Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Mar 1992

Vol. 416 No. 8

Greencore Investigation: Statements.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Malley)

I welcome the opportunity to say something to the House in regard to this matter. I had indicated to the Chair early this morning before I was aware of any other motion in this regard, my intention to make a statement in the House. I am anxious to deal with the matter.

Some confusion arose last night as a result of a statement which, I understand, was issued very late last night by a solicitor on behalf of one of the inspectors, Mr. Foley, in which he states that he did not speak to any journalists and disputes various references that were made to him in that connection. He states that the statement issued by his joint inspector was not issued by or on behalf of Ciaran Foley.

The first point I want to make in regard to Mr. Foley is that I have never met Mr. Foley. I have never spoken to Mr. Foley. Any dealings or conversations that I have had with the inspectorate were with Mr. Barry and Mr. Barry only, as Mr. Foley apparently did not wish to have any conversation with me in regard to the question of cost. He dealt with another member of the Government in that regard.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am sorry?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

What did the Minister say?

Mr. O'Malley

Costs.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Another member of the Government?

Mr. O'Malley

He dealt with another member of the Government in regard to costs.

Proinsias De Rossa

What other member?

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister for Justice. Therefore, any relevant discussions with the inspectorate were with Mr. Barry only; they were the only discussions I had with the inspectorate. The fact speaks for itself.

During yesterday's supplementary questions Deputy Spring suggested that I might contact the inspectorate. As the House will recall, I demurred from doing that personally but said that I would invite the secretary of my Department to do so. The secretary did that and, for the information of the House, I shall read out the secretary's note of the conversation he had when phoning the inspectorate yesterday:

The Minister informed the Dáil at about 4.00 p.m. on 4 March 1992 that he would arrange for the Secretary to contact the Inspectors to inquire whether any documentation existed in bank vaults or elsewhere in relation to the alleged interference with the Inspectors' investigation.

The Secretary immediately rang Mr. Aidan Barry, one of the Inspectors, informed him of the Minister's statement and asked him if any such documentation existed. Mr. Barry immediately responded that there was no such documentation because there was no interference. He wished however to speak to his fellow Inspector before formally responding to the question. Mr. Barry also said that he was greatly concerned at the allegations which had been made and he had drafted a Press Release for issue categorically denying any interference with the conduct, direction or findings of the investigation. Mr. Barry said that he would contact his fellow Inspector immediately and revert to the Secretary.

Mr. Barry rang back about 4.30 p.m. and said he was awaiting the arrival of Mr. Foley from the Law Library. While the position he had stated earlier was clear cut, he wanted his colleague to formally agree it before responding to the question put to them. He added that he himself would issue the statement he had prepared on behalf of the Inspectorate if, for any reason, Mr. Foley did not want to sign it.

The Secretary spoke to Mr. Barry again at 5.15 p.m. to enquire about the position. Mr. Barry said he was finalising his statement for issue; Mr. Foley had informed him that he did not wish to sign any statement for legal reasons; the statement would however, be on behalf of the Inspectorate said Mr. Barry. Although he was unable to formally agree the matter with Mr. Foley, Mr. Barry said he was able to confirm on behalf of the Inspectorate that no documents existed in bank vaults in relation to the alleged interference with the conduct of the investigation. The only documents which had been placed in bank vaults had been copies of the Interim and Final Reports and related discs. The only documents which existed in relation to any contact which the Minister had with the Inspectors were short notes which Mr. Barry himself had prepared setting out the substance of contacts with the Minister when the Minister had expressed his concern about the duration and cost of the investigation. Mr. Barry said that although the Minister was hard on the Inspectors in relation to these matters, the Minister was within his rights in raising the issues and Mr. Barry did not consider the Minister's comments in any way improper or in any way an interference with the conduct of the investigation, its direction, or its findings. Mr. Barry was, therefore, fully satisfied to say that no doucmentation existed in relation to interference by the Minister or any other Minister or member of the Oireachtas because no such interference of the type alleged in relation to the direction or findings of the investigation had occurred. Mr. Barry said that he believed that Mr. Foley would also take this view although he was not prepared to agree to a formal statement.

During yesterday's Question Time I replied to a supplementary question asked by Deputy Gay Mitchell in the following way and I quote from the unrevised script of the Official Report:

There was no interference other than proper inquiries relating to cost, the structure and the duration of the investigation.

My use of the word "structure" yesterday had been taken by a journalist who feels that he has a mission in this regard to mean that in some respect I tried to influence the result or findings of the report of the investigation. Of course, that is not so. The word "structure" was intended to convey the physical arrangements that were made — the office arrangements and the number of staff engaged. That is clear from the context because the words "the structure" appear after the word "cost" and before the words "the duration of the investigation". The structure of the investigation is what I referred to. I made no reference to the structure of the report, as has since been alleged.

A number of allegations were repeated by the journalist concerned last night on an RTE programme, "Today Tonight". At least formally, I want to repudiate them again, lest it be said that on the repetition I did not repudiate them. I repudiate them in the same terms as I did yesterday.

So far as the costs and duration of this matter are concerned, the fees issue was not a matter of concern to me alone, as Minister for Industry and Commerce. The fees payable were first discussed by the Government on 1 October 1991 when the Minister for Justice briefed the Government on the matter. The Government were greatly concerned at the cost and asked me to pursue the matter. I was not present at that meeting and I did not bring up the question of cost. I was in the United States on IDA business at that time. On my return the Government's expression of concern was conveyed to me. The issue was again discussed by the Government on 22 October and 12 December, before the statement was made on my behalf in the High Court on 13 December, when I informed the Government of the difficulties that were arising. Therefore, the Government considered the matter on several occasions. In fact, when one of the inspectors declined to discuss the matter with me, the Government made a formal decision to delegate the powers of the Minister for Justice under section 13 of the Companies Act, 1990, to me. The Minister for Justice wrote me a letter to that effect, which letter I passed on to the inspectors. The two inspectors were not prepared to discuss the matter with me, one of them was.

As I told the House yesterday, and as I have said publicly, I have had several — in fact, numerous — discussions with that inspector. Those discussions were solely related to the question of the cost and the duration of the inquiry and to my concerns and the Government's concerns collectively, the Government having considered the matter on several occasions.

It has been suggested that I should now go to the High Court and get an order from the High Court to either allow or force one of the inspectors to make a statement. I am advised legally that I have no power to do that, that it is entirely a matter for the inspector concerned to go and make such application himself if he wants the protection of the High Court in that regard. He is free to do so. I now invite him to do so if he so wishes. His fellow inspector did not consider that necessary and was able to make a statement yesterday. I might add in regard to that statement that I did not ask him to do so, nor did the Secretary of my Department ask him to do so; he did it freely of his own will.

In regard to the implications sought to be put on this matter, I think that from what I said yesterday, from what I am saying this morning, from the fact that I have never at any time to the best of my knowledge, met Mr. Ciaran Foley have never had any conversation with him, either personally, on the telephone or otherwise. My communications with the other inspector on the question of cost are self evidently perfectly proper. There was no attempt or interference whatever with the conduct of the inquiry or with any findings they might come to. I want to make that abundantly clear. I spoke yesterday of my record in this respect. I stand over that. I invite the House to support me in that because all the public and private evidence does support me in that fact.

Mr. J. Bruton

It was entirely improper of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have any contact whatsoever with either of the inspectors. The fact that he did so, and has now admitted that he did so frequently, to my mind shows that this Minister has no understanding of the proper relationship between the courts of this country and the Executive.

I should like to quote from the relevant legislation which establishes inspection of companies, that is section 8 (1) of the Companies Act, 1990, which the Minister for Industry and Commerce brought through the House in its Final Stages. It states:

... the court may on the application of the Minister appoint one or more competent inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such manner as the court shall direct, if the court is satisfied ...

It is quite clear from that subsection that anything concerning the manner of the report is a matter for the court to direct. For a Minister, a member of the Executive, to get on directly to any inspector, given that that is clearly established by this House as a function of the court, not of the Minister, is entirely wrong. In my view it shows that a Minister who could make such a serious misjudgment has not the proper undertaking required of somebody to hold the high office that he holds.

Minister for Energy (Mr. Molloy)

A bit of a joke.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister is a bit of a joke.

Mr. J. Bruton

Furthermore, the Minister has expressed some concern about the expenses. It is absolutely clear also from section 13 of the Companies Act, 1990, that the matter of the expenses shall be defrayed in the first instance by the Minister for Justice. Therefore, if there was to be any approach about expenses it should be a matter for the Minister for Justice to make that approach to the court, not to the inspectors. Any interference with the inspectors, if it was to be proper, had to be made by the Executive, in open court, to the court, where all parties affected by the inspection would have the right to object to whatever constraint or otherwise the Minister was seeking to place on the inspectors.

For example, the Minister's inquiries concerning a reduction in the cost of this matter could well have prejudiced the interests of some of the people being investigated by preventing the inspectors from taking the time and the expense to investigate and interview the former Taoiseach, who was not interviewed in this matter. Perhaps they felt that that would be too costly for them to undertake and they did not do so. Perhaps they felt that the Minister's pressure on them suggested that they should limit their inquiry unduly. If that was the case, clearly any such pressure should have been exercised in open court where everybody affected would have had an opportunity to question the correctness of the Minister's inquiries. But the spectacle of a Minister telephoning an inspector whom he happened to know personally quite well previously and talking to him about work that he is doing, clearly for the court, is entirely improper. I am shocked that the Minister should have done this. He has admitted in this House that he did it. However, he has not told us how frequently he did it.

I should like to ask the Minister a question: is it the case that in fact the Minister telephoned the inspectors when they were actually in the middle of interviewing one of the people whom they were charged to interview and that they had to come away from the interview to answer the Minister's telephone call? I should like to ask the Minister: what did the inspector mean when he said that the Minister was "hard on him" in regard to the matter? What business had a member of the Government being hard on anybody appointed by and responsible to the court? If this practice is allowed to continue we could have circumstances prevail soon in which Ministers would telephone judges to ask them to make a particular decision in regard to a particular case. To my mind that is an inappropriate crossing of the line clearly set out in the Constitution of 1937 which delimits the responsibilities of the Executive as against those of the courts. The whole basis of our Constitution is that there is an absolute separation of powers between the courts and the Executive.

It is appalling that a Minister who was responsible for putting this legislation on the Statute Book, who is himself a lawyer and understands the Constitution, should ever contemplate telephoning an inspector in these circumstances, particularly when it was an inspector whom he knew personally previously in other capacities. Clearly, it was placing that inspector in an entirely invidious and false position. We now have a public admission from that inspector that, in the inspector's words, the Minister was "hard on him". What business had the Minister being hard on an inspector who was responsible to the courts?

I note that the other inspector said that for "legal reasons" he would not join in that statement. What were those legal reasons? Is it perhaps the case that the other inspector, Mr. Foley, had a proper understanding of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1990, and knew that any telephone call or request from a member of the Executive to somebody responsible to the courts was inherently improper and therefore he would not respond to it?

I would like to know who authorised Mr. Barry to issue the statement he issued last evening? Did he obtain the permission of the High Court to issue that statement, because it seems to me that Mr. Barry also acted in an entirely improper way in issuing a statement at the behest of the Executive without the permission of the court, because it is clear from section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990, that the conduct of the inspectors is a matter for the court, not for friends ringing up one another, one of whom happens to be an inspector of the court and another who happens to be a Minister of the Executive.

I just do not understand it. I just do not understand how this could happen. I have been involved, as has the Minister, more than other Members of this House in the drafting of this legislation. We decided deliberately — and there were several Ministers involved in this — that in future inspectors to companies would no longer be appointed by Ministers but by the court. The House made that decision for good reason — to establish a proper distance between the Executive, the court and the inspector. Here we have a situation in which the Minister who was intimately involved in drafting this legislation blatantly breaches it in the course of the first such inspection. We need a much more detailed investigation of this matter than anything that has been forthcoming so far.

I would also like to know if the Taoiseach in his capacity as Minister for Finance had any contact with any of the inspectors. Did they approach him when he was Minister for Finance about phone calls they had been receiving from the Minister for Industry and Commerce? Did he receive any representations to the effect that those phone calls represented pressure of a kind that they did not welcome? I would like a statement on that matter from the Taoiseach. I have no doubt that it will be forthcoming if such calls were made. If they were not made, I will accept the Taoiseach's denial.

I would also like to know how many times, in what circumstances and at what times did the Minister talk to the inspector who was prepared, improperly, to take his calls? How long did those calls last? Did the inspector report to the court the fact that he had received those calls? How much did the inspector who took those calls receive in fees? Does this inspector understand the meaning of section 8 of the Companies Act, which clearly states that the direction and costs of this inquiry are a matter for the court and not for the Minister? I wonder how an inspector who has apparently so little understanding — as little indeed as the Minister has — of section 8 of the Companies Act could be accepted as somebody who has a proper understanding of the Companies Acts with regard to other matters he is investigating.

Mr. Spring

We would not want to lose sight of what we are trying to achieve this morning due to the confusion that has arisen in the last 48 hours in relation to statements made inside and outside this House. The last 12 hours have compounded the confusion that existed prior to the Special Notice Questions yesterday. The procedure by the Government this morning in changing the Order of Business after the time when we should have had the Order of Business in this House leaves me equally confused. Obviously, the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, has a number of ways of addressing this House in relation to personal statements and otherwise.

The facts, despite being confusing, are quite simple. In the course of the replies yesterday, the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, was very adamant that he did not in any sense interfere with the conduct of the inquiry; but, as he repeated this morning, he discussed on a number of occasions the whole question of the cost, the structure and duration of the inquiry. We need to focus on this, and perhaps the Minister would address his mind to what he was actually talking about at that time. An attempt was made to clean up the confusion in relation the Minister's bona fides in relation to this and what happened after the discussion in the House yesterday, because I thought it was a worthwhile suggestion that we attempt to clear up the confusion. But it was extraordinary that we had a statement from one inspector. Obviously we are not privy to what went on between the inspectors in the preparation of that statement and the confusion which arose later when it was said that the statement was on behalf of both inspectors. The statement last night that was carried from Mr. Foley's solicitor, that the statement had not been issued by him or on behalf of Mr. Foley, has certainly added to the confusion that we were discussing yesterday afternoon. It gave rise to questioning the Minister's credibility in relation to what had been happening in the course of yesterday.

Whereas the Minister has stated certain things, we need a lot more detail in relation to the Ministers conduct with the inspectors, or, as it appears, with one inspector. Obviously there had to be some contact at the start of the inquiry, but perhaps the Minister could give us more detail in relation to the original contact. Who on behalf of the Government made the contact? Was it the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Industry and Commerce who made the contact in relation to the setting up of an inspectorate? Who made the appointments? Did discussions take place prior to the appointments in relation to the costs, or was this something that was a matter of negotiations for a long period of time afterwards? Did other Ministers meet with Mr. Foley when he was not meeting with Minister O'Malley? Perhaps the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, would give us an outline, if not all the details available, in relation to the amount of contact with Inspector Barry in the course of the inquiry. Was the Minister not aware of the dangers inherent in contact, if, as it appears, contacts were made on the telephone on numerous occasions with Mr. Aidan Barry, whom the Minister will have known in another capacity? Mr. Barry is quoted by the Minister, as saying that the Minister was hard on him, but it was not interference. What does that mean? In relation to the Companies Act, the Minister was acting beyond his brief after the initial matters had been settled. I see no reason why there should have been numerous conversations with Mr. Barry, as there appears to have been, when the inspectors were being appointed by the court and were inspectors responsible to the court going about their duty.

It emerged this morning that the Government considered these matters on 1 October, 22 October and 12 December. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, would enlighten the House as to the purpose of those discussions at Cabinet and were the Cabinet in toto not aware of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1990, that the inspectors were acting for the court and had no responsibility to the Minister or to the Cabinet at large? Was the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, acting at all times with the knowledge and consent of his ministerial colleagues in relation to the contacts made? Did the Minister's ministerial colleagues in both parties in Government know the number of phone calls and the amount of contact which the Minister was having with one of the inspectors charged with reporting to the High Court? There is need for greater clarification of these matters.

On the question of structure, perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of what he was talking about. I find it extremely unusual for a Minister to give directions to one of two inspectors appointed as to how the structure of a report should be formulated. That should be clarified. The Minister gave a clear indication to Mr. Foley that he should make a statement. The Minister said that he has no legal basis for going to the High Court. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on what legal advice was available to him that made him come to that conclusion this morning? The Minister had a legal basis for applying to the court when he had concerns in relation to these matters. The Minister still has the authority to go back to the court, because this confusion must be cleared up once and for all. We are dealing with a matter for which there are no precedents. I cannot see any prohibition on the Minister from seeking clarification in relation to any aspect of the report. A serious cloud still persists in relation to the conduct of the inquiry and that is in nobody's interests. I thought it could have been cleared up last night. It has not been. If the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, is not in a position to clarify to this House the number of contacts and the methods by which they were made with one of the inspectors, that cloud will remain. The Minister has an opportunity to remove that cloud and he should take it right now.

Proinsias De Rossa

My view on this issue is that the integrity of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is beyond reproach. However, it may be that as a result of a Cabinet decision the Minister took actions which in retrospect he may not have taken had he given it greater consideration. The question as to whether the Cabinet have the right to transfer the powers of the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to the structuring of costs for this report is doubtful. I do not think they have that right.

It is regrettable that this issue has arisen primarily because it draws attention completely away from the Greencore report and the findings and scope of the report which this House should be debating rather than what is essentially an unsupported allegation by one journalist. The fact that this allegation has given rise to this controversy is not unexpected, given the nature of the Greencore controversy and the way in which this affair has taken another bizarre twist. It has been an extraordinary episode in the political life of this State from the viewpoint of either political parties or commercial life.

We all had hoped that the publication of the Greencore report would finally bring to a satisfactory conclusion a series of events which have left a whole range of questions unanswered. The allegation that the Minister had sought to exert pressure was first made by a journalist in the Sunday Business Post on 4 February 1992 and it was again repeated by the same journalist on RTE. It seems that the allegations are very tenuous given that neither of the inspectors involved referred to any such pressure in their report. If they were brought under undue pressure of an improper nature by this Minister, or indeed any other Minister I think it would have been appropriate to refer to that in the body of their report on Greencore and have the matter brought to the attention of the courts. The journalist who wrote the original story vigorously repeated the allegations on the television programme “Today Tonight” on Tuesday last and suggested the inspectors had lodged written statements outlining their allegations.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, answered Private Notice Questions from myself and others yesterday and I noted his denial and said then there was no reason to disbelieve him and I still see no reason to disbelieve the Minister. When I heard the statement issued by Mr. Barry last night claiming to speak on behalf of both inspectors in which he stated categorically that no member of the Oireachtas or Government sought to influence the inspectors as to the scope of the inquiry or the nature of its findings, I felt this was a categorical denial and that it would bring the matter to an end. However, the later statement by Mr. Foley in which he said that the first statement was not issued on his behalf and, by implication, and only by implication, he did not agree with it, has opened the matter up again and consequently it must be cleared up.

The media have given credence to the view that Mr. Foley's denial of the statement issued by Mr. Barry lends credence to the allegation of interference. This is an implication that Mr. Foley has neither confirmed nor denied and it is incumbent on him to clarify what precisely his position is. Indeed, I support the Minister in appealing to both inspectors to go back to the court and have the matter resolved at that level. I appeal to the Minister to again examine whether he has the power to go to the court to have this matter resolved. What we are seeing primarily is the undermining of a fairly new procedure under the Companies Act and this is regrettable. The new system is important for the protection of companies, shareholders and, indeed, the general public.

We are again being dragged into a controversy where politicians once more are being seen to be more concerned about peripheral issues to a large extent than to the very serious economic and social issues which this House should be dealing with.

I appeal to all concerned to get to the root of the problem; go to the courts and have the matter cleared up so that we can get on with the business of this House.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Malley)

I am glad to have the opportunity to reply. There have not been a great many specific questions asked of me but I will endeavour to reply to those that were to the best of my ability.

Deputy John Bruton said it was improper for me, or any Minister, to have any contact with the inspectors. While Deputy John Bruton was delivering his mock outrage this morning I wondered whether he really lives in the real world. How is the inquiry to be run if there is not some contact with the inspectors? It is perfectly evident.

Mr. J. Bruton

It is not perfectly evident.

Mr. O'Malley

What we have learned from this experience is that in future, rather than having costs run up in the way they have on this occasion, I would agree all the costs in detail in advance, even if it means holding up the start of the tribunal of inquiry for three weeks if necessary so that we would not experience the difficulty we have run into now.

Mr. J. Bruton

Why did the Minister not do that in the first place?

Mr. O'Malley

I was not aware that these kinds of problems would arise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If there was agreement that the Minister should reply, he should be in a position to reply so that everybody will hear him without interruption. I appeal to everybody to listen to the reply.

Mr. O'Malley

For the record, after the inspectors were appointed I expected they would come to see me, as had been indicated to me before their appointment, to discuss the question of costs and so on which did not seem to concern them greatly before their appointment. The first contact we had was two or three days after their appointment and after they had started, when one of the inspectors telephoned the Secretary of my Department. He asked who was the secretary of the Department of Justice, as he wanted to talk to him about the costs because they had discovered that under section 13 it was he who was responsible to pay their costs and not the Minister for Industry and Commerce as they had thought — I must confess as I had thought also. The Secretary gave the inspector the name of the Secretary of the Department of Justice and made an appointment for them. They went to see him.

Deputy John Bruton said that what I should have done in regard to costs was to refer to the matter in open court and not to have had private telephone conversations with inspectors. I have to remind the Deputy that I, of course, did that in open court. It was a very unusual thing to happen and I doubt if it ever happened before, but it did on 13 December 1991. It caused quite a stir at the time that I should, through counsel, question the costs and question the duration of the inquiry and express my concern at the application being made by the inspectors for a further eight weeks to carry out the task because I had already been assured that the matter would be concluded in November — the time had already been extended a number of times.

I did that on each subsequent occasion that the matter came up in open court. What can be more open than that? I was asked by Deputies John Bruton and Spring how many times I spoke to Mr. Barry, who was, of course, the only inspector to whom I spoke. I cannot say precisely because I did not keep a record but my guess, which I believe would be reasonably accurate, is about seven or eight times in the course of an inquiry which lasted a week short of six months. Not all these telephone calls were instigated by me. Obviously Mr. Barry would have rung me in connection with the cost problems. I conveyed to him not just my concern but the concern of the Government as a whole. On at least three occasions the Government as a whole discussed the matter and agreed fully with my point of view. On the first occasion they expressed concern it was not connected with my point of view because I did not know then what the costs would be. The Minister for Justice, during my absence in the United States, informed the Government and he thought these figures were appallingly high. He brought up the matter and I was asked on my return to deal with it.

The best estimate of the cost, on the basis of what has been paid and what the Department of Justice estimate is likely to be claimed, is as follows: Mr. C. Foley, personally, £250,000 plus; Mr. A. Barry, personally, £240,000 plus; other staff costs £300,000; other expenses — legal expenses, stenographers, security, etc., £300,000 plus. The total projected cost is £1,100,000 plus. How much the "plus" will be I do not know. In the light of this, surely the Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce who applied for the appointment of these inspectors, are entitled to have a concern about this matter and to seek to have an effective and economically conducted inquiry. I do not make any apology to anybody for that, none whatever. I do not make an apology for being concerned that an inquiry which I was originally led to believe might last a month or six weeks ended up lasting a week short of six months, with running costs of that order. Not to have been concerned about that and not to have spoken to one of the inspectors on seven or eight occasions about that aspect would have been remiss of my duty.

It should be put on record that no complaint has been made to the court by either inspector and I have invited either or both of them to make a statement to the court, or with the permission of the court, if there is the slightest reason for either of them to suggest that I interfered in any way in the conduct or findings of the inquiry, other than to express my continuing concern about costs. I have given the House the figures and I am entitled to be concerned. I would challenge any Member not to be concerned about that. There were two Ministers for Finance during the course of this inquiry, both of whom expressed great disquiet and their Department have given both the Department of Justice and my Department guidelines as to how these matters might be handled in the future in order that there might never be a repetition. I fully concur with the Department of Finance in this regard. I can assure the House that there will not be a repetition and that these matters will be agreed in advance.

I am grateful to Deputy De Rossa for what he has said. I have explained to Deputy Spring the basis for my not going to court. There is no provision in the Companies Act to allow me to do it. In any event, I cannot go to the court and ask the court to compel somebody to make a statement. The court would not hear me on it. Of course, the inspectors are themselves free to go. The matter has been adjourned. The question of costs — by that I understand ultimate liability which I hope fervently will pass from the State to some other place — will be decided on 31 March.

Deputy Bruton asked who authorised Mr. Barry to issue his statement. I presume nobody authorised him and that he issued it himself. The Deputy asked me how many contacts I had and I have given my best estimate. He thought it was improper that the Government should, as it were, delegate the powers of the Minister for Justice to me. I do not think it is. The Government were surprised to find that the Minister for Justice was involved at all. None of us was terribly clear why that was so but it was provided for under a section of the Act. To the best of my knowledge and ability I have dealt with the matters raised today.

Mr. Spring

The question of the structure.

Mr. O'Malley

I have already dealt with the question of the structure. What I sought to convey by "structure" was the office or bureaucratic structure, the office arrangements which seemed to entail the taking on of a new office at some stage in the course of the inquiry, which I thought was perhaps a pity. The number of staff hired was at one stage very high indeed, in my opinion. I am out of the mainstream of professional activities in the city of Dublin and perhaps I do not realise how much they have moved on in terms of cost and expense since I was on the hazard of the marketplace in the distant past. They certainly have moved on and when I see what is happening around me I often wonder whether I am wise to have been in this House for the past 24 years, slaving on behalf of the Irish nation, and sometimes, as on this occasion perhaps, not getting great thanks for it.

Mr. J. Bruton

Perhaps the Minister might read the legislation more closely in future.

Minister for Energy (Mr. Molloy)

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I express our complete support for the integrity of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this matter. I express our thanks to Deputy De Rossa for supporting the Minister's integrity in the matter. On behalf of my party I express our sincere regret that no other Leader of an Opposition party has chosen to express such support for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.