Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Nov 1999

Vol. 510 No. 2

Ceisteanna – Questions. Priority Questions. - Departmental Investigations.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the inquiries being carried out by or on behalf of her Department; the progress being made in regard to these inquiries; when each inquiry will be completed; the steps, if any, she is taking to ensure that the results of each of these inquiries enter the public domain in view of her frequently expressed view that this should happen; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22015/99]

Ms Harney

Some 11 inquiries are ongoing at present. The inquiries into National Irish Bank Limited, National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited and Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited are being undertaken by High Court inspectors under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990. I understand that following the conclusion of several legal proceedings, the NIB and NIBFS inquiries are now proceeding satisfactorily and that they should conclude next year. Deputies will know that the Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited inquiry has just started and that it will be several months before it concludes. While the ultimate decision on publication of the inquiry reports in these three cases is a matter for the High Court, I am optimistic that this will occur.

The remaining eight investigations are being undertaken by my Department under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990. In five cases, the work of my authorised officer in examining the companies' books and documents is substantially complete. The companies involved are Celtic Helicopters Limited, Guinness & Mahon (Ireland) Limited, Hamilton Ross Company Limited, Irish Intercontinental Bank Limited and Kentford Securities Limited. I expect to receive final reports on many of these companies in the coming months.

In a further three cases, work is at an early stage or has not yet started. College Trustees Limited, which is based in Guernsey, indicated to my Department last month that it will not be co-operating with my authorised officer's inquiries. While this is a disappointing but not altogether surprising development, it will not deflect my Department from completing its section 19 examination of the company. It will probably be May-June 2000 before this report is available.

In the cases of Dunnes Stores Ireland Company and Dunnes Stores (ILAC Centre) Limited, the High Court decision in the second set of judicial review proceedings by the companies and Margaret Heffernan against my decision to institute a section 19 examination was delivered on 6 July. Appeals by both sides against aspects of this decision are listed for hearing by the Supreme Court in December. Given the ongoing legal actions, it is not possible to speculate at present as to when these two reports might be completed.

The House will be aware that section 21 of the Companies Act, 1990, precludes me and other parties from publishing information relating to section 19 examinations for the reasons outlined by the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, on Report Stage of the Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1999, in the House yesterday. However, the results will come into the public domain in due course if prosecutions are taken in the courts against the companies or any other parties on foot of the contents of these reports. Similarly, any subsequent High Court inquiry under section 8 of the 1990 Act would result in publication of the inspector's report on the company concerned. I will not be able to make a decision on the ongoing examinations until I have received and assessed the reports of my authorised officer and any associated legal advice.

Mr. Rabbitte

Will the Tánaiste accept that she will be long out of office before any of the inquiries she has been trailing before us for so long are completed? She said that the inquiry in respect of National Irish Bank should be completed next year. How long does it take to carry out this type of inquiry? What supervision is imposed on the inspectors? How can it take so long? In fairness to the institution concerned – I have no connection with this institution – when will the inquiry be completed? How many completed reports have been referred to the DPP?

Ms Harney

I share the Deputy's concerns about the length of time it takes to conclude inquiries of this kind. As the Deputy knows, the matters being inquired into were the subject of intensive legal battle in many instances. In the case of Dunnes Stores Ireland and Dunnes Stores (ILAC Centre), we have not been able to begin, notwithstanding the fact that a decision was made on that issue well over a year ago.

The inquiry into National Irish Bank was delayed for a similar reason. The inspectors are working full time. A large number of people had to be interviewed and litigation concluded earlier in the year. In the interests of the bank and its staff and in the public interest, it is important that the inquiry is concluded as quickly as possible. The inspectors are officers of the court and it would be improper of me or anyone else to seek to intervene or supervise their work.

On the number of reports referred to the DPP, the Bula report was referred to the DPP. The Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited report is with the inspectors. I am not sure if any other reports have been completed. The Celtic Helicopters report will be concluded shortly, as will a number of other reports. It is my intention, if warranted, to refer the matters to the DPP. In some cases, there may be scope for the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to initiate prosecutions in relation to certain breaches of the Companies Acts. This would be desirable because, until the McCracken report, tax evasion on a fairly substantial basis continued in this jurisdiction, notwithstanding the 1993 amnesty. Such evidence was uncovered by my authorised officers. This evasion did not happen in the dark distant past, it was current up to approximately two years ago. Therefore, it is important to enforce the Companies Acts and the Minister should use his or her power to initiate prosecutions.

Mr. Rabbitte

On the question of the five inquiries under section 19, the Tánaiste has replied on a few occasions that the inquiries are almost substantially completed. On the question of whether information regarding the Ansbacher inquiry should come into the public domain, the Tánaiste suggested on a number of occasions that it should. Is it true that in reply to a Priority Question on 24 March the Minister told us the issues are so serious that they should be in the public domain and should not just go to competent authorities. Is it the Minister's intention, when the Companies Amendment (No. 2) Bill is enacted, to use the powers in it to have this matter referred to the Moriarty tribunal? Has she had any request for the information from the Moriarty tribunal?

Ms Harney

I am not aware that we have had any request from the Moriarty tribunal. The Flood tribunal has been involved with many Government Departments in getting files relating to events in the past. However, it clearly would be my intention that a report of this kind would be submitted to that type of tribunal. In my experience, most of the information which is sent to the Authorised Officer is also sent to the Moriarty tribunal in so far as it relates to Ansbacher. A year or so ago, I took the view that section 19 reports should be made public. However, the strong legal advice both from the current Attorney General and his predecessor and from every other lawyer I have spoken to was that if we did that we would never get a section 19 report, that the full rigours of the law would have to be applied and everybody would have to have their rights to legal representation and so on. That is the basis of the case being taken by Dunnes and Margaret Heffernan. The whole purpose of the report would be not just to carry out an inquiry but to put the information into the public domain. They argue that that cannot be done under what is a basic preliminary inquiry.