Four Private Notice Questions have been submitted, on the same subject matter, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I will call on the Deputies in the order in which they submitted these questions to my office. I call first on Deputy Barry.
Private Notice Questions. - Greencore Investigation.
A Cheann Comhairle, I actually submitted my question to the Taoiseach because I thought it was primarily his responsibility and not that of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. My question reads:
Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will immediately investigate the charges made on a television programme last evening that a member of the Government had attempted to intervene with the inspectors appointed by the courts to investigate Greencore.
My question reads:
Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a prominent journalist has made reference to a member of the Government interfering with the court-appointed inspectors in the Greencore case; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I too had tabled a question to the Taoiseach but it has been transferred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It reads:
Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the steps he intends to take to investigate the allegations that a Government Minister exerted pressure on the inspectors appointed by the High Court to investigate the Greencore affair; if, in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the claims that documentary evidence exists to substantiate the allegations, he will say what steps he intends to take to have the matter clarified; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
My question was directed to the Taoiseach but it is now directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and reads:
Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in the light of considerable public concern, he will make a statement about the allegations on RTE television last evening that there had been political interference at the level of the Cabinet into the work of the Greencore inspectors.
I will take the four Private Notice Questions together.
I am aware of the claim which has been made that a member of the Cabinet allegedly interfered with the investigation by the High Court-appointed inspectors into Siúicre Éireann because I was present in the RTE studios last evening when this claim was made by a journalist.
As the House is aware, the inspectors were appointed by the High Court on 16 September 1991 on foot of an application made by me as Minister for Industry and Commerce. The application was made on foot of the very great public concern which existed at that time arising out of disclosures in relation to Siúicre Éireann and some of its related companies. The application was the first one to be made under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1990.
Following the commencement of the investigation I sought to be informed on its progress and to ensure that it was carried out effectively and at reasonable cost. I had a fundamental interest in doing so as Minister for Industry and Commerce because of the pioneering nature of the investigation and because I wished to ensure that any possible wrong doing of a commercial nature which could be brought to light and dealt with through the recently enacted Companies Act should be dealt with. My record in seeking to root out commercial wrong doing regardless of who is involved speaks for itself.
I understand that it is being put about by some people that I may be the subject of the allegation that the inspectors were obstructed or that some pressure was put on them to take the investigation down some particular routes and not down others. I vehemently deny any such action on my part. I attempted to make known to the inspectors on a number of occasions in November and December last my concern at the relatively slow progress which I understood was being made in the investigation and at the cost which was being incurred. I made no secret of my concern in that regard. Counsel on my behalf informed the High Court in open court on 13 December 1991, almost three months after the investigation had commenced, of my grave concern at the time being taken and at the costs being incurred in the investigation. My concerns in that regard were reasonable and they could not in any way be construed as being interference with the inspectorate or as obstruction of any of the investigation. In fact, the High Court last month commented that my concerns were reasonable.
I was present in the RTE studios last evening when the latest claim of interference with the inspectors was made. I asked the journalist who made that allegation, privately after the "Today Tonight" programme, what Minister he was referring to, but he refused to say. The journalist concerned had written on this subject previously in an article in the Sunday Business Post on 9 February 1992 claiming that the inspectors were subjected to pressure, to interference or harassment by a Government Minister. I am also conscious that the journalist concerned has on two previous occasions stated that I sought to support the opposition to the publication of the second interim report made by the inspectors, an allegation which is wholly wrong — the record will show that I have always sought the immediate publication of all these reports. What I find most objectionable, if these allegations are supposed to refer to me, is the claim that pressure was brought to bear on the inspectors so that the investigation should not go down particular routes. In this context the statement was made that the inspectors did not interview the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, with the inference that this was due to whatever pressure was being applied to the inspectors. I hope it will be clear to everyone, based on my record, that not only is it untrue that I applied such pressure, but that it is also incredible. My record speaks of the pursuit of the truth wherever it leads.
What the Minister has said is very interesting and one could not object to it but he is not answering the question which I put to the Taoiseach. A charge was made on a television programme last night that a Minister of the present Government interfered with the direction in which the inquiry was going. The Minister said that he questioned the journalist afterwards in private and he denied having a role in the affair and did that also on television last night. If the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, is not responsible for this pressure, evidently some other Minister of the Government is. We know that journalists generally protect their sources and therefore there is no point in questioning the journalist. There are two people who can tell whether what is being said is true. Did the Minister question the two people involved, Mr. Foley and Mr. Barry, as to whether they had made these charges of harassment and that a Minister was seeking to direct them in a certain direction?
After what I heard in the House this morning I considered telephoning Mr. Barry and/or Mr. Foley, but on reflection I decided not to, lest that be construed as a form of harassment of them. If the inspectors were to find on reading my reply to these questions today that any aspect of it is in any way untrue, they are free to make a statement to that effect. So far as other Members of the Government are concerned, I want to make it clear that while I can only speak for myself with certainty, I have no reason to believe that any other member of the Government was involved in the alleged activities that are complained about.
Can you say——
Sorry, I am calling Deputy Gay Mitchell.
Would the Minister agree that the reason he belatedly became concerned about the cost of this inquiry was because the inquiry was a costly error and should have been carried out by a committee of this House, the House of representatives, as laid down in the Constitution? Would the Minister further say, since when, and what precedent is there, for a member of the Executive to interfere with the court or the agents appointed by the courts?
The Deputy said that I had belatedly become concerned about the cost of this inquiry. That is not so. I became concerned about the cost of the inquiry about a month after it was established, when I learned that it was proposed to pay a certain level of fees to the inspectors. Although presumably the inspectors did not consider the fees to be very high I considered them to be very high indeed and I became concerned particularly at what the total cost would be if the investigation was prolonged. It is not correct to say that I became belatedly concerned. The Deputy also asked why this investigation was not carried out by the Oireachtas. I know of no procedure whereby that could have been done. The investigation related to an alleged commercial corporate wrongdoing. There is provision set out in Part II of the Companies Act 1990 to investigate such matters as this. That was the point of the Oireachtas passing that legislation. Deputy Mitchell asked if there was precedent for agents of the Executive interfering with the court——
It was the other way around. I referred to a member of the Executive interfering with agents of the courts.
That bears the implication that a member of the Executive interferred with an agent of the court. That is not the case. There was no interference other than proper inquiries relating to cost, the structure and the duration of the investigation. I owe it to this House and to the country to be concerned about those matters.
Should that not have been done in advance?
I have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the Minister today. I welcome the fact that he came into the House to make that statement——
Under protest.
——to clarify his positon. In stating that he has no reason to believe that any other member of the Government made approaches to the inspectors concerned, did the Minister specifically ask the Taoiseach — to whom my question was addressed but which was diverted to the Minister — who has overall responsibility for what Ministers do, whether either he or any member of the Government made approaches to the inspectors? Does the Minister have any powers whatsoever in relation to the documents which are alleged to have been deposited by the inspectors which are alleged to have been proof that there was interference other than the inquiries he made or that pressure was applied to the inspectors?
I discussed this matter this morning with the Taoiseach after the inferences that appeared to me to be put in this House this morning on the allegations that were made last night. I did not question the Taoiseach as to his views on various members of the Cabinet. That is a matter for himself. I am sure that if the Taoiseach has any concerns in that regard he would have made them clear to me. What was the second part of the question?
It related to the claim that there is documentation.
I am not aware of any such documentation.
A claim has been made and it is alleged that the inspectors concerned who are officers of the court have lodged the documents in some safe deposit box. Does the Minister have any power to deal with this or can he apply to the court to have these documents made available to him, given that they relate to an investigation which was undertaken at his instigation?
I have no power over any documentation in the possession of the inspectors. I do not know if documentation of the kind referred to by the Deputy exists at all. In so far as the transcripts and other documentation relating to this investigation are concerned, I understand the High Court made an order yesterday in regard to their custody for five years and I think I am correct in saying that they were to be kept by Greencore——
I think we will have a general election.
——and not to be destroyed for five years or until the end of the litigation in regard to these matters, whichever is longer.
I now call Deputy Spring and I want to bring this matter to finality.
I will do my best. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made last night and in particular in view of the fact that it was alleged that documentary evidence exists in a bank safe in this city, would the Minister — who seems to have clarified the situation in so far as he is concerned, but there may be others who have questions to answer — not feel it incumbent on him and consider that he has a duty and an obligation in relation to the inquiry to take immediate steps to seek either clarification from the inspectors that were appointed on his application to the court or to make a direct application to the High Court to request the High Court judge who was involved in this case to seek clarification from the inspectors as to whether documentary evidence exists in relation to ministerial interference?
I am somewhat loathe to make any direct personal contact with the inspectors lest that be misconstrued or open to misinterpretation of any kind, but in order to comply with the Deputy's desire, I will ask the Secretary of my Department to telephone the inspectors and ask them whether any such documentation exists in a bank vault or elsewhere.
A final question from Deputy John Bruton.
In view of the fact that these inspectors were appointed by the court and not by the Minister, as a result of legislation passed relatively recently while Deputy O'Malley was Minister for Industry and Commerce, is it not the case that any approach by the Executive to those inspectors would only be proper, no matter how well intentioned, if made through the court and that a direct approach by the Executive to the inspectors, however well intentioned, was inherently improper because it was not made via the court who appointed the inspectors?
There are no precedents in this matter and I felt I had a duty as Minister for Industry and Commerce to this House and to the public generally to try to see that the administrative logistics of this inquiry were proceeding smoothly, efficiently and effectively and at a reasonable cost.
I might add that in regard to the question of cost, the approach was made by the inspectors to the Executive and not the other way around.
That disposes of questions for today. I am now proceeding to convey information appertaining to the Adjournment Debate.
Is it not important that the Taoiseach would make a statement to this House? The Taoiseach to whom these questions were addressed should make a statement.
Will Deputy De Rossa please resume his seat?
Would the Taoiseach make a statement to the House because my question was directed to him and was then transferred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
No, Deputy De Rossa, I have allowed your questions.
It is clear that this is a matter——
Deputy De Rossa is absolutely correct: the questions were addressed to the Taoiseach and he should have answered them.