asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the evidence offered by State witnesses at the trial in the Central Criminal Court of Walter Chapman and Ted Town, he will take steps to institute a public inquiry into the operations of Messrs. L. Jordan, Ltd., Ennis; the floating of that company, its relations and transactions with the parent company in England, the qualification of Mr. Chapman to act as managing director of the Irish company, and whether he will ensure that the fullest information concerning the company will be made available at such inquiry, and that evidence will be taken on oath.

I am empowered under Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, to appoint one or more competent inspectors to investigate the affairs of a limited company and to report thereon, providing an application be received from members holding not less than one-tenth of the shares issued. I have received such an application from members of the company referred to in the Deputy's question and I have appointed Mr. C. C. McElligott, Commissioner of Valuation, to investigate the affairs of that company and to report to me in accordance with the provisions of the statute already referred to.

In view of the grave public uneasiness at the manner in which this company has been conducted, an uneasiness which culminated in 24 charges being preferred against two of the directors of the company recently by the State, and of the curious manner in which these charges were withdrawn, will the Minister indicate now why he refuses to have a sworn public inquiry into the activities of that company, so that if there is any assurance to go to the public they will get that assurance by means of a public inquiry, or if there is any blame to be attached to the directors of the company, whom the Minister has reprimanded in another House, the public will know what steps, in their opinion, should be taken to deal with that firm.

The only power I have to inquire into the affairs of a privately owned company is that given to me under the Companies Act in Section 109. I have power to appoint an inspector in certain circumstances. That inspector will carry out an inquiry into the affairs of the company. The inquiry will involve the examination of documents and papers as well as the examination of witnesses. It is, I understand, a matter for the discretion of the investigator whether any part of the inquiry will be held in public.

Does not the Minister know that he has full power to have a public inquiry into the affairs of this company if he utilises, as he has utilised in other cases, the Emergency Powers Act?

I think it is quite obvious that the Emergency Powers Act could not be used in this case.

Will the Minister say that he has legal advice from the Attorney-General that the Emergency Powers Act cannot be utilised in this case for the purpose of holding a sworn public inquiry into the affairs of this company?

I think it must be obvious to anybody that the circumstances which have arisen in connection with this company have nothing whatever to do with the emergency.

Have they not as much to do with the emergency as the infliction of Order No. 83?

That may be obvious to the Deputy but not to anybody else.

Are we to understand that the Minister is not going to permit the public to be informed, by means of a public inquiry, how this company has been run in the past?

The Deputy must not understand that.

Quite clearly the Minister must know how the public have been fleeced and held to ransom by this company.

I think that by far the most useful type of inquiry is one carried out by an inspector on the spot without the appearance between him, and the relevant information, of counsel and solicitors. It will be entirely a matter for the inspector himself to decide whether any part of the inquiry should be held in public. There has not been any decision to hold a public inquiry. The powers given by the law are being utilised, and an inspector has been appointed.

Will the Minister say if he will ask the directors of the firm whether they would object to a sworn public inquiry?

I do not think I should do that. I think it would be a most improper course for me to take.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the report sent in by the inspector will be submitted to the House and made public?

I think I can assure the Deputy that the contents of the report will be communicated to the House. It is not quite clear what legal obligations or responsibilities may follow the publication of the report if the report may be held to cast reflections on individuals. I think I should say, in fairness to all concerned, that in addition to the request received from the Industrial Credit Company for the holding of an inquiry, I received a similar request from the directors of the company.

Was it for a public inquiry in that case?

For an inquiry under the Companies Acts.

Will the Minister say if he is restricted to the appointment of one person to hold such an inquiry?

No.

If the Minister is not so restricted, will he consider the advisability of appointing two or three persons to conduct the inquiry?

I am not restricted by the Act to one person. I have considered it advisable to appoint one person, and to associate with him whatever expert assistance he requires. If there is a case for appointing more than one inspector, I am prepared to consider it, but I do not know that any particular advantage would result from it.

Will the Minister say what type of expert assistance he thinks the inspector will require?

The assistance of skilled accountants.

Are we to understand that the evidence on which the report will be based may or may not be published?

The information which this investigator will obtain will not be secured solely by evidence given personally. It will be his duty to examine books and documents belonging to the company and all other relevant sources of information, as well as to examine and cross-examine persons.

There is no guarantee that any of that evidence will be available to the public?

There is no guarantee that anything will be available to the public except the report of the inspector.

Will the inspector be empowered to invite members of the public to give evidence?

There is no limitation whatever on the inspector's power.

Will the public be invited to give evidence?

That is a matter for the inspector and it will largely depend on the course of the inquiry.