Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

That last point is not material. It did not matter whether it was the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr. Appleby, or the Tánaiste, who had the power to seek the appointment of the High Court inspector. The issue is that if there were sufficient grounds, a High Court inspector would have been appointed. He or she cannot be appointed if the Tánaiste has terminated the investigation and she has not explained why she did this, apart from saying she thought seven years was a long time. I asked whether the authorised officer was in agreement with her as to whether his investigation ought to have been terminated. I now ask her whether this matter ever came to Government and whether representations were ever made from inside or outside the Cabinet that it ought to be terminated. The Tánaiste appears to be saying that when the powers under section 19 of the Companies Act were transferred to the Office of Corporate Enforcement she retained powers under this section in so far as they related to this inquiry.

That seems to be the explanation. Why did the Tánaiste issue a directive to this authorised officer a couple of weeks before she left office to cease his investigative duties? Why did she make that decision? She had been there for the previous seven years and she could have made the decision at any time. It was done just before she left office. Did he agree with the decision? Was a timescale worked out with him for completion of the report? Where is the report now? Will it go to Mr. Appleby? Does the present Minister want to re-open the inquiry? Having built her reputation on the investigation into Ansbacher, why would the Tánaiste want to terminate the inquiry? It relates to three of the companies where some of the most powerful in our society were engaged in tax evasion that makes Ray Burke's involvement look like that of a corner shop. Why would she want to cut off the investigation of those guys?

See this speech in context