Vol. 414 No. 9
3 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the actions he proposes to take arising from the various reports, which are now available to him, in relation to the Greencore scandal; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
25 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the present position regarding the Greencore affair; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
32 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the action, if any, he has taken or plans to take following the receipt on 5 December 1991 of the final report of the inspector appointed by him under section 14 of the Companies Act, 1990, to investigate and report on the ownership of Comhlucht Siúicre éireann Teoranta.
43 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the Government will be requesting the Director of Public Prosecutions to look into the possibility of instigating criminal proceedings against executives of the Irish Sugar Company, and its subsidiary Irish Sugar Importers, arising from the inspector's report relating to activities contrary to the Companies Acts.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 25, 32 and 43 together.
I would refer the Deputies to my reply to Question No. 35 on 14 November 1991 — columns 1734 to 1735 of the Official Report — dealing, with the two official inquiries under the Companies Acts.
The inspector appointed by me under section 14 of the Companies Act, 1990, furnished his final report to me on 4 December 1991. I published the report on 5 December 1991. The inspector concluded that, in his opinion, Mr. C. Comerford is the beneficial owner of Talmino Ltd. and, accordingly, of the loan note for the sum of IR£2,104,900 issued by Siúicre éireann cpt in favour of Talmino Ltd. on 22 March, 1990. In the statement I made when publishing the report, I indicated that the restrictions I imposed on the loan note on 22 October 1991, under section 16 of the 1990 Act, remain in place. The final report also indicates that sections of the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1990, may have been breached. I therefore referred the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 5 December for his consideration as to further action.
As regards the inquiry by the two inspectors appointed by the High Court under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990, the court decided on Friday, 13 December 1991 to allow an extension of time until 11 February 1992 for the completion of a final report, notwithstanding concerns expressed by counsel on my behalf about the length of time being taken and the cost. The court accepted the inspectors' contention that their investigations were at a critical stage and that adequate time should be allowed to ensure their proper completion. The court has already ordered that the two interim reports produced earlier to the court are confidential and should not be published.
Is the Minister concerned about the ongoing delays? Does he intend to appeal the decision of Friday, 13 December? Does he think the issue will be affected by the report on the Dermot Desmond application regarding the reply of 12 December which the Central Bank apparently issued? It is alleged that information from the Central Bank was obtained by the Minister or his servants or agents illegally. Would the Minister care to comment?
I am obviously concerned about the delay. I have not considered appealing to the Supreme Court regarding the order made on 13 December. I am not clear whether an appeal would lie on a matter like that. I would have to take advice as to whether it would lie and whether there would be any prospect of success. With regard to the other matter mentioned by the Deputy, that arises out of the Telecom investigation. All these questions relate to Greencore. An entirely separate question arises there and I do not know whether I should deal with it under these questions.
I am concerned about impinging on matters deemed sub judice.
That is not the Minister's point.
No, that is not my point.
There are Telecom inquiries and reports pending, so I presume it is relevant to the question.
There is a report pending on the Telecom affair. I believe that I would have received the report by now but for the plethora of litigation which that investigation seems to have given rise to. There are four different sets of proceedings where it is sought to have the court stop the inspector pursuing his inquiries. I have already commented in public on these matters and I do not necessarily have anything to add today.
Would the Minister agree that these issues are in danger of becoming buried in a plethora of ongoing litigation and appeals which could drag on for a very long time before we see a result? Does the Minister have any proposals in the matter?
I hope this litigation will not drag on. Perhaps the intention behind some of the litigation is to delay matters in an effort to prevent the investigations being completed. Of the three inquiries under different sections of the Companies Acts, one has been completed since the beginning of this month and the report has been published. Two interim reports have been received — but I am not allowed to publish them — in respect of another of the inquiries. I believe the third inquiry would have been completed by now but for the litigation. Certainly I have learned a lot from these inquiries and from the procedures concerned. I would not propose to use the powers under section 8 again unless I really had to. Section 14 and some of the other sections will probably be preferable in the future, except for very wideranging cases.
Has the Minister received any acknowledgement or response from the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding referral or is he aware of any steps being taken in that regard?
I am aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions has examined the reports I have sent him in the case. He has indicated that in his view proceedings for indictable offences rather than summary proceedings would be appropriate and he has asked the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána to take certain further statements in order that they might be adduced in evidence in criminal proceedings which I believe he proposes to take.
