Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 2

Written Answers. - Greencore Inquiry.

Brendan Howlin

Question:

20 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement on recent reports which suggest that a letter of appointment supplied to one of the inspectors appointed by him to examine the affairs of Greencore may have been used as some form of collateral for bank loans.

Phil Hogan

Question:

22 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Justice if a letter was issued by his Department to a person (details supplied) confirming the fees to be paid in respect of his duties as High Court inspector into the affairs of Greencore; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Gerry O'Sullivan

Question:

23 Mr. G. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Justice whether the taxpayer will be required to pay for the full cost of the Greencore inquiry, arising from the recent court decision on the matter; if he will outline the final cost of the inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Michael Noonan

Question:

32 Mr. Noonan (Limerick East) asked the Minister for Justice the reason an offer made by Greencore to pay a portion of the costs arising from the investigation into the affairs of Siúicre Éireann cpt and related companies, carried out by inspectors appointed by the High Court under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990, was not accepted by the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

51 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline the action, if any, he has taken to date in relation to documentation prepared and assembled by the Greencore inspectors; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Flynn)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 20, 22, 23, 32 and 51 together.

To date my Department has paid a total of £1,199,722 in fees and expenses, including VAT but excluding deduction of retention tax, in respect of the investigation ordered by the High Court under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990, into the affairs of Siúicre Éireann cpt. It is estimated that a further £51,000 in fees and expenses will arise in connection with the investigation.

In accordance with section 13 (1) of the Act an application was made to the High Court for the reimbursement to my Department of the costs of the investigation which, as required by the Act, it had paid in the first instance. Section 13 (1) of the Companies Act, 1990, allows for reimbursement in full to the State of expenses incurred in such investigations and it is clearly desirable that the taxpayer should be relieved of the burden of such costs and expenses to the greatest extent possible. Before the High Court proceedings took place the possibility of Greencore meeting part of the expenses of the investigation was discussed between counsel for the parties. However, when counsel for the State sought to pursue the matter more definitely, no offer to pay any part of the expenses was forthcoming. In its judgment delivered on 1 May 1992 the High Court refused the application. It should be noted that the High Court in its judgment accepted the general principle that the State should be reimbursed the costs and expenses but felt that it did not apply in the particular circumstances of this case.

Following consultation with the Attorney General an appeal against this decision has been lodged with the Supreme Court. In the event of the appeal to the Supreme Court being rejected it is further open to me, under section 13 (2) of the Act, to seek reimbursement of the costs of the investigation from any person or persons who are either convicted on indictment on a prosecution taken as a result of the investigation or ordered to pay damages in civil proceedings taken on foot of the investigation. I can assure the House that all possible legal avenues will be explored with a view to removing the costs of the investigation from the taxpayer.

I wish to make it clear that under the 1990 Companies Act I have no function in the appointment of the inspectors: my Department's involvement relates solely to the payment in the first instance of the fees and expenses incurred in connection with an investigation ordered by the High Court under section 8. In the present case, the inspectors were appointed on 16 September 1991 by the High Court on the application of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. My Department issued a letter on 17 October 1991 to the secretary to the inspectors which set out,inter alia, the level of fees payable to each of the inspectors. I have no information, other than what was suggested in recent media reports, about any arrangements which may have been made by any of the persons concerned on foot of that letter.

Finally, in relation to the documentation amassed by the inspectors in the course of their investigation the position is that the High Court on 3 March 1992 ordered that copies of the documentation could be given to, among others, the Director of Public Prosecutions and that the originals be retained by my Department. This has been done.