Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 98: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she will confirm that she received correspondence from a person (details supplied); if in the context of this correspondence and the details contained therein steps will be taken to have the appropriate apologies issued to the person concerned; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26594/09]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue raised by the Deputy has been before this House on several occasions in the past and it has been repeatedly confirmed in replies to previous questions that my Department was not a party to the allegations made against the individual involved in this case. The matter was also the topic of an adjournment debate in the Seanad on 19 June 2008.

As previously outlined to the House in reply to Question No. 690 on 30 January 2008 from Deputy Ruairí Quinn, as the project to which the allegations related was co-funded by the EU, the Department was obliged, when it was notified of the allegations in 1999, to notify the European Commission, in a Quarterly Communication of Irregularities required under Commission Regulations 1681/94 and 1831/94, that the matter was under investigation. This notification was issued (via the Department of Finance) on 26 August 1999.

On 23 June, 2000, the individual's ex-employer wrote to the Department and confirmed that

(a) an extensive investigation by their auditors had found no evidence of fraud and

(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided, on the basis of a file submitted by the Fraud Squad, that there were no grounds for action.

In previous replies to this House on the above, my predecessors have confirmed that neither they nor the Department had any issue or concern to pursue with the individual concerned who had been so advised in writing. For the avoidance of doubt, I can again affirm this position.

If it is helpful to the person concerned, 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.