Bernard Allen
Question:7 Mr. Allen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action she has taken on foot of the Ansbacher report of July 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24404/03]
Other Questions. - Ansbacher Accounts.
I have been concerned for some time about the degree of compliance by companies and their officers with the requirements of company and other law. The report of the inspectors into Ansbacher Cayman confirmed that my concerns were justified. However, I did not wait for the completion of the report before taking action to ensure that any regulatory failures coming within my area of responsibility were dealt with.
Accordingly, I have introduced the following initiatives: proactive enforcement of the provisions of company law by the establishment and resourcing of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement; increased penalties and additional resources to ensure companies meet their filing obligations with the Companies Registration Office; better oversight and regulation of the accounting and auditing profession by the proposed establishment of the Irish auditing and accounting supervisory authority; the establishment of the company law review group on a statutory footing to ensure that the provisions of our company law are appropriate to the needs of Irish society.
Following the introduction of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001, it is now the statutory responsibility of the Director of Corporate Enforcement to pursue the possible breaches of the Companies Acts identified in the report. The director has emphasised his determination to take appropriate action on foot of the report. The Revenue Commissioners have been very active in pursuing tax issues arising from the Ansbacher and other tax evasion mechanisms.
Notwithstanding what she has said here today, is the Minister satisfied that all the recommendations, suggestions and initiatives she outlined during the debate here in July 2002 have been implemented? Is she concerned about the fact that the Revenue Commissioners seem to be unable to collect the significant amount of tax that is to be collected, whether onshore or offshore? There is a low level of collection of moneys identified through various reports, including the Ansbacher one. Are these stuck in the system because of litigation? Do the Revenue Commissioners not have sufficient evidence to collect the outstanding money? What action is required to redress this matter, which was identified in the Ansbacher report?
I recently reviewed all the outstanding issues relating to this matter and in so far as they fall under the remit of my Department, I am satisfied they have all been taken on board. Many of them were dealt with in advance of the report in any event, as we were aware of what would emerge. At the time we did not have much by way of enforcement of company law.
I am impressed with the changes that have occurred in the attitude in the Revenue Commissioners in recent years. They implement the law without fear or favour. Clearly they have to undo a whole culture, which will take some time. Many of the issues coming to light arose as a result of inquiries of one kind or another. It is going to take some time. It pleases me that they have the powers to ensure that everybody pays the tax due and the determination to enforce those powers. We should all be very grateful to them as in the past even when they had the powers they were not always exercised in full. One of the complaints one sometimes hears in the outside world is that the Revenue Commissioners have become too tough and that company law enforcement is too tough. This is because people have noticed a considerably changed environment, which I welcome.
Following the Ansbacher report, the Minister introduced legislation to regulate auditors. Does she have other professions within her purview with a view to tightening oversight regulations on foot of the revelations in the Ansbacher report?
I am sure the Deputy is aware the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will introduce legislation to require members of the legal profession to report suspected instances of people involved in unsavoury activity. All professions, particularly those with considerable protection under our law, have a responsibility to bring such activity to the attention of the authorities. We must legislate for this in the case of accountants. This has been done in the case of lawyers.
The other investigations into professions tend to be on the competition side rather than on the reporting side. However, if there are gaps in the requirements to report, we will not be found wanting in giving the necessary powers requiring the professions concerned to make disclosures. I am not aware of gaps and I am not sure if the Deputy is referring to any particular example. I am not aware of legislation required on foot of the findings in the Ansbacher or any other inquiry. The report of the NIB inquiry is due shortly, which may raise issues that require legislative changes, and if that is the case, they will be forthcoming.
Is there an immunity programme for lawyers?
What about the banking profession?