Vol. 521 No. 1
24 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the status of the various inspections and inquiries being carried out in her Department; when she expects these inquiries to be completed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16714/00]
25 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the current position in regard to each of the inquiries being carried out by or on behalf of her Department; the progress made in respect of each such inquiry since 20 April 2000; the inquiries in respect of which reports have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16667/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 25 together.
The authorised officer completed the report into Irish Intercontinental Bank Limited under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, on 31 May and I received the report on 1 June.
Five examinations of company books and documents are ongoing in my Department under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990. The companies involved are Celtic Helicopters Limited, College Trustees Limited, Guinness and Mahon (Ireland) Limited, Hamilton Ross Company Limited and Kentford Securities Limited. I expect to receive final reports on all these companies in the coming months.
My decision in mid-1998 to appoint an authorised officer to examine the books and documents of Dunnes Stores Ireland Company and Dunnes Stores (ILAC Centre) Limited under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, remains suspended pending the outcome of judicial review proceedings. This was the subject of a recent High Court hearing which concluded on 6 June. I expect the judgment in the case to be made at the end of this month.
Three companies are being investigated by High Court inspectors under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990. The companies involved are National Irish Bank Limited, National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited and Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited. In the latter case the High Court on 7 June approved an application by the three Ansbacher inspectors to seek access to certain company documentation in the Cayman Islands relevant to their inquiry. I expect each of these inquiries to be completed later this year.
As previously indicated the investigation reports on Bula Resources (Holdings) plc, Garuda Limited and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited are with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have no information on the intentions of the Director of Public Prosecutions with respect to any of these reports.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I respect and commend her for all these investigations which she has set up, but will she share my concern at the length of time it is taking to complete these reports? I have a series of answers here from month after month when I raised this question and there seems to be a similarity in many of the answers as time goes by. Has there been any communication between her Department and the DPP with regard to two of the inquiries, those relating to the NIBF and Bula Resources, which were sent to him in June and July 1998, which is almost two years ago, and the Garuda inquiry, which went to him in June 1999, according to her answer in February last? What is happening to those inquiries? I realise the Minister cannot ask the DPP what he will do about them, but is there any action she can take to bring those inquiries to an end? Otherwise the system of inquiries, which she initiated and for which she is to be commended, will begin to be discredited.
The reports which are completed have gone to the Revenue Commissioners and I understand that they are pursuing vigorously the information included in them. The IIB report, for example, is five volumes long. The authorised officer did enormous work on that extensive report. He was able to find extraordinary information. Therefore it would be wrong to say that these reports are taking a long time. The tribunals of inquiry have been sitting for three years and these things take longer than one would wish, as the Deputy will be aware, because of legal complications, etc.
It would be improper of me or my Department to seek to interfere with or contact the Director of Public Prosecutions about the reports which have been sent to him. He is an independent officeholder and, as the Deputy will be aware, we cannot query the exercise of his functions. Therefore I have no way of finding out whether he has decided to initiate prosecutions other than the normal way in which we find out these things.
On the same point of the duration of these investigations and inquiries, the Minister advised the public on many occasions – she has had the full support of this side of the House in these investigations – that the wrongdoing, if any, uncovered would be brought into the public domain. At this stage does she believe that this will come into the public domain while she is the Minister in charge in the lifetime of what is a rickety Government? Has she taken any initiative regarding Bovale Limited?
On the question of the matters coming into the public domain, as the Deputy will be aware I am precluded by section 21 of the 1990 Act from bringing information into the public domain. Section 19 is a very preliminary inquiry, but of course the affidavit which went to the court to seek the appointment of the section 8 inspectors in the Ansbacher inquiry was fairly convincing in itself and clearly some information is in the public domain through that forum. I expect the report of the inspectors later this year. Since that would be a High Court report, clearly that would be a public matter.
I expect much of this to come into the public domain during the lifetime of the Government. The IIB report is now completed and I will make a decision over the next couple of days, following discussions later this week with my legal advisers, as to how to move on the authorised officer's five-volume report.
I have not made any decision on Bovale Limited. That is the subject of the Flood tribunal. Certainly evidence has not been brought to me in the way it has been regarding the other matters which came as a result of inquiries we had carried out, but clearly I have an open mind about any company. I have never shown a reluctance, where wrongdoing is suspected or if there are strong grounds for suspecting that a company is not run in accordance with the Companies Acts or is being run in a way to defraud other persons, to initiate an inquiry. In all, there have been 13 inquiries over the past three years, some of which have been completed and others of which are ongoing.
Are there any companies from Cork?
Has the Minister initiated any summary prosecutions arising from any of the completed reports as she indicated in February last that she hoped shortly to undertake a number of summary prosecutions, certainly regarding two companies, Bula Resources and Faxhill? Have any of those actions commenced? That was in the hands of the Minister, not the DPP.
Yes. I have taken a number of summary prosecutions.
Will the Minister inform the House of the outcome of any of those prosecutions?
Some of them have not yet gone to court, others have been adjudicated on. I do not have the information to hand but I will make contact with the Deputy on the matter.
The Minister is saying, therefore, that some of them have been in court.
The Minister stated that there would be final reports in the coming months. Will she be more specific? Does she have information in respect of any of these individual inquiries where she can state with reasonable certainty when they will be concluded?
In respect of her answer about information coming into the public domain, is she stating that it is only in respect of section 8 inquiries and through the medium of the courts that the information will come into the public domain? There is considerable concern that if she were no longer in office, many of these inquiries might die within the bowels of the Department. Can she assure the House that the information, which she promised in so many fulsome interviews as far back as 1998-99 and on a number of occasions since, will come into the public domain?
As Deputy Rabbitte will be aware, I am precluded from putting information into the public domain myself because of the powers in the 1990 Act. Those powers are restricted for good reason because they are preliminary investigations. Therefore the section 8 format through the High Court inspectorate is the way in which much of this information can be put into the public domain. Indeed, Deputy Rabbitte had experience in this area himself.
I expect all the reports on the companies which my authorised officer is currently investigating to be completed over the next few weeks. The obvious course of action on those which require further action is a section 8 inspection. In order to convince the court that such an inspection is warranted, it is obvious that one must prepare an affidavit and put forward some of the information which one has uncovered through the section 19 process, but I expect that both the Ansbacher-Cayman investigation, in which the former Chief Justice, Mr. Costello, and two others are involved, and the NIB investigation will be completed towards the end of this year.
How much in total has been spent in carrying out all these investigations? If the Minister does not have the detail to hand, perhaps she will let me have a tally of the expenditure to date. If at the end of the month she loses in the Dunnes challenge to what the media refer to as the Minister's "probe", does she envisage any changes in legislation because she has failed already in one court and there is a retrial going on in the High Court? Have any lacunas in the legislation been revealed and, if so, have any decisions been made about them?
I did not actually fail in one court. I was not happy with the restrictive nature of the decision made in that court and that is why, on appeal, it was decided that the case should be reheard. It is actually a rehearing of the Dunnes case.
The costs are negligible – I think I previously gave the figures here. It is certainly less than £2 million. The only costs involved are those where we have had to engage lawyers for court actions or to defend the position we adopted. I expect, as I stated previously, to be able to recoup all those costs when the section 8 inquiries are completed. We had the power to seek to make those who were the subject of the inquiry pay for the costs. It is reasonable that the companies which required an inquiry to a section 8 level should be responsible for the costs. I will be seeking the court's permission that the costs will be covered by the companies involved.
It is not my intention to introduce legislation in this area. However, the new company law enforcement Bill, which I hope will be published shortly, will provide for an independent process for conducting inquiries of this nature in order that it will not depend on political decisions. It should be done on an independent basis and should not require a political decision before company investigations of this nature take place.
