Some time ago the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made an application to the High Court for recoupment of costs of the investigation into Ansbacher Cayman and a number of companies. This morning the application was, by consent, struck out in the High Court on the application of counsel for the State. Given that this involves taxpayers' money, can the Taoiseach say if an enforceable order for full value can now be registered against an entity in this jurisdiction? What are its terms?

This investigation into tax evasion must be seen in the context of the testimony last Thursday to the Committee of Public Accounts by the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners that he has now recouped €922 million for the State as a result of various inquiries –€697 million from the DIRT inquiry, €48.5 million from National Irish Bank, €27 million from Ansbacher, €13.9 million from the Flood tribunal and €6.7 million from the Moriarty tribunal. This should be seen against the belief expressed in January 1998 by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, when he told RTE news:

The sums uncovered are very small in the context of the level of tax paid each year, so I think you need to put it in context. It is an insult to the vast majority of taxpayers to say that tax evasion is widespread. The question of tax evasion is not a unique Irish problem, nor is the question of residents having offshore bank accounts for tax evasion a unique Irish thing as well. So these things should be borne in mind, rather than people going off half-cocked and making ridiculous and outlandish allegations, both against the Revenue Commissioners and against other people as well.

It is an irony that the man who so derided the notion of tax evasion has been the beneficiary of €922 million falling into his lap as a result of inquiries pressed by this party and others in this House and which were opposed by the Minister at the time.

It is evident from the quote that the Minister on that occasion was defending the Revenue Commissioners from attack. It was the Minister, with myself, who gave the Revenue Commissioners the powers over the years to deal with these issues. I agree with the Deputy that enormous sums of money have been recovered by the Revenue Commissioners as a result of the Ansbacher and other inquiries.

I do not have the details about the court case and its settlement today. The State was seeking to recover costs of approximately €1.2 million in particular cases and it was the advice of senior counsel that it should settle in those cases. There were significant legal hurdles involved in doing anything else, based on the Lynch judgment in the Siúcre Éireann case of 1991. It was agreed that it was best to settle these cases and the State has recovered €1.2 million.

This is part of a significant recovery of taxes and of dealing with those who abused their position in Irish society to defraud the State of taxes in one form or another. Time and again we have recovered those sums and forced people into legitimate business. That is the reason the tax base is as healthy as it is, in contrast with what it was in the past.

One cannot read the statement by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, as a defence of the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners were not engaged in tax evasion. Many people known to the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, were. I am not saying that he knew they were engaged in tax evasion. The €922 million which was recovered bears this out dramatically. The Taoiseach took steps to close off some loopholes during my time in the House. He opened a few also, but I will not go down that road now.

The actual application made by the Minister, Deputy McDowell, was for €3.4 million against a number of companies involved in the Ansbacher affair. There has been just one statement so far from the IIB, who said the settlement did not cost it any money. Is the Taoiseach saying €1.2 million of the €3.4 million has been recovered and against whom is the order registrable?

I do not have the full details. Most of the recoveries today were in respect of Ansbacher accounts. Some of the €1.2 million was against Guinness Mahon Bank. These two accounted for the bulk of the sums recovered. The legal advice was that we should settle in respect of these accounts. In other cases the legal advice is not to settle but to continue to pursue the cases. This decision related to a group, including individuals with Ansbacher accounts and Guinness Mahon Bank.

I would have thought there would be an advantage in bringing them to court.

I do not disagree with that thinking. The decision of Mr. Justice Lynch in the Siúcre Éireann case in 1991 indicated there would be a significant legal difficulty going down that road, which is why these cases were settled.