Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The decision to send a former Government Minister to jail has been greeted by many commentators as signalling a shift in the attitude of the authorities to the question of tax evasion. Will the Tánaiste agree that the tax evasion involved in the case of the former Minister concerned is probably minor compared to that engaged in by Ansbacher depositors? In respect of the report published in July 2002 and the inquiries and investigations ordered by the Tánaiste, why did she direct the authorised officer in her Department to cease investigation and write up his report? What were the reasons for issuing such a directive? What stage had the work reached by the time she issued that directive? Was the Tánaiste in agreement with the authorised officer that work should cease? If they were in agreement, why was it necessary to issue a directive? If the authorised officer had completed his investigation would his work, depending on what he found, not have become the basis for the appointment of a High Court inspector who might have followed up on these issues? After all the money spent on the Ansbacher inquiry is it not the case that very little has been done and that even the question of costs has been settled on the basis of the State paying its share of them? What statutory power did the Tánaiste have for issuing a directive to the authorised officer to cease investigation?

See this speech in context