Vol. 538 No. 1
49 Mr. Flanagan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the steps she proposes to take to facilitate further progress on the investigation into the Ansbacher accounts in view of the recent court judgment in the Cayman Islands. [17293/01]
50 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the implications for the High Court Inquiry into Ansbacher Cayman Limited of the judgment of the Cayman Island Courts on 24 May 2001; if she has considered the possibility of an appeal against the judgment; when it is expected that the inspectors will produce their final report; if consideration has been given to an interim report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17298/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 50 together.
In his judgment delivered on 24 May last, Mr. Justice Smellie indicated that Ansbacher Cayman Ltd. shall divulge to the inspectors confidential information disclosed during the proceedings to the Grand Court. However, references to names and addresses which might disclose the identities of clients are to be deleted. In the event that the inspectors wish to put specific questions to any of those clients who were party to the application to the Grand Court, they may do so through Ansbacher.
Arising from my petition, the High Court appointed inspectors to Ansbacher Cayman Ltd. in September 1999. These inspectors are accountable only to the High Court for the performance of their tasks. I was not a party to the recent proceedings in the Cayman which resulted in the judgment delivered on 24 May last.
An appeal by the inspectors against the judgment is unlikely. This arises for a number of reasons but, principally, the delay which such an appeal would necessitate. Moreover, I am sure the inspectors have gathered a substantial amount of information since their appointment in September 1999. However, an appeal is strictly a matter for them.
It is a matter for the inspectors as to whether they will produce an interim report. I can see little useful purpose in producing same as it would not reflect the final position of the inspectors. Notwithstanding the recent judgment of the Cayman Grand Court, I hope the inspectors will produce a substantial report by the end of the year.
The Tánaiste is on record in the wake of the judgment as saying that it was a setback, but not one of fatal proportions. Where precisely do matters stand? Can she confirm that, notwithstanding the judgment, she is in possession of a number of names? Will she further confirm that because of information to which she was party she has in the past 18 months or so, when the occasion was deemed suitable, whipped up public opinion to the effect that this matter would be concluded to the satisfaction of everybody involved, the names would be published and consequently action would be taken in the form of court proceedings in this jurisdiction despite us facing a situation where little, if any, progress has been made and we have nothing more than a hill of beans as far as the Ansbacher debacle is concerned and she is not in a position to advance matters?
I strongly resent the Deputy's inference that there is a sense of irresponsibility about this issue. He made a reference to me whipping up matters. The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners addressed the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday when he had much to say about this matter. I was not at the meeting, but I understand he stated there could be up to 400 names. We have considerable information and there was significant detail and a large number of names in Gerard Ryan's interim report, which the inspectors received.
Following the judgment in the Cayman Islands there was a view here that perhaps that was the end of the road and that the inspectors would not be able to obtain information on individuals. They have substantial information. I am sure they have much more information as a result of the interviews they have conducted and the further investigations they have undertaken than they had when they received Gerard Ryan's interim report.
It was unfortunate that the Caymans judgment did not favour Ansbacher bank, which took the case, but it is not the end of the road. I hope, later this year there will be a full report to the High Court by the inspectors who are working extraordinarily hard. Unfortunately, Mr. Justice Costello had to stand down for health reasons and was replaced by two people, Judge O'Leary and Michael Cush, SC, to expedite the work of the inspectors because of the volume of work involved.
The Ansbacher files do not only contain my view. Several tribunals have referred to the bank accounts. The McCracken tribunal first uncovered this set of accounts and other tribunals have since through clients which have come before them referred to the Ansbacher accounts. The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners also referred to them yesterday. The Revenue is proceeding with its own inquiries in regard to this matter and I understand the chairman made it very clear what action it intends to take. I am very optimistic in regard to the report that will be submitted by the inspectors, I hope later this year, to the High Court.
This is the first time the Tánaiste has informed the House that the report will be ready by the end of the year. Will she say that again with a full sense of responsibility because even those of us on all sides of the House who have supported these investigations, this investigation especially, are fearful that costs are mounting, time is passing and there is no prospect of the matter reaching finality? People would like to be assured on that score.
Is it the case that the entire objective of the recent court case was to establish names and the ruling was that the supply of names was precluded? Is that a blow to the Ansbacher investigation? If not, will the Tánaiste clarify the reason she remains optimistic?
I reiterate my earlier comments. I hope the report will be before the High Court later this year. The inspectors do not report to me, nor do I receive information from them, but, given that there are now four inspectors who are working extraordinary hours to get through a large volume of work, that is my hope and that of others.
The case was taken by the bank, not the inspectors who sought information from the bank. The bank indicated it wished to co-operate, but wanted court clearance. I was never that optimistic it would win. The Cayman Islands have built their reputation on confidentiality in regard to these matters. I was hopeful the bank would win and it would have been better if the inspectors could have obtained all the details they desired, but it would be wrong of anyone to assume they do not have a large number of names as they have considerably more detail than they had when they received Gerard Ryan's report in September 1991. The report included, as was stated in the affidavit, the names of at least 120 persons. Since then other names have come into the public domain through both the Moriarty and Flood tribunals. Additional names have come into the possession of the authorities here and the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners referred to a larger number of names yesterday.
Given the powers of the inspectors, which exceeded those of Gerard Ryan, including the power to interview third parties which Mr. Ryan did not have, and that they are receiving co-operation from some people, which I welcome, I am optimistic they will produce a thorough report. It will not be as thorough as it might have been had they received the names and details from the Cayman Islands, but the additional information they have received will also help them. I could not, therefore, describe the judgment in the Cayman Islands, disappointing and all as it was, as a fatal blow to the inquiry.
One aspect of the judgment about which there can be some optimism was the ruling that certain information should be supplied by the bank to the inspectorate. Now that the time for appeal has elapsed, will the Tánaiste confirm whether this information has been formally sought, is in the course of transmission or has already been transmitted? What type of information does she envisage will be forthcoming?
I am not in a position to confirm anything to the House because the inspectors report to the court, not me. They act completely independently. They have an outstanding reputation and significant financial and legal expertise. They will leave no stone unturned to obtain the information they require. Unfortunately, the reason this has taken longer than one might have anticipated is because of constant litigation by some people who felt this information would never come to the attention of the authorities and have gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal their identity and the information from the inspectors. The same has happened with some of the tribunals. Litigation has delayed many of these inquiries more than we expected. However, I am optimistic the inspectors will seek whatever information they can and bear in mind the judgment of the court regarding any information they need.
Is the Tánaiste telling the House that the inspectors have resolved not to appeal this case? What is her current state of knowledge in terms of the number of deposit holders here? She adverted to the presentation of the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners to the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday. I was present and followed it closely. I did not hear him say there were 400 account holders, I heard him say the 120 names were only the tip of the iceberg.
Given that the revelation of the names is precluded in the fashion described by Mr. Justice Smellie, how is the Tánaiste confident that, for example, ensuing prosecutions are possible where it is not possible to connect an account to a specific name?
As regards the 120 names, that report was given to the Revenue Commissioners at the time. I understand from public comments made by the Revenue Commissioners, not from any private information I have, that they have been making considerable progress with that report. That may have been confirmed yesterday. I was not at the meeting yesterday. I understood from a newspaper source, but I may be inaccurate, that the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners spoke of a figure of 400. If he spoke about it being the tip of the iceberg and not 400, I apologise because it is my mistake.
As the Deputy knows, the Ansbacher report names have come into the public domain. One such name referred to a former member of the Committee on Public Accounts, for example, and that is public knowledge. Other names have come before the different tribunals. There has been a huge correlation between some of the subsequent reports Mr. Ryan made. Both the inspectors and the Revenue have information about a large number of individuals. Where the figure falls is not the relevant matter. What is important is that such information is pursued and those who have been evading their taxation and other responsibilities are brought to justice. I am optimistic that will happen.
