no meetings?
I had no meetings. I suggest to the Deputy on that score that he too await the outcome of the present investigations when he will find that he will owe me an apology.
The Taoiseach in his reply said that Mr. Cahill was in a different position in so far as he is chairman of a private company, Greencore. In view of the fact that Mr. Cahill presided over the agreement to pay £1.5 million to Mr. Comerford — which the Taoiseach said was inexplicable and which is frozen at present — would the Taoiseach agree that this again brings into question the stewardship of Mr. Cahill as chairman of Greencore? In the interests of consistency he should ask Mr. Cahill, as he did the chairman of Telecom Éireann and the chairman of the Custom House Docks Authority, to step aside.
I have allowed the Deputy much latitude but he is clearly bringing in extraneous matters.
It is directly related to the matter.
As I said before, these matters are now best left to the thorough and complete investigations into every detail which are now in progress. When we get the results of those investigations we can all take our decisions. So far as I am concerned there is no Government or ministerial involvement of any kind in these matters and the Government await eagerly the outcome of these investigations so that their position and the position of individual Ministers can be totally vindicated.
With regard to the compensation reported to be paid to certain executives by Greencore, and which is now frozen, the Deputy will be aware that the Minister for Finance, as a shareholder, has requisitioned the holding of an EGM at which an explanation of that matter will be called for. The public will then be in a position to decide on that matter.
A final question, from Deputy Spring. I have dwelt rather long on these questions.
With respect to you, Sir, I have two questions on the Order Paper and I have asked only one supplementary. In regard to the holding of an EGM by Greencore, may I ask the Taoiseach whether the Minister for Finance will instruct his representatives at that meeting to vote confidence in the board of Greencore? Secondly, may I ask the Taoiseach why he transferred a question I put down before the Dáil reassembled in relation to any meetings he had had with the chairman of Greencore?
It is a matter for decision what attitude the Minister for Finance will adopt at the EGM when it takes place and what the disclosures are. With regard to the transferring of questions, all questions are transferred in accordance with normal procedures in this House. I have no hesitation in giving the Deputy a categoric assurance that no meeting with the chairman of Greencore took place.
