Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Mar 1972

Vol. 259 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Company Affairs Investigations.

13.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of occasions on which he has appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of a company under section 166 (a) (i) of the Companies Act, 1963; and if he will indicate the results of each investigation.

14.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of occasions on which he has appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of a company under section 166 (a) (ii) of the Companies Act, 1963 and if he will indicate the results of each investigation.

15.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the procedure whereby he keeps himself informed of company affairs with a view to exercising his right to appoint an inspector under section 166 (b) of the Companies Act, 1963; the number of officers of his Department engaged wholetime on this work; and if he is satisfied that these procedures and staffing are adequate to ensure that he intervenes in all cases where fraudulent practices or oppression of minority shareholders are taking place.

16.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of officers of his Department concerned with the enforcement of section 166 (b) of the Companies Act, 1963, which involves awareness of the activities of companies with a view to the appointment of an inspector in cases of fraud or the oppression of minorities; and if these officers perform other duties.

17.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of occassions on which he has appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of a company under section 166 (b) (i) of the Companies Act, 1963; the results of each investigation; and if the inspector was appointed on the sole initiative of the Minister or as a result of representations received.

18.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of occasions on which he has appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of a company under section 166 (b) (ii) of the Companies Act, 1963; if the inspector was appointed on the sole initiative of the Minister or as a result of representations received; and if he will indicate the results of each investigation.

19.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of occasions on which he has appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of a company under section 166 (b) (iii) of the Companies Act, 1963; if the inspector was appointed on the sole initiative of the Minister or as a result of representations received; and if he will indicate the results of each investigation.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 19 together.

On only one occasion were inspectors appointed under section 166 of the Companies Act, 1963 to investigate the affairs of a group of companies. The appointment was made under paragraph (b) (i) of section 166 following complaints made about the activities of these companies. Following the investigation, the companies ceased to carry on the activities complained of and no further action was taken.

With some 22,000 companies on the register, it would be entirely impracticable for me to keep informed about their affairs. Company law is deliberately designed to leave initiatives in the normal way to interested parties— shareholders, creditors or others—and I am satisfied that this is the only practical approach. There is a variety of remedies other than investigation under section 166 which afford protection to these parties.

Administration of the Companies Act generally, inclusive of section 166, is carried out by a section of the commerce division of my Department. No member of this section works whole-time on matters arising out of section 166 and the work would not justify a full-time officer.

Would the Minister agree that there has been delay in dealing with complaints made and requests that action should be taken?

No. There has not been any delay. In only one case was it found necessary to appoint inspectors. In a number of other cases where complaints were made there were requests for inspectors but on investigation it was found unnecessary to appoint them.

Barr
Roinn