On 12 November I raised with the Taoiseach allegations made by a whistleblower from within the ranks of the senior Civil Service. The whistleblower in question was the authorised officer appointed to examine a scheme of tax evasion through Ansbacher accounts. He has come forward with allegations of tax evasion by senior political figures and of obstruction in the investigation and exposure of these wrongdoings. The whistleblower says his investigation into Ansbacher accounts, offshore accounts and tax evasion was terminated by then Minister, Mary Harney in 2004, once Mr. Desmond O'Malley was discovered to be one of the holders of these accounts.

The Deputy cannot make allegations of that nature in the Chamber.

The whistleblower further alleges that other senior figures from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael also held these very secret Ansbacher accounts that were administered by the late Des Traynor and a Mr. Pádraig Colleary, formerly of Guinness & Mahon. The whistleblower reports, as I said, absolute obstruction to his efforts to complete his investigation. He further reports that agencies of the State have failed to investigate all of these matters thoroughly, including tribunals of inquiry.

On 12 November, the Taoiseach directed me to the Committee of Public Accounts and said that was the proper place to have these matters investigated. That committee was advised last night that it will not be permitted to investigate these matters, neither the issues around alleged tax evasion nor allegations of political obstruction, or even indeed corruption.

A question please. Thank you.

What next? Can the serving civil servant complete his investigation? I know that he has made that request of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton. Will he or the Taoiseach permit that? What of any Garda investigation? I know the Minister, Deputy Bruton, very belatedly passed on a witness statement to the Garda Bureau for Fraud Investigation. Will the Taoiseach be in contact with the Commissioner to ask about progress in that case and about any possible arrests or prosecutions? The Taoiseach sent me in the direction of the Committee of Public Accounts, but these very serious matters will not be heard or investigated there. What does the Taoiseach propose as an alternative action?

As the Deputy pointed out, the Committee of Public Accounts received legal advice from the Oireachtas yesterday evening. The position has already been outlined by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. By the way, the issues raised by the whistleblower came about as a result of a welcome reform made by the Government allowing for protection of witnesses making disclosures in matters like this. The delay was pointed out by the Minister, who has since sent on the documentation required and requested by the Garda fraud investigation unit.

It is not for me to contact the Garda Commissioner -----

The Taoiseach did when it suited him before. He sent him out there, and then sacked him.

----- about the documentation received by the fraud investigation committee. It knows exactly what its powers are and will act upon the witness statement sent to it.

The charges the Deputy makes against certain people are not for me to answer here. There is a process in train, which was availed of under the legislation by the whistleblower and the documentation required and requested by the fraud investigation committee and the Garda has been forwarded to them by the Minister. They will make their decisions and follow through on that.

The Committee of Public Accounts, of which Deputy McDonald is a member, received its own legal advice from the Oireachtas yesterday in respect of its powers.

It is not a case of me making allegations against anyone. I emphasise that these are allegations, but they come from a credible source. The whistleblower alleges Des O'Malley, Ray MacSharry, Gerard Collins, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, an S. Barrett, Richie Ryan - a former Minister for Finance - and others -----

Sorry, is the Deputy making these allegations here in the Chamber?

Pardon me.

Did the Deputy make allegations here in the Chamber regarding-----

I am echoing the serious allegations that have been brought forward by the whistleblower. That is the allegation.

The Deputy knows quite clearly, if she bothers to check the record and take advice from the Clerk of the Dáil, that she cannot name names of people who are defenceless to contradict her. There is a long established principle in this Chamber. I know the Deputy is only new in the Dáil, but I ask her to brief herself clearly on what she can and cannot do in a democratically elected Chamber.

The difficulty, Taoiseach, is this -----

I wish to state quite categorically, in case anybody is under any doubts when the Deputy says "S. Barrett" it does not apply to me.

Thank you. The difficulty is this: the whistleblower alleges matters of serious concern associated with senior public figures, some of whom are still in receipt of State payments, by way of a pension as we speak. The whistleblower has told us clearly that he -----

The Deputy is over time. Will she please put her question?

-----has gone to every length to have these matters explored and investigated. He now fears this will never happen. My question is this. Given the serious nature of these allegations against named persons and, perhaps, the more serious allegation that there was a connivance to avoid or even to cover up the exposure of these matters, and given that the Committee of Public Accounts is not permitted to investigate these matters, what does the Taoiseach propose to do? These are serious allegations. Will the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, allow the person in question to complete his investigation? Or will the Taoiseach and Government, given the seriousness of these allegations, propose another mechanism for the full examination of these issues, for the full examination of agencies of the State who in the view of the -----

The Deputy is over time. Will she please adhere to the direction of the Chair?

----- whistleblower failed to investigate these matters fully and thoroughly?

A law was introduced for whistleblowers to bring forward certain matters of information they feel are relevant, important and in the public interest. The law is framed to protect the whistleblower, which is an important reform and a central element of the law that must be maintained. The whistleblower must be protected.

The fraud squad investigation unit made a formal request for a witness statement to be forwarded to it by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

The Deputy is well aware of the reasons it was delayed. The Minister pointed out why it had been delayed and confirmed that the witness statement, as requested, had been forwarded to the fraud investigation unit, an arm of the State with particular and specific responsibilities and powers. I expect it to follow through and act on the witness statement forwarded to it. Clearly, the advice given to the Committee of Public Accounts is that this issue is outside its remit. I am sure that is the formal legal advice to it, although I have not seen or read it. The Deputy is a member of the committee. There is now an opportunity in the process of the law for the fraud investigation unit to act on the witness statement forwarded to it by the whistleblower and sent through the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for its examination. This is not an opportunity to send it on a journey from which it will never come back. This was a formal request from the fraud investigation unit that has now been acted on. The witness has had his statement forwarded, as has been confirmed.

Two years later.

In fact, I know that the whistleblower had this confirmed to him last week by the Minister and I expect the fraud investigation unit to investigate.

He also asked to have his investigation completed.