Vol. 500 No. 4
30 Mr. Gilmore asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has received the report of the authorised officer appointed to a company (details supplied); the steps, if any, she will take on foot of the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4135/99]
I received the report of the authorised officer relating to Garuda Limited, trading as Streamline Enterprises, on 14 December 1998. Relevant extracts from the report were subsequently forwarded to the company and Deputy Lowry for comment by 1 February 1999. On 29 January last, a two week extension of this deadline was sought on the basis that the advice of counsel was still awaited. A one week extension to 5 p.m. on 8 February 1999 was given, but no comments have been received to date from either Garuda Limited or Deputy Lowry.
Unless I receive the permission of the company to publish the report, I may disclose its contents only to certain parties under section 21 of the Companies Act, 1990. It will be appreciated that this precludes me from indicating to the House the significant issues that have arisen in this case. However, I plan to make a statement in due course indicating what decisions I have made on the report.
I understand that under the legislation the Minister may not reveal to the House the findings of this report. Can she confirm information that is not in the report? Is it the case that the findings of the report relate to business and commercial transactions or is there a political dimension to it?
It is a company law investigation, not a political inquiry. None of the investigations I am conducting has political consequences because I am precluded from investigating matters which do not relate to companies. For example, I cannot investigate matters which relate to political parties, if that is what the Deputy is asking. I cannot confirm what is not contained in the report, because by confirming what is not in it, one is confirming what may or may not be in it. Serious issues have arisen; however, because this company consists of one person, I have to be fair to him. Therefore I am reluctant to say any more at this stage. If the company gives me permission to publish the report, I will be happy to do so. I have sought its permission and I do not know whether it will be forthcoming. However, I have some time to make decisions on this matter. If I have not received a response from the company by 8 February, and I do not know whether I will get one, I will make some quick decisions on the matter.
The Minister ought to be able to say whether any information in the report relates to the conduct of the company's principal while an office-holder. She ought to be able to say yes or no to that question.
The Deputy should put a question to the Minister.
I do not want to politicise this issue because the company is a politician. The officer was not asked to look at any political decisions or those made as a Minister. The officer was asked to look at the accounts of the company, which is all that was done. Just as in the case of Celtic Helicopters or any other interim reports I have seen, no political matters or matters relating to decisions made by politicians at any time are reflected or referred to in reports of that kind. These are conducted strictly according to company law. I cannot say any more than that. The report relates to how the company was run.
It is patently evident that the affairs of Celtic Helicopters—
A question please.
This is a question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and perhaps you will allow me to ask it in my own inadequate way. Does the Minister agree that it is patently evident that the case of Celtic Helicopters had political ramifications? I am trying to establish whether this was purely commercial misadventure and wrongdoing or whether there were any actions by the principal as an officer—
This question refers to a different company.
It does not.
If the Deputy is asking me if I have any knowledge – and I do not want to talk only about my report – of any wrongdoing which reflects on Deputy Lowry as a Minister, I have no such knowledge, from any source.
I wish to seek clarification from the Minister. She said that she could publish the report if she got permission from the company; under which section of the Act is that the case and does it have the same implications for the companies to which I referred in my first question, Celtic Helicopters, Ansbacher etc? Has the Minister sought permission from any of those to publish reports? She appears to be making a slightly different case for the Garuda report than she did for any of the others. She did not mention in her replies relating to those companies that if she got permission from them she would publish the report; she implied her hands were completely tied.
This is the only report which has been completed. The same procedure will apply to all reports. Certainly I will not have one set of standards or rules for one person and a different set for others. The Act provides for publication with the consent of the affected parties.
Which section?
I do not know. I think it is section 21, but I will confirm that. One can, with the permission of the parties, publish a report, and we sought permission in this case. This is the only final report which has been completed.
The Celtic Helicopters reports I have received are interim reports. That report will not be com pleted until we complete other investigations. I hope it can be completed soon because since then other investigations have been undertaken.
Has the Minister referred the report on this company to the Moriarty tribunal? Has she referred it to any other competent authority? Has she had any response in that connection?
No. It has not been referred to anybody. The procedure is that when one receives a final draft report one has an option, and I have chosen to exercise the option, to send it to the affected party for comments. That is what has happened in this matter. I have not made a final decision on what to do with this report. I have not yet received the comments in reply from the company but if I do not get them shortly I will have to make decisions on this matter.
The same applies with what I said earlier about tribunals. I cannot publish the report unless the company gives me permission. As I understand it, unless the Moriarty inquiry seeks it, I do not think I have permission to send it to that tribunal. I understand that it is not legally a court of competent jurisdiction in the sense that that is defined in the Act. I may seek further clarification on that matter. Clearly, there are other authorities to which one can send the report and I mentioned some of them earlier. I must consider shortly what to do.
