Skip to main content
Normal View

Departmental Investigations.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 18 May 2004

Tuesday, 18 May 2004

Questions (115, 116, 117)

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

128 Mr. Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, with reference to the alleged fraud perpetrated by a non-governmental organisation (details supplied) on her Department, regarding which she was informed by memo on 5 March 1999, and which was the subject of a fraud squad inquiry, her Department in 1997 relaxed and modified the criteria applying to the grant programme on which the fraud was alleged to have taken place; if that change invalidated the fraud charge on her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14475/04]

View answer

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

129 Mr. Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, further to Question No. 183 of 6 April 2004, if the files of her Department show that there was no basis for the allegation of fraud or for the calling in of the fraud squad; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14476/04]

View answer

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

130 Mr. Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason her Department refused to receive written evidence that showed that named officials of same were used in the fabrication of fraud charges; the reason her Department has not sought to clarify this point in the interests of probity in order to ensure that a person is facilitated with the full co-operation of a Department, including the full disclosure and co-operation by that Department in circumstances in which their good name has been grossly tarnished; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14477/04]

View answer

Written answers

I propose to take Questions Nos. 128, 129 and 130 together.

In June 1996, my Department approved grant assistance of 104,000 ECUs or about £83,000 under the EU-funded small business operational programme for a project proposed by the organisation concerned. In accordance with the normal procedures for the relevant measure, an initial grant of 50% of the total approved was made at that time, while a further grant of 30% was issued in September 1997 following the submission of a progress report on the project by the organisation. The only modification to the terms for the project made by my Department in 1997 related to the timing of certain reporting requirements and I do not consider that this did, or could have had, any bearing on the subsequent allegation of fraud that was made by the organisation.

On 29 January 1999, the organisation wrote to the Department advising it that it appeared to the organisation that it had received an overpayment from the Department in respect of expenses amounting to £16,500 on foot of which a grant had been paid at the rate of 75%. At a meeting with the Department on 5 March 1999, to discuss this matter, the Department was advised by the organisation that it had decided to alert the Garda fraud squad to suspected irregularities in relation to the claims submitted to the Department for funding for the project arising from the organisation's concerns about invoices in the amount of £16,500 received from a supplier of services to the organisation. The Department was advised that the organisation's auditors had also been informed about the matter and that the Department would be kept informed about developments. At that stage, the Department suspended any further payments in respect of this project pending the conclusion of the investigations into the matter. The Department subsequently co-operated fully with the fraud squad.

On 23 June 2000, the organisation wrote to the Department and confirmed that an extensive investigation by its auditors had found no evidence of fraud and that, following a fraud squad investigation, a file had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had decided that there were no grounds for action. The organisation indicated that it had accepted the results of these investigations and, accordingly, the invoices, which had been the subject of the investigations, were paid by the organisation on 23 June 2000.

In my earlier reply to the Deputy on 6 April, I have already indicated that my Department was not a party to the allegations made and it would not be appropriate for me to speculate about the basis on which the organisation made the allegations. However, the Department has confirmed to the person concerned both in correspondence and in the course of several meetings that the Department does not have any issue or concern to pursue with him. Furthermore, all relevant documents relating to the issues have been released to this person. It is a matter for the individual concerned to decide how such documentation might be of use to him in relation to his dealings with any third parties.

Top
Share