Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 164: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the outcome of the investigation his Department held into the circumstances in which 11 immigrant workers were reported to have been abandoned off an island near Skerries in County Dublin; if his Department intends to take action arising from this incident; if, in particular, there will be prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4057/06]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The labour inspectorate of the Department has been in contact with relevant colleagues in the Garda Síochána, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Health and Safety Authority. An inspector has interviewed the boat owner and two of the Latvian people who were gathering the shellfish. It has not been possible to establish any detail of an employment relationship and the Latvian interviewees made no complaint.

The Latvian Embassy has been contacted in the matter to ascertain if any complaints had been received there in connection with the incident. It appears that there have not been any complaints received. The embassy was assured that any complaints would be investigated and advised that in the event an employment relationship was established, the inspectorate would undertake a full inspection of relevant employment records and pursue any non-compliance with legislation within its remit.

In the absence of evidence of non-compliance with employment legislation the labour inspectorate does not propose referring the matter to the prosecution unit of the Department. In the event that new information comes to light, the inspectorate will consider what further action, if any, is appropriate.

The Health and Safety Authority, which is responsible for the enforcement of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and other relevant worker protection legislation, liaised with the Garda on this matter. It was not possible to make progress as the main parties concerned were not contactable and did not submit complaints.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 165: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position in regard to each of the inquiries being carried out by or on behalf of his Department; the projected date for the conclusion of each such investigation; the inquiries in respect of which reports have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4083/06]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sixteen investigations into company law matters were initiated by my predecessor in the period since 1997. In three cases, the High Court appointed, on an application by the Minister, inspectors under section 8 of the Companies Act 1990. The inspectors appointed to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited presented their report to the High Court on 10 June 2002. The report was subsequently published and referred to the DPP.

The inspectors appointed to National Irish Bank Limited and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited presented their report to the High Court on 12 July 2004. The report was subsequently published. The court ordered that a copy of the report be referred to several relevant authorities, including the DPP. In 2005, the Director of Corporate Enforcement initiated proceedings in the High Court under section 160(2) of the Companies Act 1990, as amended, seeking the disqualification of nine persons against whom adverse comment was made by the inspectors. I note that last October the High Court granted a disqualification order against one of the nine persons. The proceedings against the other eight remain before the court.

One investigation under section 14 of the Companies Act 1990 was completed in 1998. The report on this was referred to the DPP. One investigation was undertaken under section 59 of the Insurance Act 1989. The report on this was referred to the DPP as well as to the inspectors who undertook the section 8 investigation into that company.

Eleven investigations were initiated by the Minister under section 19 of the Companies Act 1990. Six of these have been concluded. Of the six investigations completed, two of the reports were referred to the DPP. A number of summary prosecutions have since been successfully concluded in one case. One report provided an input into the successful application to the High Court for the appointment of inspectors under section 8 while the fourth report was passed to the relevant High Court inspectors. One report was completed in September 2002 and a further report was completed in March 2003. Both reports have been referred to the Director of Corporate Enforcement. Two of the 11 section 19 investigations were held up in legal appeals. These inquiries are now the responsibility of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

In relation to the three remaining section 19 investigations, the current position is that in June 2005 I directed the authorised officer to place at the disposal of relevant public authorities, including tribunals, whatever information and assistance arising from his investigative work was required by those authorities for the purpose of the performance of their statutory functions. This process is continuing and will be completed as soon as possible. My objective in giving this direction is to achieve the earliest possible pursuit by the appropriate authorities of any matter which may require action by them.