(Limerick East) asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the conclusions arrived at in the final report on Greencore published today and in particular, conclusions 21, 22 and 23; and if he will outline the action he intends taking, as a major shareholder in the company, to protect the public interest.
Private Notice Questions. - Greencore Report.
The High Court inspectors' report on Greencore and the conclusions contained therein — referred to by the Deputy — will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. As the Deputy is doubtless aware also, the company itself has already instigated legal proceedings in relation to a number of issues arising from the affair and it is the Government's intention to assess the outcome of these proceedings in due course and to consider what further action, if any, is necessary.
With regard to conclusion 21 of the report, I have noted the comments therein but it is also noted in the body of the report that the inspectors accept that the Greencore board acted on legal advice and, therefore, in good faith. As regards conclusions 22 and 23 of the report, the tax questions involved are being dealt with by the Revenue Commissioners and the examination is already well advanced. The fraud aspect of conclusion 23 will be dealt with by the Director of Public Prosecutions in due course.
Let us have brief questions having regard to the number of Private Notice Questions to be disposed of.
(Limerick East): May I ask the Minister for Finance if he still has full confidence in the board and chairman of Greencore and if, as the major shareholder with responsibility for guarding the public interest, he intends requesting an emergency general meeting?
The Government, on the publication of this report today, will have to examine all aspects of it and be quite satisfied that no further action is necessary in relation to the board and the chairman. As I said in my reply, while there was some criticism of the board, they acted on the basis of legal advice and that was taken fully into account in the report.
(Limerick East): May I ask——
The Deputy has asked a number of supplementaries.
(Limerick East): I have asked only one supplementary. May I ask a final supplementary?
If the Deputy is brief.
(Limerick East): Is the Minister satisfied that his Department and the Department of Agriculture and Food carried out to their fullest degree and to his satisfaction their supervisory role in respect of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, a fully State owned company at the time these events occurred?
I am satisfied. I would further say that the question of urgent meetings or any meetings could not be taken until the Government have fully considered the report.
Mr. Noonan
(Limerick East) and Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the action he intends taking arising from receipt by him of the final report on the inquiry into Greencore; if he intends referring the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
andMr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline his response to the findings contained in the final report of the inspectors into the Irish Sugar Company and related companies; if, in view of the opinions expressed by the inspectors, he intends to refer the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions; if he will give details of any other steps he intends to take on the basis of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce the action, if any, they now propose to take in relation to Greencore, including a reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, following the publication by the courts of the report of the court inspectors; and if they will make a statement on the matter.
At the outset I welcome the completion of this investigation and, indeed, the decision of the court to authorise publication of the report on the findings of that investigation. I also point out that this investigation was carried out under the auspices of the court following application by me under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990. Section 12 of the Act provides that the court, after considering a report made to it, may make such order as it deems fit in relation to matters arising from that report.
Without prejudice, therefore, to any order which the court may decide to make, it can be taken that the Government will be concerned to ensure that in so far as any action is called for by it or its agencies arising from the findings of the report, such action will be taken. In particular, copies of the report will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to pursuing prosecutions where evidence of breaches of criminal law would sustain that course.
Although the findings of the report in relation to the ownership of the Talmino loan note differ from those in the earlier section 14 investigation, I confirm that that loan note will continue to be subject to the section 16 restriction which I have issued in relation to it.
I understand that a copy of the report has already been sent to the Revenue Commissioners for them to pursue the matters which are relevant to them arising from the report.
(Limerick East): The inspector appointed by the Minister under section 14 reported he understood that Mr. Comerford was the beneficial owner of Talmino. Indeed, there are headlines such as this one: “Comerford owns Talmino”.
I would prefer it if there was not a display of that kind.
(Limerick East): I put it to the Minister that the first conclusion in today's report of the inspectors appointed by the High Court is in absolute conflict with that and states that Mr. Comerford and his family never had a legal or beneficial interest in the ownership of Talmino. Does the Minister think it satisfactory that two such expensive inquiries, which have cost the taxpayer so much, should now be in conflict and that the persons involved will quite clearly be able to play one report against the other? What further steps does the Minister intend taking to clarify the position and to make sure that the truth, whatever it is, is arrived at?
I made it clear that the earlier report had reached a different conclusion in respect of the Talmino loan note. In that report, issued about three months ago, the inspector said that on the evidence available at that time it seemed to him, on the balance of probabilities, that the ownership probably lay in a certain direction. The two inspectors of the final report have had the advantage of much longer and more thorough investigation and they reached a contrary conclusion. Even if the two reports were similar on this point — and, so far as I can tell, this is the only point on which they are not similar — the matter would have to be decided by a civil court in any event. Proceedings have already been instituted in the High Court in relation to the ownership of the loan note. In the meantime, the freezing order I made some months ago concerning the note remains in place, as I mentioned in my earlier reply.
In Conclusion No. 21 the inspectors concluded that Mr. Comerford should have been dismissed on the night of 3 September but that instead of such dismissal the board and the chairman, Mr. Cahill, allowed him a golden handshake settlement of almost £1.5 million. Can the Minister explain to the House, in the light of those circumstances, how the inspectors could have found that no blame whatever attaches to the chairman, Mr. Cahill? Can he further comment on the inordinate expense this inspection is costing the taxpayer until the Minister for Justice makes other arrangements? Does he not agree, in the light of those costs, that it is not good enough that there is an apparent conflict on the fundamental issue that triggered off——
Deputy Rabbitte, brevity, please.
——this investigation, Mr. Comerford's assertion of a beneficial ownership in Talmino? I refer to the apparent conflict between the conclusion of the Minister's inspector that Mr. Comerford did indeed have beneficial ownership——
Deputy, you are embarking on a speech and that is not good enough.
In so far as Conclusion No. 21 on page 222 is concerned, the conclusions are, of course, entirely a matter for the inspectors themselves. I cannot attempt to explain to the House or to anyone else the reasoning of the inspectors except in so far as it appears from the report, which is available to the Deputy now. The Deputy may study the report in full at his leisure. In so far as the particular incident is concerned, I understand that the board, some days after having made the arrangements to which the Deputy referred, thought better of it and withdrew the arrangements. I believe that those arrangements, like various other aspects of the matter are now the subject of litigation between the parties.
I have already expressed my views in public and on several occasions in relation to the question of costs. The costs seem to be extremely high and I hope that in any inquiry in the future we will not be faced with the present problem of very high costs. Consideration of liability for the payment of the cost has, I understand, been adjourned by the High Court for further consideration on 21 March.
I should like to ask the Minister present a question that is on the mind of every Irish citizen: in view of the fact that an Irish State-owned company has been ripped off by forgery, bribery and secret forging of documents — those are the words of the report — what action will any Minister take to ensure that nobody benefits from such illegal acts; that the money is restored to the Irish taxpayers, to whom it belongs; and that the cost of the inquiry does not fall upon the shoulders of the hard-pressed taxpayers? That is the only question to which people want an answer.
As I have already explained to the House, all of those matters have been taken in hand by the Government. There was an application before the High Court today by the Minister for Justice that the costs be paid by Greencore because the problems appear to have arisen within that group. Consideration of that application has been adjourned to 21 March and it would not be appropriate to say any more about that except that I hope the Minister's application will be successful.
As far as fraud, bribery and so on are concerned, as both the Minister for Finance and I have made clear, the report has already been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and I hope he takes criminal proceedings at an early date in respect of these matters. However, it is outside the control of the Government. The question of taking proceedings is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions but I hope he feels he has enough evidence to do so now.
As the findings raised serious questions about the adequacy of the supervision of the Irish Sugar Company executives at board level and at political level, the Taoiseach in particular, who was Minister for Finance and the holder of the public share in the Irish Sugar Company at the time of this scandal, must now give a comprehensive account of his stewardship. My question is, will the Dáil be given an opportunity to discuss this very important matter?
The question of whether the Dáil has the opportunity to discuss the matter apart from the discussion we have had here today is not a matter for me. It is a matter for negotiation between the Whips.
(Limerick East): I have one further supplementary question.
I am not going to go another round of this.
Why not? We will be here until 10 p.m. tonight.
We have devoted a lot of time to it. If the Deputies will be very brief, I will hear Deputies Noonan, Quinn and Rabbitte.
(Limerick East): Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of Conclusion No. 3 which states that Mr. Comerford was given and corruptly accepted moneys; that the purpose for making the payments was to circumvent public policy and may constitute the taking of bribes in consideration for remaining in his employment at Siuícre Éireann at a time when he was managing director of the company? Could the Minister state, in view of the replies received from him and the Minister for Finance, what action the Government intend to take against those persons who authorised payment of the moneys contrary to public policy and which the High Court inspectors claim are tantamount to bribes?
In so far as there was a breach of the criminal law, it will be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings, presumably on indictment. In regard to the recovery of moneys from persons who might improperly have got them, that is a civil matter and it is open to the main company involved if it feels that it has been wrongly deprived of those moneys to institute civil proceedings for their recovery. I am quite sure the company concerned will do that at the earliest available date.
Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions will move on this case with the same degree of speed and urgency as he did against a 14-year-old girl recently?
The Director of Public Prosecutions did not take any moves against a 14-year-old girl recently. The Deputy will be aware that there is legislation on the Statute Book which makes it an offence for practically anyone to intervene with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The only exception I can think of readily is the Attorney General, and if the Attorney General can lawfully make suggestions or speak to the Director of Public Prosecutions about this matter I will certainly ask him to do all he can to expedite this matter. I am concerned, for example, that even though an early report was given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in November, to the best of my knowledge no prosecutions have arisen out of that yet.
(Limerick East): Does the Minister realise he said he hopes there will be a prosecution?
Is the Minister aware of Mr. Comerford's claim today that he appointed NCB as stockbrokers after receiving an instruction from Mr. Cahill after he had had a meeting with the former Taoiseach at Kinsealy? Can the Minister explain the apparent conflict in that statement with the inference that can be drawn from the report that NCB were appointed on merit?
I did not hear Mr. Comerford's statement today.
That disposes of questions for today.