Vol. 514 No. 1
45 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the deadlines, if any, for the receipt of the various reports on the investigations being carried out in her Department; the number which have still to be completed; if she has been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions if he intends to instigate prosecutions against anybody in relation to these investigations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3647/00]
Of the 13 company investigations which have been undertaken in our Department recently, five have been completed, two are suspended due to judicial review proceedings and six are ongoing. We expect that a further report will be completed in the near future. We have set no deadlines for the remaining five reports as I know the authorised officer and his staff are continuing to work flat out to complete their work as quickly as possible.
Four of the five completed reports were referred to the DPP at the outset. The reports in question dealt with National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited, Bula Resources (Holdings) plc., Garuda Limited and Faxhill Homes Limited. These were referred to the DPP on 12 June 1998, 22 July 1998, 17 June 1999 and 21 June 1999, respectively. I am aware that the NIBFS and Bula reports were subsequently forwarded to the Garda Síochána. In the cases of Garuda and Faxhill, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions returned the reports to our Department on 31 August 1999 because it believed it was precluded by section 1 of the Companies Act, 1990 from forwarding the information concerned to the Garda Síochána for investigation. This was not a problem with the Bula report which was published by our Department under section 14 of the Companies Act, 1990. Neither was it an issue with the NIBFS report which though not published was undertaken under the Insurance Act, 1989 and was therefore not subject to the onerous secrecy provisions in section 21 of the Companies Act, 1990.
The legal problem vis-à-vis Garuda and Faxhill was resolved in the recent amendment to section 21, which was made in section 53 of the Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1999. Following the commencement of this provision, we returned the Garuda report to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 31 January last, as it is not legally possible for us to undertake any summary proceedings for suspected offences under the companies Acts in this case. However, we have decided not to refer the Faxhill report to the DPP for the time being, having regard, inter alia, to the fact that our Department is well advanced in considering, in conjunction with the Chief State Solicitor's office, the initiation of a number of summary prosecutions for suspected offences under the companies Acts identified in the report. Subject to legal advice, we also intend to undertake a number of summary prosecutions arising from the Bula report.
Consequently, three of these reports remain with the DPP. Action contemplated by the DPP in any of these cases is not reportable to us as he is independent in the exercise of his statutory duties. Consequently, I have no information on whether the DPP plans to initiate prosecutions against anyone arising from these reports.
There is much new information in that answer which, unfortunately, I do not have in front of me. This means I may not be able to ask detailed questions of the Minister of State. I gather his Department intends taking some summary prosecutions. Will he indicate the basis on which these summary prosecutions will be taken? Can he provide an update on the situation con cerning the Celtic Helicopters inquiry which he did not mention as one of the companies which have been referred to the DPP?
I think Celtic Helicopters will be dealt with in a subsequent question. However, the report is expected shortly. The summary prosecutions refer to various breaches of the companies Acts. When the current examination is concluded and the legal advice is available we will take a final decision as to the options the Department and the Tánaiste will exercise.
I assume the Gerard Ryan report is one of those to which the Minister referred to as being complete, handed to the Tánaiste in June 1999 and given to the Taoiseach at the end of July 1999. Will the Minister of State confirm whether the Minister referred the Gerard Ryan report to the Moriarty tribunal? If she did, does this give the Minister the right to be informed by the Moriarty tribunal if further information arising from, or not covered in, the Gerard Ryan report becomes available? Does the Tánaiste have a right to get information directly from the Moriarty tribunal on issues which have already been examined by her Department?
It is a matter for the tribunal to decide what information it makes available. It is normal that once concluded a report is made available to the Tánaiste. Is the Deputy referring to the Ansbacher-Caymen investigation?
Yes. Did the Minister send that report to the Moriarty tribunal, as she indicated she would like to do in the House on 4 November?
I think that is the position, but I will check.
If that is the position, as I believe it to be, the Tánaiste gave the Gerard Ryan report to the Moriarty tribunal and a new report from another source became available to the tribunal in November. Can the Minister of State say what the Tánaiste meant when she said in an RTÉ interview that she had information as a result of her being a Minister, and that she was aware of the information concerning Deputy Denis Foley without the Taoiseach having to tell her? How did the Tánaiste come across the information which I understand was given to the Moriarty tribunal by Mr. Collery's secretary? I am trying to ascertain the rights the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has regarding information going to tribunals.
I presume the Tánaiste may get reports on particular situations. I am not aware—
From the tribunal?
No, from her officers who report to her. The tribunal makes its own decisions regarding reports. The Tánaiste gets no interim reports from any tribunal. She is obliged in law to deal with information when she gets it. She cannot communicate information on any individual or aspect of an investigation, something she has made quite clear. She has to take advice and decide the legal options she can exercise.
The time allotted for the question has now been used.
How did the Minister get the additional list of Ansbacher names which she sent to Mr. Justice Costello's inquiry?
We must proceed to Question No. 46.
This is a very important point.
The Chair has no discretion but to operate the rules of the House.
This is a very important point. Deputy Owen has stated that the Tánaiste got an additional list of Ansbacher clients. I do not think that is—
I have called Question No. 46.
She set up the Mr. Justice Costello inquiry.
The Moriarty tribunal, in its investigations of individuals, discovered further information. That information did not become available to the Tánaiste.
I have called Question No. 46. It is disorderly for the Minister and the Deputy to persist.
She implied it did.
It has been implied for her.
