Jim O'Keeffe
Question:89 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the position in relation to the inquiry into the Ansbacher accounts; and her further proposals in this regard. [13676/02]
Other Questions. - Ansbacher Accounts.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:95 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, if she has now received a copy of the report from the President of the High Court on 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 is she will make a statement on the matter. [1363/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 89 and 95 together.
The High Court inspectors appointed to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited presented their report to the High Court on Monday, 10 June 2002. I am conscious that I gave the same answer to an earlier question and apologise to the House for the repetition. I would take it as read although Deputy O'Keeffe may not have been here earlier.
I heard the answer.
Then we can save time.
I am aware from the Minister's earlier comments that she cannot comment on the report but I am interested to know what will be her instructions to counsel for the State next Monday? It is probably taken as read that the Minister will be seeking to have the report made public. Will she be seeking any other orders from the court next Monday arising from this report? Any such approach to the court on her behalf would be made in public so it is not a question of her commenting on the report in any way. What is her attitude to those who claim that they have been innocently maligned by being included in the report? Apart from the publication issue, will the Tánaiste instruct counsel to seek any other orders on behalf of the State?
The answer to that is "no". It is open to the presiding judge to inquire of the inspectors and to make a decision based on what they say as to where costs should be levied, for example. This is something in which I have an interest, but it will be a matter for the presiding judge after hearing what the inspectors might say in relation to it. Following up is clearly a matter for the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Revenue Commissioners and other competent authorities. If there are names of innocent people who might be maligned, it is a matter for the presiding judge. I am certain that given that Mr. Justice Finnegan took some time before he made a decision on this matter, these issues will all be reflected on appropriately by the court. It will be purely a matter for the court.
Regarding following up, I will not ask the Tánaiste to give a guarantee but is she satisfied that there can be no repetition of this kind of scandal and that the steps taken, such as establishing the Director of Corporate Enforcement, are adequate? Does she have any further proposals to try to ensure that there will be no scandals of this kind again?
I would be very foolish if I was to say that there would never be tax evasion again. It is in the nature of a human being to try to avoid paying tax if he or she can get away with it, but hopefully, with greater vigilance from the Revenue Commissioners, which we have seen in recent years, and reports like this, there can be a new culture and a new regime. Thankfully, lower tax rates may help as well.
Regarding other measures, the new regime we are about to put on a statutory basis for the auditing profession, which will require auditors to report any wrongdoing or breaches in the Companies Acts to the Director of Corporate Enforcement, will be very significant. It will place a huge onus on members of the auditing profession to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities cases where they have reason to believe the law has been broken. That is significant. Auditors have huge powers and it is appropriate that they should have responsibilities. The proposal was criticised in a newspaper today but it has been introduced on foot of a recommend ation of the group established after the DIRT inquiry to look at the auditing profession.
During the course of this controversy and the investigations, was the Tánaiste or any member of the Government, to her knowledge, approached or did anyone seek to make representations to her or to any member of Government on the subject matter of this report?
I cannot make a comment in that regard except to say, as I have said before, that this is a very small country and people frequently meet each other. People are often capable of making their views known.
If I was to interpret that for the House as the Tánaiste saying that she has had her ear bent by those whose names are likely to emerge in this report, would I be accurately interpreting the Tánaiste?
I would answer it like this: those who might be mentioned in the report are very vociferous and more than able to make their points of view known.
As a further follow-up to that, does the Tánaiste feel it would be appropriate to give a little more information to the House apart from saying people are vociferous? Were they vociferous in the right ears? Did they represent views to her or her colleagues? Now that the issue has been raised by Deputy Rabbitte, she should be more explicit and I invite her to do so on the record of the House.
I suppose that in the past we were always very good at avoiding what one would broadly call political hot potatoes. That is why it is significant that we have a new independent office where these issues will be handled on a purely independent basis. Everyone here accepts that the Director of Public Prosecutions, An Bord Pleanála and bodies of that kind act totally independently and that is how it should be in relation to such matters. The people who carried out this investigation, including the authorised officer of my Department and the inspectors, including Mr. Justice Costello, who unfortunately had to stand down, are very honourable people and they have done a very good job. We have the capacity, even in a small country, to carry out very sensitive reports of this kind and to do so professionally and properly.
I was interested that the Tánaiste said that even though these matters are before the courts, people felt they could approach her in relation to them. She said we live in a small country but why did they feel they could approach her in relation to these matters if they are before the courts?
I am not suggesting that anyone has approached me or anyone else about matters which are before the courts.
The Tánaiste is not doing her reputation for forthright responses much good. She will remember occasions such as the beef tribunal when full and frank replies were not given in the House. It is in everyone's interest that this be clarified. Were approaches made in relation to this report with a view to ensuring it was not published or from any other point of view and, if so, to whom? This issue will not go away and I invite the Tánaiste to clarify it fully from the point of view of her reputation and because the House is entitled to know.
The Deputy can take it that, since the inspectors were appointed, the report has been concluded and it is now a matter for the courts, nobody succeeded in preventing all that happening.
That was not the question.
That should be evidence to everybody that the law is taking its course. That is the way it should be.
That was not the question.
That is the answer the Deputy is getting and there is no need to get anything else.
There will be.
It is reasonable for this side of the House to inquire of the Tánaiste if it is a reasonable inference to take from her replies so far that representations were made either to her and-or other members of the Government about the subject matter of this report. We ought to hear from her without drawing any judgment about what the nature of the response was to such representations – if those representations were made – if she can say by whom they were made. If she cannot tell us that, she ought to be able to tell us to whom they were made. During this controversy and her own public remarks on it, did any colleague in Government make any representations to her on behalf of any person who believed he or she might be implicated in the subject matter of the report?
I said on many occasions in the House that several lawyers were in touch with me in relation to Gerard Ryan's inquiry. I said that here before, in 1998 and 1999. Several lawyers in this town made representations, if that is the word, in relation to these matters. I have spoken to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance as the competent authority about previous reports but if the Deputy is asking me if anyone made representations to me to back off, if that is the intention of the question, the answer to that is "no".
Since receiving the report has the Tánaiste consulted any member of the Government regarding its contents?
Is the Tánaiste aware she is whetting the appetite by dribbling out the last bit of information about the Dublin lawyers making representations to her? We need to know, if not the names of the lawyers, the number involved, the kind of representations and the response to such representations.
Acting Chairman
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to be brief because we are almost out of time.
Can the Tánaiste understand that we are not merely arguing or asking questions about the report as finalised and which is before the court, but during the entire course of this controversy were such representations as we have spoken about made to her or made to the Government or by any member of the Government to her? Can she say whether in all cases where these lawyers made such representations they specified on whose behalf they were making them?
The answer to the first part of Deputy Rabbitte's question is "no". In regard to the second part of his question, invariably the lawyers would say on whose behalf they were writing. Clearly, the Attorney General would respond on my behalf and the authorised officer would be made aware of any legal issues raised by individuals concerned. It is fair to say that the Minister of the day in the context of the former law, before we moved it to an independent process, had discretion about whether to have any of these inquiries. To recap, these inquiries came about after the McCracken report. Nobody called for them either in this House or elsewhere. I initiated those inquiries on foot of the McCracken report and on foot of the report from Gerard Ryan. I went one step further. That is always a matter of discretion. One is not forced to do these things.
A Cathaoirleach, I do not think you should allow it stay on the record of the House that nobody in this House asked for inquiries into these matters. That would not be historically correct.
It was done the day after the McCracken report.
I am not denying that.
It was not done as a result of political pressure. It was done because it was the right thing for Ministers to do on foot of the McCracken report. All of these inquiries, both the tribunals of inquiry and the company law investigations, will change the culture because the greatest deterrent is enforcing the law. That the law will be enforced, without fear or favour, is the greatest deterrent to ensuring we do not have tax evasion on the same scale as in the past.