Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Nov 1991

Vol. 412 No. 7

Written Answers. - Telecom Éireann Investigation.

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

25 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline, in relation to his appointment of an inspector to investigate the companies involved in the Telecom Éireann Ballsbridge site deal, the reason the appointment was made under section 14 rather than section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990 which would have allowed the inspector to have access to the bank accounts of the companies involved; if he intends to seek any additional powers for the inspector; his views on whether it may be necessary to amend the Companies Act, 1990; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Malley)

The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications at Question Time on 5 November 1991 informed the House of certain difficulties faced by the inquiry he had established on 14 September 1991, and the consequent recommendation in the report of that inquiry that an inspector be appointed under the Companies Act, 1990. Arising from consultations I had with the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications I proceeded to appoint an inspector under section 14 of the Companies Act, 1990 to investigate and report on the membership of Chestvale Properties Ltd. and Hoddle Investments Ltd. and otherwise with respect to these companies for the purposes of determining the true persons who are or have been financially interested in the success or failure, real or apparent, of these companies or able to control or materially to influence their policy.

Section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990, provides that the High Court may appoint inspectors, on my application, to investigate the affairs of a company if it is satisfied that any one of a number of events have arisen as specified in the section. In this regard, I was satisfied that the known facts pertaining to this case did not extend to the circumstances set out in section 8.

It was in the light of the foregoing and the fact that the main concern was to establish, in the public interest, the true ownership of these companies that I decided to proceed with an investigation under section 14. The inspector has substantial powers under the 1990 Act. He is in regular communications with my Department. His work is proceeding well. Should any difficulties arise for the inspector, these can be addressed. On receipt of his report I will consider what further action might be required.

I would like to assure the Deputy that company law is kept under review, and if I feel it needs to be changed, I will not hesitate to propose such change.