Jimmy Devins (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

I apologise to the Acting Chairman and the House for the delay.

I want, at the outset of my response to Senator Norris, to make it clear to the House that my Department did not make any allegations against the individual involved and never sought to question his good name. These matters have been the subject of a number of parliamentary questions in the Dail and the position of my Department has been fully explained, most recently in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 690 of 30 January 2008. In that reply, the then Minister reconfirmed that neither he nor the Department had any issue or concern to pursue with the individual, who had been so advised in writing.

In order to help understand the concerns of the individual, I am happy to outline briefly the background to the case to the House. In June 1996, my Department approved grant assistance of 104,000 ECUs or about IR£83,000 under the EU-funded small business operational programme for a project proposed by the organisation concerned. In accordance with the normal procedures for the relevant measure, an initial grant of 50% of the total approved was made at that time, while a further grant of 30% was issued in September 1997, following the submission of a progress report on the project by the organisation.

On 29 January 1999, the organisation wrote to the Department advising it that it appeared to the organisation that it had received an over payment from the Department in respect of expenses amounting to IR£16,500 on foot of which a grant had been paid at the rate of 75%. At a meeting with the Department on 5 March 1999 to discuss this matter, the Department was advised by the organisation that it had decided to alert the Garda fraud squad to suspected irregularities in regard to the claims submitted to the Department for funding for the project arising from the organisation's concerns about invoices in the amount of IR£16,500 received from a supplier of services to it.

The Department was advised that the organisation's auditors had also been informed about the matter and that the Department would be kept informed about developments. At that stage, the Department suspended any further payments in respect of this project pending the conclusion of the investigations into the matter. The Department subsequently co-operated fully with the fraud squad.

On 23 June 2000, the organisation wrote to the Department and confirmed that an extensive investigation by its auditors had found no evidence of fraud and that, following a fraud squad investigation, a file had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had decided there were no grounds for action. The organisation indicated that it had accepted the results of these investigations and, accordingly, the invoices which had been the subject of the investigations were paid by the organisation on 23 June 2000.

Since 1999 there have been very extensive contacts, both direct and indirect, between the Department and the individual concerned. These contacts have included the following: 24 freedom of information requests; copious correspondence; a number of meetings between the individual and various officers of the Department; ministerial representations from others on behalf of the individual; and numerous parliamentary questions about his situation. It is estimated that over the course of the past nine years the individual has submitted in excess of 100 e-mails, letters, phone calls and so on in regard to this matter to a wide variety of officers throughout the Department.

In the context of the various freedom of information requests, the Department has endeavoured to assist him both within the constraints of the Act and outside the Act. He has been granted access to all relevant records that are held in the Department concerning the issue. In addition, he has met a number of officials in the Department on different occasions, who have given him an opportunity to view all relevant files that relate to his various freedom of information requests. Despite this, he wrote to the Information Commissioner in 2004 in regard to the Department's handling of his various freedom of information requests. While not part of her binding decision of 7 March 2007, the Information Commissioner in her reply commended the Department for the way in which it had co-operated with her office during the review, including examining pre-commencement records where no right of access had been established and providing access to records outside of freedom of information legislation.

Following an approach on behalf of the individual in 2004, the then Secretary General issued a letter that closely followed a draft submitted by the individual concerned, which he wanted the Department to issue. The Department considered this draft very carefully and the then Secretary General responded on 18 October 2004. This letter was a final attempt to satisfy the individual and made it clear that the Department had no issue with him. I take this opportunity to read into the record of the House the text of this reply by the then Secretary General, without naming the individual or the organisation involved:

The Department acknowledges your sustained written and mobile communication, particularly since August 2003. You contend that the relevant Department files demonstrate that there was never any basis for the allegation which led to the deployment of the Garda fraud squad in 1999.

The Department has now read all the files identified by you and confirms that there was never any evidence available to the Department to support any suggestion of "collusion" in respect of grants paid by the Department or collusion against the Department. In this regard, the Department also recalls that an extensive investigation by [title of organisation deleted] auditors found no evidence of fraud while the Director of Public Prosecutions decided, on the basis of the file submitted by the Fraud Squad, that there were no grounds for action. The Department was happy to accept the findings of these investigations.

The Department also wishes to confirm that it was not involved in substantiating the charge or in the subsequent calling in of the Fraud Squad and is happy to reject any suggestions to the contrary that may have been made in this regard.

The Department has, over a period of some 20 years, dealt with you in a variety of capacities. The contacts were always of the highest probity. The Department never had any evidence to suggest the contrary.

The Department believes that it has addressed the issues raised by you to the fullest extent possible and that the exchanges between us should now be considered closed.

Despite this explanation, the Department's conclusion that the matter should be considered closed and the reconfirmation of the Department's position by the current Secretary General in May 2005, the individual continued to pursue the matter. In the interim, the Department has devoted further resources in responding on the issue, inter alia, in the context of a further freedom of information request and parliamentary questions in the Dáil. The House will appreciate that the Department has made a considerable effort to provide the individual with access to all relevant documents in regard to his position and to address the issues raised by him.

For the avoidance of doubt, I again affirm that I am satisfied neither the Tánaiste nor the Department has any issue or concern to pursue with the individual who has previously been advised to this effect in writing. If it is helpful, I am happy to restate that the Department has over a period of some 20 years dealt with the individual in a variety of capacities. The contacts were always of the highest probity. The Department never had any evidence to suggest the contrary.