Yesterday's Irish Independent raised significant new questions regarding the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE and its handling of the controversial Seán FitzPatrick trial, which was the longest-running criminal trial in the history of the State. The public's reaction to the case was one of feeling utterly let down. People read what happened in court - rightly or wrongly - as another example of people with friends in high places. They were left with a sense of punishment being only for the little people. In a week when public debate rages about the operation of the courts and the Judiciary, it must be said that cases such as the FitzPatrick one have a significant impact on public confidence in the system as a whole.

I want to raise with the Taoiseach what appears to be a significant conflict in the information provided to me and the Irish Independent by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation recently compared with information provided to my party colleague, Deputy Shortall, in November 2015. Yesterday's revelations in the Irish Independent seem to suggest that the ODCE effectively misled the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Government regarding its ability to effectively investigate the FitzPatrick case and provide the Director of Public Prosecutions with the evidence required to prosecute. On 31 May this year, I received a reply from the then Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation which assured me that in 2011, the Secretaries General of two Departments, namely, Justice and Equality and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, had met ODCE officials and offered extra resources, if needed, for the investigation. The reply went on to say that the ODCE had claimed that it had no need for any extra resources. The reply clearly says that it was emphasised at the meeting that any request for resources would be responded to positively. The reply confirms that the ODCE stressed that it was satisfied with the resources available to it. However, in a reply to my colleague, Deputy Shortall, in November 2015, it was claimed that the ODCE had flagged the need for further resources within its office. Subsequent replies relating to that question indicate that there was a significant delay in meeting those resource requests. That is obviously a significant issue in its own right. The Irish Independent claims that the emails sent internally from Mr. O'Connell in 2011 about concerns regarding the lack of resources within the ODCE to pursue the FitzPatrick investigation were only forwarded to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation within the last few weeks. We need to know if that is true. We know that during the course of investigation, Mr. O'Connell shredded key documents and engaged in coaching witnesses. Ultimately, this and other issues led to the controversial collapse of the case.

I ask the Taoiseach to explain the conflict between the reply from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to me in May of this year and the same Department's reply to my party colleague, Deputy Shortall, in November 2015. Does the Taoiseach worry that the ODCE may have concealed vital information from the outset regarding its ability to pursue the FitzPatrick investigation? Does the Taoiseach believe that the Government was misled by the ODCE?

I have not seen the report. It has now gone to Cabinet and has not been published yet. I understand parts of it may have appeared in a newspaper, but I do not know to what extent they are the truth or the full truth. The report has not gone to the Attorney General who has to consider whether it needs to be redacted because individuals are named in the report and they may need to have their good names protected. Once the Attorney General has dealt with the report, we will then publish it, if we are permitted to do so, with a response. At that point, it will be possible for the Tánaiste to answer the Deputy's questions in more detail.

What I can say is that the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE, has received additional resources in the past year, including several additional staff. Too often in this country, a lack of resources is used as an excuse for poor performance, which is why so often additional resources do not make any difference in terms of outcomes and performance. What I read in the newspapers is that documents were shredded that should not have been shredded and witnesses were coached who should not have been coached. I do not know how a lack of resources causes someone to shred a document he or she should not have or to find the time to coach a witness he or she should not have coached. The Government and Opposition must not allow people to hide behind the excuse of resources, which is not always the reason everything goes wrong. Often, it is not the reason at all.

As Taoiseach, I have expressed my view very clearly that I do not believe our capacity to respond to white-collar crime and corporate fraud is adequate. For this reason, I have asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, to work together, with their Departments, to develop a package of measures to go to Cabinet by the end of September. This will enable us to strengthen and deepen our response to white-collar crime and corporate fraud. It is necessary and people demand it, and if we have any chance of restoring confidence in the State's ability to deal with such issues, we need to do exactly that.

I know the report has gone to the Attorney General. That was not the question I asked. I asked about a conflict that arose when we posed the same broad question to the same Department on two occasions and received two different responses. In 2013, just before the trial commenced, the Department was made aware that the documents had been shredded. I am sure the same information went to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Would we have had the longest running criminal trial in the history of the State if they had had that information?

I asked the Taoiseach for specific information. The reply to the question I posed in 2013 stated that resources would be provided if requested. I compared that reply with the one Deputy Shortall received when she posed the question in 2013. She had to follow up the reply with other questions on how many staff were in place and when staff numbers would be augmented. It took until last year before the office had its full complement of staff. That is two years, which is a long time. I asked the Taoiseach a specific question on how he could resolve this conflict. That is an issue in its own right, irrespective of a report going to the Attorney General. We had a Department telling us two different things. Both answers cannot be right because they are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Will the Taoiseach address that issue, please? Does he believe he was misled by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement?

I do not have an answer to that question. I have not yet had any dealings with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement so I cannot say it has misled me. I certainly have not had any dealings with it in the past 11 days, as Taoiseach, or in my previous briefs. I do not believe it misled me, but if the Deputy has a question to ask of a line Minister, I imagine she will do that in the normal way.

On resources, in April 2013, a revised workforce plan was submitted by the ODCE identifying the need for five accountants and an information technology expert. That requirement subsequently grew to seven accountants. Notwithstanding the moratorium on recruitment in place at the time, the Department secured sanction from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for recruitment in October 2014. A campaign was launched in November 2015 under the auspices of the Public Appointments Service. After the normal recruitment processes were undertaken, a panel of eight forensic accountants was established. From April through to July 2016, five forensic accountants were formally recruited for the office and the remaining panellists withdrew. The Department subsequently asked the Public Appointments Service to run a specialist competition to allow it to recruit two more investigators to bring the cadre to seven. That campaign is in process.