Vol. 553 No. 2
84 Mr. Hogan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment her views on whether the High Court inspectors' report into the Ansbacher scheme should be published; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13869/02]
87 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has received a copy from the President of the High Court of the report of the inspectors into the Ansbacher accounts; her views on whether the report should be published; the steps she is taking to ensure that the names of those involved are put into the public domain; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13832/02]
I will begin by congratulating Deputy Hogan on his much deserved elevation to the Fine Gael Front Bench. I look forward to working with him over the next five years.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 84 and 87 together.
The High Court inspectors appointed to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited presented their report to the High Court on Monday, 10 June 2002. I have received a copy of the report. The court has ordered that the report not be published or its contents disclosed. The matter was adjourned for further consideration on 24 June 2002.
The question of the disposition of the report is entirely a matter for the High Court. As I have made publicly clear on a number of occasions, it is my stated wish that the contents of the report should be published in full. It is my intention to seek to be represented at the proceedings on 24 June where I propose to set out the reasons it would be in the public interest that the report be published in full and as expeditiously as possible.
In the event that the court feels that further consideration needs to be given to the question of publication of the report, I intend seeking to have the report made available immediately to all relevant competent authorities so that action can be initiated on foot of the material gathered by the inspectors. It is a matter for the relevant competent authorities to follow up on issues raised in the report.
The investigation and prosecution of company law matters, for which I formerly had statutory responsibility, is now the sole responsibility of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, who has received a copy of the report. The director has indicated publicly that his immediate task will be to study the report and determine the appropriate response for his office.
I thank the Tánaiste for her kind opening remarks.
The establishment of the position of Director of Corporate Enforcement and allowing the Ansbacher report, when published, to be given to that individual is an opportunity for the Tánaiste to side-step the issue and to let some quango or agency deal with a very important matter. The Tánaiste promised some time ago that she was going to clean up business and financial malpractice and appointed an inspector in her Department to get to the bottom of the various matters that will be referred to in this report. She expressed surprise at the extent and wide variety of irregular dealings in the financial and business sectors and she expressed surprise at the names she found coming up in relation to different dealings which were deemed to be irregular. Why then does she not take responsibility for her inspector's report and for the work that has been done in her Department, rather than side-step it and pass it to another inspector of corporate enforcement?
The law does not entitle me to take any immediate action. This House passed the legislation to establish the independent office with the enthusiastic support of Fine Gael. It is appropriate that company law be enforced on a fair and independent basis, not at the whim of the Minister of the day. In planning appeals, public prosecutions and corporate enforcement, we have all seen that offices should act totally independently, without fear or favour and without political influence.
The office is appropriately resourced and is staffed by members of the Garda, barristers and accountants, whereas company law heretofore was enforced by one and a half officials in my Department who also had other responsibilities. Quite honestly, company law enforcement was not taken seriously and this only began to change when Deputy Rabbitte was in the Department and the Company Registrations Office was put on a new footing. Over the past 12 months it has been taken seriously for the first time.
In relation to the report and to company law inquiries, nobody ever initiated 13 inquiries into allegations of breaches of company law. It is very significant and hopefully it will be a watershed, but the most significant outcome from all of this is that we have an independent office. I did not wait until this report was to hand to establish that. It was evident to me in 1999 that a new direction and a new way of enforcing the law was necessary and that is why we proceeded with the establishment of the office, which has been well received in most quarters. Its establishment was supported by everybody in this House.
Has the Tánaiste established if she will be heard on 24 June? I presume that if her locus standi is established she will argue that the report be brought into the public domain.
In terms of her previous references to these investigations and to the fact that she was shocked and alarmed at some of the discoveries that came to her attention, now that she has read the report has she changed her mind with regard to her previous characterisation of the players in this drama?
In the context of some of the comment one occasionally reads, is it possible that some of the players whose names will come into the public domain may be entirely innocent of wrongdoing?
I cannot comment on the report. The Deputy will appreciate that the President of the High Court ordered that the report be given to the Director of Corporate Enforcement and to me and that we are not at liberty to disclose its contents to anybody or to make comment on it. In fairness, if I make any comment I could be on very thin ice and I do not want to go there. It is far to serious. The matter will be before the Court on Monday and I understand I will be heard. The fact that the President of the High Court facilitated the making available of a copy to me leads me to believe, from legal advice, that we will be heard then.
I am not surprised that the Tánaiste mentioned 13 inquiries. They never had to be done before and there was good reason that they had to be undertaken over the last number of years. Hopefully, this will not be repeated ever again to the extent that there was political involvement in these matters apart from individuals outside the political domain.
I do not know why the Tánaiste will not give us a flavour of the course of action she will be taking on 24 June. In view of her strongly held views about the issues involved and the access to information which she has had for a considerable period of time through her own inspector's report, will she confirm that she carried out her own report and that she had information at her disposal which she could have acted on? Why did she do nothing to deal with these issues, allowing them instead to go the High Court, as opposed to acting on her own inspector's report, which was carried out some years ago?
I did take action and there were several prosecutions. If the Deputy is familiar with some of the other reports he will know that people were successfully prosecuted under various provisions of the Companies Acts. I set up the new office, but I was not at liberty to act in relation to the Ansbacher report until the inspectors had completed their inquiry. The initial section 8 inquiry, carried out by the authorised officer, Gerard Ryan, was preliminary and his findings warranted the appointment of High Court inspectors which the court acceded to. In my affidavit to the court I stated the reasons I believed such inspectors were appropriate as they have substantially more powers than a section 8 inquiry. In particular, they have powers to take evidence on oath and to compel people to attend and give evidence. That is a very substantial power.
I am not going to say what the flavour of my remarks will be, but the report has cost €3 million to date. We know from the Revenue Commissioners that they have collected €17 million on account from 50 of the people involved, which is public information given in this House some time ago by the Minister for Finance. These are the figures to the end of March. If a report has cost €3 million, it should be provided to the public and I will argue the reasons I believe that in court next Monday, subject to legal advice.
I am not teasing the Tánaiste on to thin ice when I ask her if she now resiles in any way from her previous characterisation of the report. It is a fair question. Will she tell the House if she would be happy if through legal intervention or other means some of the main players in the Ansbacher affair were successful in causing this report not to be published?
I would not be happy if that were the case. The court made a decision on this matter when an application was made by two individuals to challenge anonymously. It was refused and I welcome that. It was a good decision, but clearly one for the courts.
The report cost €3 million to date and that was money well spent.
