The decision to send a former Government Minister to jail has been greeted by many commentators as signalling a shift in the attitude of the authorities to the question of tax evasion. Will the Tánaiste agree that the tax evasion involved in the case of the former Minister concerned is probably minor compared to that engaged in by Ansbacher depositors? In respect of the report published in July 2002 and the inquiries and investigations ordered by the Tánaiste, why did she direct the authorised officer in her Department to cease investigation and write up his report? What were the reasons for issuing such a directive? What stage had the work reached by the time she issued that directive? Was the Tánaiste in agreement with the authorised officer that work should cease? If they were in agreement, why was it necessary to issue a directive? If the authorised officer had completed his investigation would his work, depending on what he found, not have become the basis for the appointment of a High Court inspector who might have followed up on these issues? After all the money spent on the Ansbacher inquiry is it not the case that very little has been done and that even the question of costs has been settled on the basis of the State paying its share of them? What statutory power did the Tánaiste have for issuing a directive to the authorised officer to cease investigation?

As regards the Ansbacher report, that was submitted by me to the Revenue Commissioners, the Director of Public Prosecutions and other authorities. The authorised officer's role continued in existence after the establishment of the independent Office of Corporate Enforcement. He was in the middle of various investigations and I felt it desirable that the officer who was carrying out those should complete them. However, I felt that it was time to bring those investigations to a conclusion seven years on. I was under the impression they would have concluded much earlier. I was being constantly asked in this House by Deputy Rabbitte's party, Fine Gael and others about when the various inquiries would be brought to a conclusion.

Much of the work that the authorised officer was uncovering was also in the remit of the various tribunals. I directed the authorised officer to send much of the material he acquired to the relevant tribunals because I judged it was more relevant to their work than to a company law inquiry.

I did not have the power to seek the appointment of a High Court inspector. Those powers went to the new independent office when it was established. Any work completed by the authorised officer would have had to go to that office. I could not petition the High Court because those powers were no longer vested in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. They had moved to the office headed by Mr. Paul Appleby. I took legal advice as well as the advice of the Secretary General of the Department on this matter, and any instructions I issued on it were as a result of the advice I received.

That last point is not material. It did not matter whether it was the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr. Appleby, or the Tánaiste, who had the power to seek the appointment of the High Court inspector. The issue is that if there were sufficient grounds, a High Court inspector would have been appointed. He or she cannot be appointed if the Tánaiste has terminated the investigation and she has not explained why she did this, apart from saying she thought seven years was a long time. I asked whether the authorised officer was in agreement with her as to whether his investigation ought to have been terminated. I now ask her whether this matter ever came to Government and whether representations were ever made from inside or outside the Cabinet that it ought to be terminated. The Tánaiste appears to be saying that when the powers under section 19 of the Companies Act were transferred to the Office of Corporate Enforcement she retained powers under this section in so far as they related to this inquiry.

That seems to be the explanation. Why did the Tánaiste issue a directive to this authorised officer a couple of weeks before she left office to cease his investigative duties? Why did she make that decision? She had been there for the previous seven years and she could have made the decision at any time. It was done just before she left office. Did he agree with the decision? Was a timescale worked out with him for completion of the report? Where is the report now? Will it go to Mr. Appleby? Does the present Minister want to re-open the inquiry? Having built her reputation on the investigation into Ansbacher, why would the Tánaiste want to terminate the inquiry? It relates to three of the companies where some of the most powerful in our society were engaged in tax evasion that makes Ray Burke's involvement look like that of a corner shop. Why would she want to cut off the investigation of those guys?

The Standing Order allows the Deputy one minute for his final supplementary question. He has gone over two minutes and I ask him to give way to the Tánaiste.

It lays itself open to the belief that the investigation was not terminated because it had come to fruition, but rather because it might do so.

Deputy Rabbitte is making very serious allegations about my integrity and I would like him to withdraw them.

I am not making any allegations.

I do not know what he is suggesting. He suggests that I closed down the inquiry because it would reveal some information that I did not like. Deputy Rabbitte had better withdraw that. I have acted properly throughout my career in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the issue of bringing that inquiry to an end arose at the start of last year, not a couple of weeks before I left office.

The Tánaiste should answer the question.

He had better have his facts right.

The Tánaiste answered a question on 7 October to my colleague, Deputy Wall.

Allow the Tánaiste without interruption.

She should not get up on her high horse. Just because she is surrounded by——

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and allow the Tánaiste without interruption.

I am no more of a saint than Deputy Rabbitte. No one made representations to me, either inside or outside the Cabinet. Any information that came——

Why did the Tánaiste stop the investigation from continuing?

Please allow the Tánaiste without interruption.

I asked the authorised officer on a number of occasions to bring the inquiry to an end.

Is the Tánaiste happy with that?

I never envisaged that the inquiries would have gone on for so long. Any information I received that had any relevance to any tribunal of inquiry was given to those tribunals of inquiry at that time.

Which tribunals?

It was given to both the Moriarty tribunal and to the Flood tribunal.

What has this got to do with anything? Did the Tánaiste transfer documents——

Some of the information related to individuals that were being investigated by those tribunals or fell within the remit and the terms of reference of those tribunals. In regard to where the report is now, the Deputy will have to ask the current Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I do not know where it is now. It was not concluded when I left the Department at the end of September.

Did the authorised officer agree with the Tánaiste?

No, he did not agree with me. He wanted to continue.

I request Members to obey the Standing Order on leader's questions.