The Minister for Finance was in possession. I understand he has six minutes.
Report of Tribunal of Inquiry into the Processing Industry: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Agriculture. Food and forestry on Thursday, 1 September 1994:
That Dáil Éireann:
—notes the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry;
—thanks the Chairman for his work in conducting the inquiry and producing the report; and
—supports the Government in its commitment to act without delay to take account of the report's findings and to implement its recommendations.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To add the following to the motion:
"and
(1) calls on the Government to set out a timetable for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report;
(2) notes the many failures of public policy in the period 1987 to 1989 identified in the report;
(3) deplores the findings of the report regarding systematic tax evasion by the Goodman Group; and
(4) furthermore is of the opinion that the present Taoiseach was wrong in his claim to have been totally vindicated by the report and is in agreement with the view, as stated by the Labour Party, that the decisions in which he was centrally involved as a Minister at that time and which were covered in the report amounted to a policy disaster for which he is accountable."
—(Deputy J. Bruton).
As I stated last night the Revenue officials have been trained in the use of the new powers which are aimed at non-compliant businesses. Every effort is being made to avoid burdens on bona fide taxpayers.
Revenue issued a statement of practice so that everybody will know where they stand and have furnished officials with new, more modern, authorisation and identity cards.
The increasing efficiency of their tax collection and enforcement system is apparent from their tax receipts of recent years which have increased substantially. Nobody should be in any doubt about the determination of the authorities to continue to act to curb tax evasion and abuse.
The report found in relation to section 84 lending that the allegation that the provisions of the Finance Acts had been amended to make them more advantageous to the Goodman group was incorrect. Further, the tribunal found that the section 84 funds borrowed by AIBP were used for legitimate working capital purposes, and not for any other purpose including the acquisition of shares in particular companies. The tribunal also concluded that in relation to the Finance Acts generally, the only change which resulted from a request by the Goodman group was made in the interest of, and applied to, the beef processing sector as a whole, and that in the event the Goodman group did not benefit from the amendment in question.
Throughout the period the Department of Finance sought to consolidate the position on doing away with section 84 loans and other favourable capital allowances. The position now is that availability of section 84 loans is restricted and they are being eliminated over time. The volume of section 84 loans outstanding has already fallen to about £200 million compared with over £1.5 billion a few years ago.
I referred earlier to tax evasion. The tribunal set out in some detail the actions of the companies' auditors in this area and, while satisfied that the auditors had acted in accordance with professional standards, the tribunal recommended that the Finance Acts should now place an obligation on the auditor to report tax evasion to the Revenue Commissioners when it is uncovered. The Government has committed itself to implementing the recommendations of the tribunal generally and the recommendation in question is being examined by my Department and the Revenue Commissioners to see how it could best be given practical effect in legislation.
The growing complexity of company law and regulation has added significantly to the role and duties of auditors and other professionals. The Insurance, Central Bank and Building Societies Acts have, since 1989, required auditors to report material financial irregularities to the appropriate supervisory authority, when these are uncovered by them in the case of banks, building societies and insurance companies. The provisions in those Acts may serve as a guide to the legislative changes that may take effect in the Finance Acts, but there remains much work to be done before we can reach that conclusion.
While I can understand the concern of the profession over expanded responsibilities in this regard, I do not think that the professional bodies can argue strongly against change in the light of all that has happened and reported on in the tribunal report. There will of course be discussions with the practitioners — to which I am already committed — and I want to come up with a clear, sensible and workable arrangement in the interests of all concerned.
Matters raised in relation to the scheme of export credit insurance are dealt with in Chapter Six of the tribunal's report and extend to some 200 pages.
The role of the Department of Finance in the matter of export credit insurance arises from the provisions of the Insurance Acts; from the Department's general responsibilities for the public finances and from the requirement for prior consultation with the Minister for Finance under the standing instructions governing the submission of proposals to Government. The Department does not have a role in relation to individual applications for cover under the scheme. Consequently, it was not involved in the matter of the allocation of cover to particular companies in the beef sector or otherwise or, indeed, in any operational aspect of the scheme.
The tribunal makes two recommendations on export credit. It recommends that the Minister for Tourism and Trade and the Minister for Finance should agree procedures for dealing with "national interest" cases in order to increase transparency and control. It proposes that in any case where the potential exposure exceeds £3 million, the specific approval of the Minister for Finance should be sought before assuming liability.
Officials from my Department and the Department of Tourism and Trade are at present in dialogue on the specific measures required to implement these recommendations. It has already been agreed, pending the outcome of these discussions, that all cases involving application for cover in excess of £3 million will be referred to me for my consent.
On the costs of the tribunal in so far as it concerns the Minister for Finance section 6 (1) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1979, which applies to the beef tribunal, provides for the award of the whole or part of the costs of any person appearing before the tribunal by counsel or solicitor. In this case, the sole member of the tribunal, in exercise of his absolute discretion, ordered that the Minister for Finance should pay the costs of specified parties appearing before the tribunal.
Under the terms of the tribunal's costs orders, the amount of costs to be paid in each case will be determined by a taxing master of the High Court. The orders provide that the Minister for Finance may attend and be heard at these determinations and also at any review or appeal. I understand this process has not yet begun, as applications for costs have yet to be submitted to the Chief State Solicitor's office by the parties concerned. Consequently, I have no way of knowing at this stage what these costs will eventually amount to.
Provision was not made in the 1994 Estimates to meet these costs, as it would have been inappropriate to include any provision in anticipation of the award of costs.
Fees payable to counsel acting on behalf of the State and the tribunal were fixed by the Attorney General. Total State and tribunal legal fees paid since 1991 amounted to £4.7 million, including VAT. Withholding tax was deducted and net payments amounted to £3.6 million.
Total costs of the tribunal which have been paid to date, including the State and tribunal legal fees already mentioned, amount to £7.43 million.
New guidelines have been approved by me, and issued to all Departments, setting out the procedure to be followed in the case of the appointment of legal counsel, and other professional fees. At a time of deregulation and competition a cartel system appears to apply to legal fees and that is why we introduced the new guidelines.
I hope my intervention helped put the record straight on the many questions raised about the work of the Revenue Commissioners and Customs. The report highlighted the need for constant vigilance on all tax matters and the necessity to keep supervisory powers abreast of changing circumstances. Many of the provisions in the Finance Act, 1992 cover a great number of the issues arising from this report, but matters that still need to be dealt with will be covered in next year's Finance Act.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Flanagan.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
Politics is one of the most important things in our society. It affects the quality of life of every person we govern. As I drove into the Dáil this morning I heard a woman talking on the radio about the fact that she was a lone parent with seven children and that her eldest child had been allocated a place in two colleges but that she could not afford the fee of £100. She is in that position because of educational political decisions taken by us. Thousands of people are denied access to third level education because they do not have the money to enable them to take up the places. Our decisions determine who goes to university, who works and whether children are born into poverty. Many of our decisions determine who will get an opportunity to better themselves in society.
The unemployment figures were released yesterday. There are now 150,000 people long term unemployed, 30,000 of whom are in their early twenties, and this is a result of political decisions. Political decisions determine the quality of life between the employed and the unemployed, the amount of taxes paid by individuals, how money earned is collected by the State and how taxpayers' money is spent.
The beef tribunal report is a reflection on aspects of Irish society, of an industry, of companies, of people and of our approach to power, influence and standards. More than anything it is a reflection and a statement about the political process. How can we create a Government that works better and costs less?
I admit to a deep frustration in seeking to address the beef tribunal report during the week in which a very welcome IRA ceasefire took place. The national interest would have been better served by postponing this debate. By allowing it to proceed we, as Members of this House, have devalued both events. Once again we leave Dáil Éireann open to the charge of being seen by the public as irrelevant and not to be discussing the topic of the day, the one on everybody's lips. This welcome ceasefire is one of the most critical events in our history. The tribunal report deserves serious discussion and more time for debate in the Dáil and within the media in order to present it clearly to the public, especially as the format of the report does not make for easy or accessible reading by the public. The fact that the two topics are being discussed side by side in the House this week devalues them and adds to the cynicism with which politicians are viewed here.
Of course people are putting things on the record of this House, but we should question whether the House is an accountable forum. A certain ritual is well established in this House, but is it really politics? Two and a half years ago many matters put on the record led to the setting up of the tribunal but, if they had been dealt with effectively here, we would not have had to set up the tribunal. However, it is important that we learn from this report and that we raise standards to ensure the same does not happen again. Otherwise, the disillusionment of the public about politics will deepen, and we cannot underestimate the cynicism and despair in democratic politics which might follow.
This is all the more important when we have an opportunity to create the vision of a new Ireland, North and South, respecting all our traditions. As one of the Deputies who did not get an opportunity to contribute to the debate on Northern Ireland on Wednesday, I wish to record my warm welcome for the cease-fire and my congratulations to all concerned.
The tribunal report undoubtedly points an accusing finger at many people and at unacceptable practices. In some respects it is easy to take the high moral ground on this. A number of players in the meat industry were found to be acting improperly and the actions of some politicians and Ministers raised many questions. The broader question of our ethical approach to business and decision-making makes me reflect on the Mespil Flats and Telecom Éireann scandals in my constituency and the inner circle trading which frequently takes place here. It also reminds me of the ethics of decisions taken between the social partners which have excluded the unemployed and the lack of courageous decisions to tackle unemployment which the recent report of the National Economic an Social Forum highlighted. If we are serious about tackling unemployment we must take ethical and courageous decisions, vested interests may have to be frequently threatened and we will have to be a more sharing society.
We were told that the formula for the debate on this matter is standard for discussion of important matters. When will this change? As a new Member it is interesting to read the report, to note the allegations raised in the House and the number of parliamentary questions which were asked but unanswered. Why are there not sufficient structures to extract the truth and have real discussion? There are few occasions in the House when there is a real interchange of information. Occasionally at Question Time it may happen that a Minister may give an open and detailed answer, but the system does not seem to be geared to that. It seems such a course is seldom worth risking. At Question Time and on other occasions the House is seldom given clear information and replies to questions. What did the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, say about that yesterday? He talked about another expert group. Surely if he is serious about changing this practice and improving Question Time and other debates in the House it could be achieved much more quickly, perhaps by Christmas. Why must we talk about Dáil reform taking place only in the context of another expert group composed of people outside the House when what we need is action, goodwill and commitment from this Government to Dáil reform and commitment to change on the part of individual Ministers? Before we put forward ideas for ensuring accountability in the future let us have accountability in regard to the past. The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, has the power to ensure this happens but will not use it. He supports the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds. We must make people accountable for what happened in the past.
The debate on this report and the reason the tribunal had to be set up highlights the profound failure of the Legislature to prove to the public that we have a system capable of exploring complex matters in as much detail as they deserve. I am struck, but saddened, by the Martyn Turner cartoon in The Irish Times of 31 August which states:
This Dáil Debate is big stuff... serious resignation issues... so ... resign yourself to hearing no questions answered, no politicians taking the blame, and nothing at all happening at all ...
That is a harsh indictment of our parliamentary system. I hope it is not the full picture and that there are signs of hope within the system. However, I am struck by the defensive responses given by many of the Ministers. Very few of them openly reflected to any degree the issues they addressed. The editorial in The Irish Times of 31 August states that the events that lie behind the beef tribunal highlight a crisis in the way the State is governed and in particular the operation of the Dáil itself. The report documents administrative failures, for example, where the market and the Department, in its regulatory role as the intervention agent, failed miserably. It also highlighted the failure of management, Ministers and the lack of co-ordination between Departments.
One of the most interesting phrases in the report is that referring to the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, who took decisions having regard to "his conception of the requirements of the national interest". The question that inevitably arises is what his conception of the national interest was and what was influencing it. Members of the House and the Leader of the Fine Gael Party outlined many questions that arise in relation to that conception of the national interest. On what facts did he make his judgments? What considerations caused him to reject the advice of the senior officials in the Department of Finance, the ICI and specialist officials in his Department and to grant such a large amount of taxpayers' money for what Mr. Justice Hamilton describes as illusory benefits?
An area that has not received much attention to date is the impact the report will have on the work of the Civil Service. There is no doubt a wedge of mistrust has been driven between politicians elected to Government and the administration — they are supposed to be working on the same team, but damage has been done. I am not talking here specifically about the decision making responsibilities — the political risks the Taoiseach spoke about yesterday — which elected political leaders in Government must take. I refer to the relationship between civil servants and politicians and the often impossible position in which civil servants found themselves during the tribunal. This is a serious question that transcends politics. Ireland has been fortunate in its Civil Service. There is need for reform and change as in all institutions and organisations, but the tradition of loyalty, reliability and integrity that has been built up should be supported and maintained. The disagreements given in evidence will surely lead to civil servants seeking ministerial decisions in writing. We must examine the relationships that will exist in future between civil servants and those elected to serve in Government. That is a critical issue. What damage has been done to that relationship by the sequence of events described in the report? There may have been a fundamental change in the relationship and serious rot may have set in, a matter which needs to be debated. We must give back to the Civil Service the confidence to advise and the ability to do its job in an independent, fearless and proper manner. The confused decision making processes outlined in the report cannot be a model for future management and decision making. There are many examples of that in the report. It is important that civil servants are not intimidated and are free to get on with their jobs. They cannot be put in untenable positions or have their promotions threatened if they do not bend to a particular will.
The development of the meat industry is critical to this country. If the Department of Agriculture had been more up front in exposing firms and factories it would have put manners on the industry long ago. The discussion on page 712 of the report about the disclosure of irregularities in the industry is startling. Anyone who is not familiar with the industry and who reads the long list of irregularities and the amount of the fines involved will find it incredible. The lack of publicity about those irregularities and the fact that they were kept out of the public arena for so long is extraordinary. A table in the report contains particulars of a number of other cases which, though regarded as serious, were not reported to the EC Commission. Again the amounts are extremely large. The crisis facing the meat industry at a world level is serious. That has implications for our people, for the rural economy and the quality of life in Ireland in the future because it determines whether the west will be saved, the future possibility of young people remaining in rural Ireland and the development of a meat processing industry that will employ a significant labour force. A critical issue for all of us is how the industry will be developed and supervised and what standards will be set. Last Sunday The Sunday Times contained an article about the problems of BSE and the German market. The meat industry is our most important export earner and, as such, must be regarded as uniquely deserving of specialist considerations. There is no doubt that both the meat industry and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry have been seen to be derelict in their duty in regard to the national interest. It would appear from the evidence in the report that in many cases every and any opportunity was taken to cheat the system in a range of circumstances. While it may be said that in some areas the findings of the report are not absolutely clear and political decisions will have to be taken to determine follow up action, there is no doubt that official action has been taken by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and by the meat industry to put an end to those irregularities. That is welcome. The unemployed and other members of the public who struggle to pay their taxes and to live an honest life, will view the report cynically as it appears the only person who will suffer and be brought to justice as a result of the scandal is the journalist who exposed it.
Farmers waiting for their headage payments, which may be stopped if a minor item is out of place in an application, must be cynical of the totally different set of standards that applied to the big players. It seems that the standards were only set in place when the beef tribunal became public knowledge. That raises the question of monitoring of EU funding. I hope that the Minister for Finance will address that matter. I am not sure if he referred to it in his speech as I was not present for all of it. I would like the Government to spell out clearly for the benefit of Members and the public the type of monitoring that will be demanded by Brussels for the range of EU funds we will receive during the next few years.
We have damaged our standing in the market place and behaved in a way which shows a total lack of respect for the religious sensitivities of other cultures. The respect we show to other cultures and their standards is important. We live in world economy. If we want to trade internationally, this is something that can be minimised. I have said this many times in the course of the debate because it is fundamental. We have risked losing the confidence of the public in politics and undermining our rural economy with all the major implications involved.
There is also the enormous cost although we do not know the final figure. This report took up the time of many people and was a long procedure and it is very distressing that so many people believe it could be a whitewash. It is really important that that should not be the case and that the public see key changes because of the way politicians do business in the House and follow up the many recommendations in this report.
Were it not for your special summons, a Cheann Comhairle, which you issued last week I would be sitting in my constituency clinic in Laoighis-Offaly hearing the sad tales from farmers about the consequences to themselves and their families of the delay in the payments of suckler cow grants, beef premiums and, perhaps more important, the sheep subsidy in spite of the promises of Minister Joe Walsh in recent times. I am sure Deputy Hugh Byrne opposite would be dealing with exactly the same complaints.
I am sure if I were in Offaly this morning we would be talking about hurling. I think the Deputy is exaggerating.
It is in stark contrast to the litany of scandal and abuse contained in over 1,000 pages of the report of the tribunal with which we are dealing today. It is difficult for me as a public representative and, I am sure, for the 166 Members of this House to convey to our constituents or the public the fact that the scandals, abuses and misdeeds contained in this report will be addressed by the Government.
The Taoiseach has been particularly lucky in his political dealings in recent months. First, he was dragged from the edge of political oblivion by the Labour Party a year and a half ago and catapulted to the most powerful position in this State. The odds against this happening were very long in the aftermath of the general election of 1992. This most unlikely event has been repeated with a similar stroke of luck as the punters are again confounded by the timing of this debate. Who would have guessed that on the day of the Dáil debate on the explosive beef tribunal report the main evening news on RTE television would be suspended to allow the Taoiseach to bask in the glory of the recent ceasefire? Nevertheless, although the collective eyes of the population of this State have been looking northward over the past week the record of this House will make some interesting reading and will represent a sad commentary on the way public affairs of this State are managed by the party that has, for almost 70 years, been the largest political party in this State.
There is a sense of unreality about this debate. The accused and all the centre stage parties are believed to have been vindicated while the main accuser, the Tánaiste, has been to the other side of the planet and back in the course of the debate. In concluding his speech on Thursday, the Taoiseach stated that the matter was at an end, that the book was closed and that we must all settle down to further business. This is simply not good enough and we have yet to hear from any Government Minister on the definite plan of action to be set in place to ensure that matters brought to light by the tribunal are not repeated in future.
The Taoiseach, being the master of the one line, stated shortly after the publication of the report that there would never be another tribunal. This statement was as irresponsible as it was flippant. In Thursday's address he failed to elaborate on any of the measures to be implemented by him and his Government to obviate the need for a tribunal should similar strokes be pulled by Ministers and their friends in future. This beef tribunal was an unfortunate necessity. It was set up and supported by Mr. Justice Hamilton because office holders approved by this House refused to answer basic questions put lawfully by Members in compliance with Standing Orders. Openness, transparency and accountability are words repeated over and over by the Taoiseach, words that he would see as forming the basic plank of his Administration. Sadly the events surrounding the provision of export credit insurance demonstrate the opposite. The behaviour of the Taoiseach at the time in granting the insurance to Hibernia, to Goodman and to Master Meats shows more of cloak and dagger activity and bore greater relation to activity of a subversive nature that to openness, transparency or accountability. The manner in which he leaked the findings of the report before anybody had an opportunity of reading it flies in the face of openness, transparency and accountability. The fact that this debate comprises a series of statements with no opportunity for questions and answers makes this man's call for freedom of information and openness ring hollow indeed.
In his address the Taoiseach went to some lengths to defend his behaviour on the grounds that he was at all times acting in the so-called national interest. I do not doubt for one minute that he believes it in spite of all the facts laid before the tribunal because the Taoiseach and his party believe the national interest is, in essence, the Fianna Fáil interest. Repeatedly over the years Fianna Fáil Governments have abused the institutions of this State, serving party and themselves before the broader public interest. They see nothing wrong in this — it comprises the exercise of power and represents behaviour of a normal and acceptable type. It is fundamental to the Fianna Fáil psyche whether it is the sub-post master's position, appointments to State boards or a medical card under the table. They see nothing wrong with this and I am not surprised that the Taoiseach sees his behaviour as in compliance with what he perceives to be the national interest.
Fine Gael in Government would not think that way, of course.
One matter was mentioned in the Taoiseach's address which I found extraordinary and which requires further consideration. Much has been made in this debate of the fact that the Taoiseach chose to ignore the advice of his officials and senior civil servants in the matter of granting export credit insurance. However, in attempting to justify the manner in which he ignored his officials in matters pertaining to beef, the Taoiseach said, in reference to the peace process, the ceasefire and his discussions on the situation in the North: "The country is fortunate that I did not take official advice in this case". This is an unbelievable statement coming from a Prime Minister of a country. It casts a slur on the most senior civil servants in the State. He has unfairly discredited them in the performance of their duty and admitted that the manner in which the peace process has been forged was in conflict with the views of the senior civil servants in Government. It is offensive for a Taoiseach to denigrate his senior officials and the insult is compounded by the fact that not one member of the Government who has spoken in this debate has set the record straight.
The Ceann Comhairle will close the debate at 4 p.m. and I hope that before then a member of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Labour Party will set the record straight, dissociate themselves from the Taoiseach's remarks and defend the officials who are not in a position to make public statements on the matter as they have no voice in this House with which to do so. It is of extreme importance that that slur be withdrawn.
Another matter worthy of comment is the statement by the Tánaiste on the granting of export credit insurance, with particular reference to the Fine Gael Party. I had hoped that little criticism would be levelled at the Tánaiste by Fine Gael, having regard to the fact that the persons in the dock served in the minority Fianna Fáil Administration from 1987 to 1989, but the Tánaiste stands accused of a thinly disguised attempt to implicate Fine Gael in the process of granting favours in return for cash, and that must be withdrawn in this House at the earliest opportunity. The facts of the export credit insurance scheme speak for themselves. My colleague, Deputy Michael Noonan, former Minister for Industry and Commerce, acted at all times with the greatest honour, and any attempt to cast a slur on his behaviour represents a gross defamation of character.
It is not my intention to rewrite the tribunal report — I know the Ceann Comhairle would not allow me to do so — but I cannot accept that the Taoiseach acted honourably in the manner of his dealings with a close personal friend and party associate, Mr. Paschal Phelan of Master Meats. The circumstances surrounding the provision of £10 million cover are extraordinary and inexplicable. The only explanation that I or any rational thinking person can put forward is the close political association between that person and his family and the Taoiseach and members of his party. The favouritism shown to Mr. Phelan by the Taoiseach is in stark contrast to the manner in which he treated Halal who had official links at the time with contracting parties in Iraq. Subsequent events underline the fact that Mr. Phelan never had any intention of contracting with Iraq when he conveniently and for some unknown consideration assigned the insurance to Hibernia Meats, another company involved in this scam. It is clear the national interest was not served by the fact that foreign beef was being exported, underwritten by the Irish taxpayer.
The tribunal must never be repeated in terms of time and cost and this can only be ensured by putting in place appropriate mechanisms to increase Government accountability. We hear the Taoiseach speak about freedom of information, openness and accountability, but he never tells us what he means by this. I would have thought he might have mentioned that in the course of his address on Thursday last. What does he mean by giving freedom of information when he does the absolute opposite? Until we get our act together in this House the tide of public disenchantment and cynicism will envelop us all, with drastic consequences for the entire democratic process.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Eoin Ryan and John O'Donoghue.
I am sure that is satisfactory. Agreed.
I am sure if the Deputy were in Laois or Offaly today he would be more concerned, as would his constituents, about hurling rather than beef and sheep subsidies. However I agree they are a problem. I was very pleased — this is a new tactic for Fine Gael — to hear Deputy Frances Fitzgerald speak on behalf of the farmers and I compliment her on that. The farmers of Wexford and, I am sure, of Ireland will be very pleased that a Dublin person spoke for them.
The farmers are very angry, as the Deputy well knows.
Three years ago Dáil Éireann set up the beef tribunal which cost £35 million. The setting up of the tribunal was a mistake because every matter covered by it could, in the first instance, have been dealt with in the Dáil. Where necessary, and indeed a long time ago, the Garda could, and probably should, have taken matters further. An astronomical sum of public money and three years of valuable time have been wasted. Most importantly, by being seen to fail to deal with its responsibilities, the credibility of this House has been damaged.
Deputies used parliamentary privilege to make a series of scurrilous accusations. In particular the personal integrity of the Taoiseach was impugned. The view of the tribunal on Deputy Reynold's character is quite clear. Mr. Justice Hamilton stated that there is no evidence to suggest his decisions were in any way based on improper motives, either political or personal. Having spent three years portraying Deputy Reynolds as a knave, his detractors now accuse him of being merely a fool. Their accusations have been found to be baseless. They have attempted to change the charges after the verdict has been given.
The context of decisions taken on export credit insurance cover for Irish beef being sent to Iraq should be remembered. Between 1983 and 1986 Irish agriculture, particularly the beef industry, was in crisis. There were no markets and cold stores were full. This was recognised by the then Coalition Government, and some very interesting names pop up. The tribunal found that the giving of export credit insurance by the Taoiseach when Minister for Industry and Commerce was similar to what happened in the 1982-87 Coalition Government period. The tribunal found that this decision, like all previous decisions by the Coalition in 1983, was taken by the respective Ministers in the national interest. In 1983 the FitzGerald-led Government ignored the advice it received from ICI. It is difficult to understand what Deputy Flanagan was speaking about in terms of the Taoiseach not taking advice. Of course we can listen to advice, but we do not have to act accordingly, and that applies to all of us as politicians.
In a telex dated 27 April 1983 forwarded to the Department, the ICI, having reviewed the position in regard to Iraq, recommended that we completely suspend all cover for Iraq immediately, except where a guarantee of payment issued outside that country in the form of a bank guarantee of a confirmed irrevocable letter of credit. The Minister submitted a memorandum for Government, dated 15 June 1983, dealing with conditions applying to the provision of export credit insurance in respect of trade with Iraq. In this memorandum the Minister sought a decision from Government in favour of providing export credit insurance to Irish exporters dealing with Iraq, in spite of the recommendations in the telex from ICI dated 27 April. It seems that others apart from Fianna Fáil did not take advice.
Page 43 of the report states: "The creation and operation of this account did not begin in 1987 and it is clear from the documents made available to the tribunal that, certainly from April 1983, the provision of export credit insurance in respect of exports to Iraq could not be justified and was not sought to be justified by the ICI on purely commercial grounds but was at all times regarded as "a national interest" case, the provision for such insurance to be a matter for consideration and an authorisation by the Minister for Industry and Commerce."
It is interesting that letters by Mr. Goodman were referred to as were meetings with the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald and members of Government including the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Bruton, and also with Deputy Noonan when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is evident from the tribunal's findings that Deputies Bruton, Dukes and others were concerned with the provision of such insurance. The ceiling was raised from £12 million in 1982 to £15 million in 1983, £25 million in 1984, £35 million in 1985 and to £70 million at Deputy Bruton's request in 1986.
On the issue of blatant political favouritism on page 231 of the report the tribunal finds no evidence to suggest that either the Taoiseach at the time or the Minister for Industry and Commerce was close to Mr. Goodman or that he had political associations with either of them or the party they represented. Because of the position Mr. Goodman held in the agricultural life of the country and because of the obvious concern of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to develop the agri-food sector of the economy and the export of value added products leading to job creation, there is no doubt but that Mr. Goodman had reasonably ready access to the Taoiseach and Members of the Government for the purpose of discussing plans for the development of his company and exports. It is clear he had similar access to the previous Taoiseach and Members of his Government. I would not argue against such access.
The tribunal states at page 232 of the report that while decisions by the Minister for Industry and Commerce regarding the allocation of export credit insurance in respect of exports to Iraq in 1987 and 1988 undoubtedly favour AIBPI and Hibernia Meats Ltd. in the sense that they were beneficiaries of such decisions, the decisions were made by him having regard to his perception of the requirements of the national interest. There is no evidence to suggest that his decisions were based on improper motives either political or personal. This refutes Deputy O'Malley's unfounded allegations in the clearest possible terms.
Since the publication of the report Deputy O'Malley has refused to accept these findings. On RTE radio on 9 August he tried to fudge the issue by saying the word "favouritism" seemed to have taken on some political or moral connotation that was not intended. Is that back tracking? He should accept the finding that there was no political favouritism or closeness regarding the Goodman companies. Bitterness and hatred cloud his judgment.
As a result of the policies adopted by Fianna Fáil on coming to power in 1987, beef prices rose to an all time high of 120p per pound. Farm incomes improved, the beneficial effects of which were felt throughout the economy. The decision to grant credit insurance was based on the assumption that it was for commercial beef. This insurance, as with any case of fraud, is null and void. The export credit insurance scheme has cost the country £8 million. Much of this may be recovered. In contrast, the cost of the tribunal was £35 million none of which will be recovered. The matter could and should have been dealt with in the Dáil.
If the committees operated properly most of the money spent on the tribunal could have been saved but our committees have no power and few resources. However, I am encouraged by the Taoiseach's decision to expedite work on the Bill on privilege and compellability of witnesses and to give privilege to any evidence given. Giving committees the necessary powers is only half the equation. Equally important is the level of support. Over the years, the Executive has become ever more powerful. Departments have endless resources. A small company has more back up than any Oireachtas Committee yet the Dáil nominally presides over the Executive. Without powers or resources to undertake the task it is meaningless. Only real empowerment of Dáil Éireann will ensure it will not be necessary to establish such a tribunal again costing £35 million.
As things stand it was possible for a small number of Deputies to use parliamentary privilege for the purposes of character assassination. These Pharisees posing as puritans have taken away the character of decent people. Deputy Rabbitte made 17 allegations. Ten were found to be baseless, others doubtful. Given his and Deputy O'Malley's recent European election result it would appear that Europe's gain is Ireland's loss. Deputy Rabbitte is regarded as the funny man of this House and adequately fills the role of the court jester. He claimed on Thursday that the Taoiseach was cavalier with taxpayers' money. If the taxpayer must pay dearly for the time the tribunal spent dealing with baseless allegations are we not opening a door that will be difficult to close?
Deputy O'Malley rebuilt his career on baseless charges of blatant favouritism. These gentlemen abused the privilege of the House and are happy to take money from the public purse. If they had a fraction of the respect they claim to have for ethical standards, they would not have the pursuit of false allegations financed out of public money.
They are whitened sepulchres. Their political careers have been built on denigration and innuendo. In contrast, the people demand positive politics.
The integrity of the Taoiseach is beyond reproach. While the attention of some has been absorbed in mud raking his attention has been elsewhere. In the past few days we have seen the fruits of his commitment and integrity which has been vindicated. Events in every sphere have confirmed his judgment. I wish him and his Government every success.
The main reason for setting up this tribunal was to get Charlie Haughey and now it is trying to get Deputy Albert Reynolds. Many speakers commented on political standards and the public's perception of politicians. It is no wonder that people have a low opinion of standards in political life when Members of the House spend their time casting innuendo and smear. Unfortunately in politics the perception can become reality. We are damaging ourselves. It is wrong and Members should refrain from doing it. I have nothing against opposition which is based on fact but a small number of Deputies spend all their time smearing other Members of the House.
I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the tribunal report. Regrettably the public will be somewhat cynical about the whole process. This is understandable to some degree. They have seen how Opposition party Deputies have exploited the whole matter relentlessly, unethically and with scant regard for truth or accuracy. Before the tribunal was established, accusations were thrown around with abandon in pursuit of cheap political capital. Indeed, every time the word "beef" was mentioned it was as if certain Deputies succumbed to some sort of collective mad cow disease. Unfortunately some of them are still afflicted.
Now that the report has thrown out the central accusation of political favouritism, we are being treated to the spectacle of Opposition Deputies putting their own interpretation on Mr. Justice Hamilton's findings. It is ironic that the most vocal critics of the so-called spin doctors are those most adept at spin doctoring themselves. Deputies Rabbitte, O'Malley and Michael McDowell seem to specialise in this. In fact, at one stage during the summer I thought Deputy Rabbitte was on a camping holiday in Montrose because he was on every single programme. It was very well done. Full marks to him. He participated in the programmes, stirred up matters and confused the public. This is a man who made accusations in this House almost all of which were proven to be false.
Is Deputy Ryan jealous?
Full marks to Deputy Rabbitte. He used the media to perfection and was allowed to use it.
Not as well as the Taoiseach used it.
There are some important general comments to be made on the broader context of the tribunal report. Many of these points, however, will be lost amid the welter of bombast and innuendo emanating from the Opposition benches, the weight of narrowly focused media coverage and what passes for analysis in some of our newspapers. Nevertheless, it is important that certain issues are raised.
The recommendations of Mr. Justice Hamilton are final and Fianna Fáil will ensure they are implemented, contrary to what one journalist said in a newspaper this morning. However, the publication of the tribunal report highlights the need for reform in another area — that of how this House goes about the business of exercising its responsibility to investigate matters of public import. The beef tribunal will cost the hard-pressed Irish taxpayers £35 million. Much of this will be forked out in legal fees and, most scandalously of all, investigating allegations which were not supported by a shred of evidence. The cost of the tribunal is an issue for the ordinary taxpayer. Let us not forget that amidst all the ballyhoo.
I note with interest how Opposition Deputies, particularly those who were baying for its establishment, are silent on the cost of the tribunal. Why do they refer to the matter in a hurried, muted fashion? They mutter that the cost of the affair is unfortunate but say at the end of the day it was worth it. The worth of the tribunal is essentially a matter for the people to decide; they will pronounce judgment on its prime instigators. There will be more to come as more and more people make the connection between (a) the cost of the tribunal, (b) the utterly unfounded allegations and (c) the Deputies who made the allegations.
I note also that some media commentators referred to the issue of the cost of the tribunal as a "populist" tactic. How distasteful, how utterly common. That is rubbish. The cost of the tribunal is the one issue that sticks in the craw of the man and woman in the street. There is a responsibility to the people to ensure their money is put to good use. Deputies who dismiss this responsibility display a contempt for the interests of the taxpayer and their own elitist credentials.
Before Opposition Deputies attempt to remount their high horses, I will remind them of the fact that, since its inception, the export credit scheme has paid out less than £8 million as a result of beef exports to Iraq, and most of that money is likely to be recovered. This is not such a bad record for a scheme which covers hundreds of millions of pounds of exports and contributes a great deal to the creation of jobs and wealth. This scheme, which has been the subject of seemingly endless discussion, will cost significantly less than the tribunal. Opposition Deputies should bear that in mind.
I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach asked Deputy Dempsey to prepare a report on how public inquiries are conducted in other countries. If there is a cheaper and more effective way of carrying out an inquiry, we should utilise it. I also welcome the fact that the Taoiseach asked Deputy Dempsey to ensure early publication of the Bill on privilege and compellability of witnesses, which is designed to afford greater investigative powers to Dáil committees. This will give a much more pro-active role to the Oireachtas in investigating important matters of public interest.
However, I sound a note of caution. Any proposed legislation in this area should contain specific safeguards ensuring that Deputies do not abuse this process or hijack it for personal political gain. Earlier this year, in the run up to the European elections, Deputies O'Malley, Rabbitte and Jim Mitchell, all aspiring MEPs, turned the Committee of Public Accounts into something of a circus in their desire for self publicity. None of them was successful, however, so it obviously did not work.
Deputy Batt O'Keeffe had nothing to do with it?
Deputy O'Keeffe was not running for Europe.
Deputy Ryan is in possession.
Deputy Ryan should be aware that Deputy Batt O'Keeffe raised the issue at the Committee of Public Accounts.
Deputy De Rossa is making an important point because it must be remembered that if there is more openness in Government — and I believe there should be — it should not be abused by Members of the Opposition and that is what is happening in this House.
How can you abuse more openness in Government?
Opposition Deputies use everything they possibly can for cheap political gain. There is very little positive——
Can Deputy Ryan explain how one can abuse more openness in Government?
Deputy Ryan, without interruption.
It was abused at the committee to which I referred.
Tell us how? By asking questions and insisting on answers?
An excellent Government, such as that from 1987-89, faces the issues of the day decisively and responsibly. This trait is an integral part of the philosophy of the Fianna Fáil party and will continue to be long after the politics of smear and innuendo have been consigned to the dustbin.
The late 1980s will go down in Irish political history for one remarkable reason. It was the time of the business scandals when politicians came into this House and did everything they possibly could to ascribe the scandals in the business world to the then Leader of Fianna Fáil, Charles Haughey. It mattered little that he had no involvement in Telecom Éireann, Greencore or the other events at that time which indeed, subsequent inquiries established. All that really mattered was that it was imperative to bring him down and in doing so it was possible to damage Fianna Fáil as much as possible. Allegations became the order of the day, innuendo was the way to proceed, rumour became fact and misrepresentation and character assassination was the way to proceed with political life in this country.
Having ultimately failed to destroy Fianna Fáil, Mr. Haughey stepped down and Opposition politicians then trained their guns on the present Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds. It is wrong for any politician to come in here and utilise Dáil privilege to destroy a person's political and personal reputation. A number of politicians in this House have made their political names and political capital by making accusations which they only half believed to be true or indeed did not believe.
Is the Deputy referring to the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring?
Those people know to whom I am referring. They enhanced their reputations on the backs of other people's integrity. If we are to have an honest and open democracy in this country, such behaviour must stop.
I note Deputy De Rossa is in the House. On his benches is a man of outrageous brass neck whose performance in relation to the beef tribunal must be dealt with in great detail.
Like Veha.
Deputy De Rossa will know, as Deputy Rabbitte knows, that he made irresponsible, baseless allegations and, as the report states, failed to adduce evidence in support of his allegations. The investigation of these false allegations cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds and if we are to believe Deputy Rabbitte now, he was duped into making the bulk of those allegations. I do not know about revealing one's sources but if you do not reveal your source the very least you could do as a matter of justice to other people is to check your source. Deputy Rabbitte stood over his baseless allegations throughout the 226 days of a £35 million tribunal even when evidence piled up against each and every one of his allegations. Perhaps most unbelievable of all is his refusal in this House to accept the findings of the tribunal. Finally, when all else failed and he was not satisified with the findings of the official tribunal report, Deputy Rabbitte decided he would write his own report.
Does this apply to Deputy Spring as well?
This work of fiction totally ignores the findings of the tribunal. It is a tremendous piece of revisionist history.
The same allegations were made by Deputy Spring.
Deputy O'Donoghue without interruption.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying to those who made baseless allegations that if the cap fits, wear it.
Put his name on the record.
I do not think the Deputy has any doubt about whom I am speaking.
Deputy Ray Burke put his name on the record.
Deputy De Rossa will have his opportunity in three minutes.
Deputy Rabbitte's careful selection does not include the findings which rubbish virtually all of his allegations or the findings that he undermined the independence and integrity of the Revenue Commissioners. I think we should hear from Deputy Rabbitte on these issues and from others who made allegations which prove to be completely false. The behaviour of Deputy Rabbitte and others is despicable and unacceptable for a Member of this House. Having been duped into making false allegations, as Deputy Rabbitte described it, under the privilege of this House and having wasted millions of taxpayers' money in investigating and disproving these false allegations, he now refused to accept the findings of the tribunal. I would like to know what Deputy Rabbitte is resorting to now. His core allegations of political malpractice have been found to be without basis in fact and it is well worth noting the most common findings in the report about Deputy Rabbitte's allegations: "no evidence to support", "no evidence to suggest", "no basis for allegations", "constituted a serious attack on the independence and integrity of the Revenue Commissioners", and "statements are incorrect, baseless, absolutely baseless".
There can be no cherry picking in this report for Deputy Rabbitte because there are no cherries in the report for him. Can he and others get away from the fact that the Government of the day was not only exonerated of many of the alleged malpractices but also was found to have had a perfectly normal healthy relationship with the beef industry. This is portrayed in a remarkably careful manner by Mr. Justice Hamilton. Deputy Rabbitte and his cohorts should have the honesty to accept the findings of the President of the High Court. The Government and Deputies on this side of the House clearly accept them.
On the other hand it would appear that Deputies Rabbitte and O'Malley, in particular, refused to accept the tribunal's findings and in their contributions they have again abused the privilege of the House by naming and ridiculing public servants who have no means of defending themselves. Deputy Rabbitte failed to grasp the opportunity of this debate to accept the findings of the tribunal and reclaim some of his lost credibility. The consequence for him and others in this House who made allegations not only about this matter but about other scandals which occurred in the business world in the late 1980s must be that any allegations they make in the future should be treated with the disdain they deserve. I do not care whether the people who made false allegations are on the Opposition or Government benches.
It is clear that Deputy Rabbitte and many of those who made allegations failed in their attempt and this is an exoneration and vindication of the process which exposed these allegations as having no basis in fact. Those who made false allegations to this House and then said they were duped, duped the Irish people for a period but should now accept that they were wrong.
Before proceeding with my contribution may I point out to the Deputy that Deputy Rabbitte is the only Deputy in this House who so far has indicated that he accepts that some of the allegations were inaccurate and has accepted responsibility for that.
Financially?
It is extraordinary how Deputy O'Donoghue can say that every single allegation made by Deputies Rabbitte, Spring and O'Malley was found to be untrue and at the same time acknowledge——
——that the allegations of Deputy Rabbitte were proved to be untrue.
The Deputy in possession.
The Deputy referred to the Members in Government who made the allegations.
Others made allegations which were false as well.
The Deputy no more than any other person cannot cherry pick from the report. Serious faults are found in the report with the Taoiseach and the Goodman group of companies.
If Deputy De Rossa would address his remarks through the Chair there might be less reason for interruption.
Sir, could I make this interruption? I overheard the last couple of minutes of Deputy O'Donoghue's contribution——
I am sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, but you have made a number of inopportune interruptions.
I never said in this House that I was duped by anybody. I am nobody's dupe. I never said that in this House and let the record show that I never said it.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
Deputy O'Donoghue wants to ensure that Deputy Reynolds survives as Taoiseach. That is the name of the game for the past three days.
It is not my fault that Deputy O'Donoghue ended up in the wilderness.
The conflict in Northern Ireland apart, no single issue has had such a major impact on political developments in this country in recent years as the establishment of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry, its subsequent lengthy public hearings, and the publication of its report last month. The "World in Action" programme in May 1991 and the ensuing public controversy almost led to the collapse of the then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, and the conflict of evidence at the subsequent hearings between Deputies Reynolds and O'Malley eventually did lead to the collapse of that Administration and the November 1992 general election.
It was indeed a strange irony that the establishment of the tribunal, which had been strongly demanded by — among others — Deputy Spring, should have been the catalyst which led to his party entering into coalition with Fianna Fáil, the very party which he accused of such irregularities in regard to its dealings with the beef industry. Along the way, legal actions arising from the tribunal's proceedings resulted in important rulings from the courts in regard to Cabinet confidentiality and the right of TDs to protect their sources of information. The fallout from the tribunal continues with the shock news this week that a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the "World in Action" journalist Susan O'Keeffe.
The workload imposed on Mr. Justice Hamilton was enormous and he deserves the thanks of all of us in this House. Mr. Justice Hamilton made it clear that his was a fact finding mission. A bewildering range of devastating facts was established. However, the conclusions from those facts are seldom drawn except where the evidence is of a character appropriate to a criminal trial. It is clear from Mr. Justice Hamilton's report that it is a matter for this House, which commissioned the report, to draw political conclusions and take legislative steps where necessary.
The report is, in my view, an extremely revealing document which paints a deeply disturbing picture of the way in which big business in this country can operate and the casual manner in which decisions involving potentially huge sums of taxpayers' money were made. The report has implications for the process of Government and decision making way beyond the confines of the beef industry. The report, and the manner in which a few selected extracts were issued to the press on the evening it was received by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is an obvious attempt to give a distorted view of its findings, has very serious implications for cohesion of the Government and for trust between the parties in Government. This is a particularly serious consequence as developments in Northern Ireland reach such a crucial phase.
It is important to recall the background against which the tribunal was established, particularly in view of the attempts made in the House by Fianna Fáil to rewrite the history of it. During the 1980s many journalists and public representatives began to receive information alleging systematic irregularities in the beef industry, with particular reference to the Goodman group of companies. A number of public developments gave additional grounds for concern. In 1987 a prominent and long-standing figure in the Goodman organisation, Mr. Nobby Quinn, having been found in possession of South African customs stamps, was convicted of attempting to defraud the Department of Agriculture and Food, fined £8,000 and given a two year suspended jail sentence.
On 4 March 1989 Department of Agriculture and Food personnel accompanied by members of the Garda raided the Goodman-owned Eirfreeze plant in East Wall and, as a result of what they found, effectively closed down the plant. At the time the Goodman organisation strenuously denied there had been anything irregular going on in the plant and attacked in the most trenchant terms those Deputies who raised the matter in the Dáil. However, as we now know in July 1990 the Goodman-owned Eirfreeze company was convicted in the Dublin District Court and fined on two charges relating to illegal labelling of meat carcases arising from the March 1989 raid. During this period also evidence began to emerge which pointed to serious irregularities in the operation of the export credit insurance scheme and suggested that a considerable amount of the beef being covered was sourced outside of this jurisdiction.
In August 1990 the Goodman organisation staggered to the brink of collapse and the Dáil was recalled to rush through the Company (Amendment) Act to facilitate the appointment of an examiner to rescue the group. In a series of Dáil debates, in August 1990 on the Companies (Amendment) Bill and in October of that year during statements on agriculture, a number of Members drew the attention of the House and the Government to further allegations of irregularities, and these included allegations by my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, of systematic tax evasion.
In May 1991 the "World in Action" programme provided yet more evidence of serious irregularities in the Goodman organisation, including detailed statements by a former employee of the Goodman organisation, Mr. Patrick McGuinness. The "World in Action" programme alleged, among other things, the use of bogus stamps, falsification of documents, abuses of the export refund system and systematic tax abuses.
It is important to remind the House of these matters because attempts are now being made to suggest that there had been no serious grounds for the calling of a tribunal of inquiry and that the demand was motivated by hatred of the Goodman organisation and designed simply to cause embarrassment to Fianna Fáil.
It is also important to remind the House that the response of the Government to the serious matters of public concern I have listed was to batten down the hatches, deny that there was any problem and to attack those who raised very legitimate questions about irregularities in the beef industry. Dáil questions were not replied to, were transferred from one Minister to another or replied to in an inadequate or misleading way. As far as the Government was concerned, the pretence had to be maintained that everything in the garden was rosy. There was no option but to have an independent inquiry into an appalling state of affairs.
On 15 May 1991 when the Dáil had a special debate following the "World in Action" programme, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Senator O'Kennedy, came in here and proposed a motion "That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the regulatory and control procedures for the meat industry". It was at the end of his speech — most notable for his virulent attack on the "World in Action" programme — and contrary to everything he said prior to that, that he announced the decision to establish the tribunal. We now know that the decision was made by the Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, because the Progressive Democrats had threatened to withdraw from Government and that the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, was handed a note to this effect in the course of his speech.
Even a brief glance through the most important findings of the report will confirm that not only were we justified in calling for the tribunal but it was essential that the inquiry be held. Among the most salient findings of Mr. Justice Hamilton were: that the Goodman Group was guilty at the most senior level of professionally organising the biggest tax fraud ever uncovered in the history of the State; that there was a reckless abuse of the export credit insurance scheme by the Minister, Deputy Reynolds, against all the professional and administrative advice; that he exposed taxpayers to a potential liability of more than £100 million for no economic benefit to this State, since the product insured came either from intervention or from outside the State; that the Government broke the law in order to force the IDA to give Goodman what he wanted; that in one Goodman plant alone, thanks to a rare example of "public spirit" by a former manager, more than £900,000 worth of beef was misappropriated; that the same company, actively engaged in fraud and malpractice, was at the same time being handed unimaginable millions in insurance cover and cheap loans valued at a capital value of £27 million, approved in the context of the Development Plan but drawn down even though the plan never got off the ground, and that meanwhile other beef processing companies were being put "at a considerable disadvantage". That is a litany of disgrace.
Individually, any of these findings would be a matter of serious concern but taken collectively they constitute a damning indictment of the standards of the Goodman organisation and of the failure of those in the responsible positions in Government to exercise proper control and supervision of the industry and to take the precautions necessary to protect the interests of the taxpayers.
For nobody in the political arena are the findings more serious than for the Taoiseach. He was the central Government figure involved in virtually all the Government decisions, policy errors and misjudgments which the tribunal highlighted. As Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Taoiseach was the Government Minister with responsibility for the IDA at a time when the tribunal found that the Government acted illegally by instructing it to drop the performance clause. He was the Minister with responsibility for the export credit insurance scheme who exposed the taxpayer to a potential liability of more than £100 million without undertaking any checks to establish whether such huge risks would convey any benefit to our economy. He was the Minister who chose to ignore the professional advice available to him that this should not be done. He was the Minister who failed to establish that much of the beef was being sourced outside of the country and that even more was coming from intervention stocks.
The most benevolent interpretation of the Taoiseach's conduct in these matters was that it was extraordinarily incompetent. Nobody could quibble with the description by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, that the handling by the Minister Deputy Reynolds of the ECIS affairs constituted a "policy disaster". The Tánaiste cannot now run away from the questions which inevitably follow on from that description. Is the Tánaiste prepared to continue to serve as the second in command to the author of this policy disaster and a man whose judgment has been called into question by the findings of the Tribunal? Is the Labour Party happy that the political leadership of the country should be in the hands of somebody who was shown to have acted in such an irresponsible and cavalier way? What kind of appalling disaster lurks around the corner if he handles the Northern Ireland situation in the same way? This is a serious question which needs to be addressed.
In addition the entirely bogus claims by the Taoiseach's handlers within two hours of the receipt of the report, which attempted to paint a totally distorted version of the findings in regard to the Taoiseach, including the extraction of two different sentences more than 30 pages apart to manufacture a totally bogus quotation, and which were clearly a pre-emptive strike against the Tánaiste, must make Labour wonder about its claims that Fianna Fáil has changed. The painful lesson for the Labour Party from the handling of the release of the report is that the political nature of Fianna Fáil has not changed. The culture of the stroke, trick, nod and wink is deeply ingrained in Fianna Fáil and it will take much more than a coalition with Labour to change that.
The Church of Ireland Gazette, hardly an organ with a political axe to grind, concluded that: “The selective use of both a report of this nature and of the Government press secretary by one Government Minister, albeit the Taoiseach, raises questions about his approach to and style of Government”. Saying that the leaks were designed to give the impression that the Taoiseach had been totally vindicated, the editorial noted that this was “a conclusion that most independent analysts did not reach independently when they they had the opportunity to scrutinise the full report themselves”. It went on to say: “Mr. Reynolds may have been first to claim he had been vindicated, but his quest for three short days of vindication may have misfired, and it appears they will be followed by weeks of closer scrutiny”. Nor will the pathetic speech made here by the Taoiseach on Thursday do anything to rescue his sinking credibility. The Taoiseach made no attempt to respond to the legitimate questions posed not just by Members of the House but by independent commentators who have closely followed the tribunal's proceedings.
It was predictable that the Taoiseach would attack Deputies Rabbitte and O'Malley for making allegations but it is extraordinary that he totally ignored the man sitting at his shoulder who had made substantially the same allegations. In the Taoiseach's contribution there is not one single reference to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring. It was a bizarre speech, a surreal experience to listen to it. It was as though the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs had been totally air-brushed out of the tribunal saga. It was like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark or, perhaps more appropriately, a pantomime without the principal boy.
More reprehensible was the fact that the Taoiseach's speech contained not a single word of criticism, direct or indirect, veiled or otherwise, of the Goodman organisation despite the indictment of that group by the tribunal. It was as though nothing had changed: the "Larry can do no wrong" attitude, which facilitated many of the original abuses, clearly still holds sway in Fianna Fáil. However, in the Taoiseach's contribution one will find a totally dishonourable and disreputable attempt to blame honest, hard-working public servants for his errors and misjudgments as a Minister.
Perhaps the one disclosure in the report not previously known was that the Goodman organisation was to be a beneficiary of the tax amnesty, which outraged public opinion. In this respect let us recall what Mr. Justice Hamilton found in regard to under the counter payments and tax evasion. I quote from pages 335-336 of the report:
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal was satisfied, and could not have been other than satisfied by the entire of the evidence it heard and the admissions made on behalf of Goodman International to the Revenue Commissioners as outlined above that:
(i) the allegations made with regard to under-the-counter payments have been fully substantiated;
(ii) there was a deliberate policy in the Goodman Group of companies to evade payments of Income Tax by way of under-the-counter payments to employees;
(iii) the making of such payments was concealed in the records of the company by recording of fictitious payments to hauliers and farmers;
(iv) the records of the company were misleading and calculated to deceive the Revenue Authorities in the event of an investigation and did so deceive them;
(v) the records submitted by the Goodman Group of companies were misleading and intended to be so;
(vi) the reason why the Revenue Authorities were deceived and the ordinary investigations carried out by the Revenue Authorities did not disclose the payments made without deduction of income tax or PRSI contributions was because such payments were cloaked by fictitious invoices allegedly showing payments to hauliers, farmers and fictitious expenses;
(vii) the system of concealment was common in all relevant plants, was known to the top management of the group, undoubtedly authorised by them and in the words of Mr. O'Donghaile of the Revenue Investigation Branch "was very well and professionally put together and had been organised by a large organisation and it had been organised by professionals".
Despite this shocking litancy of abuse, it now appears that the tax amnesty will allow Goodman to avoid interest and penalties in respect of unpaid taxes going back as far as 1983. Now we find that those responsible for what may well be the most serious case of systematic tax evasion ever to come to the attention of the authorities — and which may well have continued had not Deputy Rabbitte provided documentary evidence to the tribunal to expose it — will have their slate wiped clean in terms of interest and penalties. This was not just a case of a company failing to meet its deadlines; this was a systematic, well planned and widespread scheme to avoid paying tax and PRSI. Of course, as we pointed out frequently, every pound in tax evaded is an extra pound on the tax burden of compliant taxpayers. In virtually ever other jurisdiction worldwide those responsible for such activities would have found themselves in the dock answering to the courts and the law of the land. What does it say about the priorities about our legal system that the only person being prosecuted is the journalist who drew the attention of the public to so many irregularities in the Goodman group, while apparently no legal action has been taken against those responsible for this massive tax scam?
Some of these payments go back as far as 1983. If the normal rules were applied to the Goodman group, in addition to any penalities imposed by the Revenue Commissioners, the group would be liable to interest at a rate of 1.25 per cent per month. Clearly this would have amounted to a huge amount of money; instead of the £8.63 million recouped by the Exchequer on an estimated liability of £12 million, the figure recovered would have been closer to £20 million.
The document circulated by the Fianna Fáil Press Office to Fianna Fáil Deputies, based on the document circulated by the Goodman organisation, assisted by A & L Goodbody, as it is intended to be, is seriously misleading. In fact one of Deputy Batt O'Keeffe's many inaccuracies last evening related to the extent of tax fraud when he said that my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, had plucked a figure out of the air. The figure is arrived at as follows: a settlement of £4.53 million — on an estimated liability of £8.3 million — in October-November, and a settlment now of a further £4.1 million. This total estimated liability of £12.4 million — the figure given by Deputy Rabbitte — would have been closer to £20 million if it had not been for the Government amnesty.
While Fianna Fáil bear political responsibility for the matter investigated by the tribunal, Labour must accept joint responsibility for the introduction of last year's amnesty. There was no reference in the Programme for Government to any amnesty. Labour could have said "no". Of course, not only did Labour not say "no", but a number of Labour Members, most notably the Chairman of that party, Deputy Kemmy, championed the amnesty from the very beginning. In the light of this, it was really sickening to observe the hypocritical hand-wringing on the part of a number of Government backbenchers when it emerged that Goodman was to be a beneficiary of the amnesty. One after another they queued up to express their shock and horror at the prospect. They never believed, they said, that the amnesty could be applied to an evader like Goodman. Who did they think would benefit from the amnesty? Was it some unfortunate old age pensioner with a few hundred pounds stuck in the sofa? Did they not read the relevant Bill? Did they not hear the warnings from this side of the House and from a range of independent commentators that the principal beneficiaries of the amnesty would be large scale tax criminals? One of the lessons of this tribunal must be that never again must there be an amnesty like this; never again must there be a tax charter for tax cheats; never again must we reward those who set out to deliberately defraud compliant taxpayers.
One of the most important recommendations of Mr. Justice Hamilton was that which said auditors' responsibility should be extended to oblige them to report tax evasion to the Revenue Commissioners. He suggested that an appropriate amendment should be incorporated in next year's Finance Bill. Already there has been a predictably hostile reaction from some of the professional groups representing auditors and accountants but we will be insisting that this be resisted. Indeed, I am surprised there has been no confirmation so far by the Government that the 1995 Finance Bill will include the appropriate amendment. I was particularly disappointed — despite the commitment on the part of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, on radio, that it would be included — that he indicated this morning that all he is doing at present is looking at the question, saying that it will be difficult and that he hopes to have something sensible in due course. That is a euphemism for saying he will not do anything. I hope some effort within Government will be made to ensure that this issue is not dodged.
One of the most extraordinary aspects of this affair has been the continuing arrogance of the Goodman group of companies, their absolute lack of any indication of regret or remorse for any of the extensive irregularities the tribunal has established occurred in Goodman plants. There is a whole list of them, I do not have time to go into in detail at present, but it is a litany of shame for the Goodman organisation. Yet its statement responding to the publication of the report contained not one word of regret, of remorse, not one word of apology to the people. The best the company could do was to acknowledge that the report contained criticisms of certain aspects of its operations at some of the company's plants. It said that no breach of the regulations was acceptable to the company, that the tribunal's criticisms would be carefully studied by the company, and where appropriate, further steps taken to modify or improve existing procedures. The principal thrust of the Goodman statement, as has been their response from the very beginning, was to attack the integrity of those who had raised questions about their operations. Top management in the Goodman organisation have been indicated by the tribunal, not merely of complicity in the biggest tax fraud in the history of this State, but of organising it. We know that Mr. Larry Goodman was told personally by Stokes, Kennedy Crowley of the fraud at the Cahir plant but the report does not name him.
In the case of the malpractices and irregularities the report finds that there is no evidence that Mr. Goodman was aware of those irregularities. I have to say I find it extraordinary, and difficult to accept, that a man like Mr. Larry Goodman, who was always proud of his "hands on" approach, who has in other circumstances shown himself to have a very detailed knowledge of the minutiae of his plants' operations, would have been so careless as to have missed the extensive abuses I listed. What is more, there is no evidence to suggest that any sanction was taken against any of the plant managers and officials who, according to the AIBP version of affairs, acted on their own initiative in these matters.
Why they should want to put themselves at risk in this way, when the financial beneficiary from their activities was the company, nobody has ventured to explain.
Indeed all the available evidence from the past suggests that those who admitted responsibility for irregularities were known to prosper. Take the case of Mr. Nobby Quinn, manager of Cahir Meats, who was fined £8,000 and given a two year suspended sentence in the Dublin District Court on 17 September 1987 arising from the possession of bogus South African customs stamps. On the day of his conviction, Mr. Quinn tendered his resignation from Anglo Irish Beef Processors for whom he had worked for 20 years. Nothing further was heard of Mr. Quinn for about two years until he emerged as chief executive of Classic Meats, a company subsequently found to be in the control of the Goodman organisation.
There has been a concerted effort by Fianna Fáil Deputies, going back over the course of tribunal's hearings and through this debate, to focus almost exclusively on the considerable cost of the tribunal and particularly the huge fees paid to lawyers. This was, of course, part of a deliberate strategy aimed at diverting attention away from the substantive allegations made against the Taoiseach, the Goodman organisation and others and the findings of the report itself.
A number of other aspects relating to legal representation at the tribunal need to be referred to. My colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, has already dealt with the failure of the State legal team at the tribunal to defend the public interest. What is of even more concern is that the State legal team — presumably acting on the instructions of the Attorney General — took it upon themselves to act as the virtual legal allies of the Goodman team. On many occasions it was difficult to tell which legal team was representing the State and which was representing Goodman.
Witnesses employed in the industry, including Patrick McGuinness whose claims were substantially upheld by the Mr. Justice Hamilton, who came forward in good faith to help the tribunal by drawing attention to abuses of which they aware, were invariably subjected to merciless assault by the State lawyers.
Perhaps the most astonishing indication of the perverse approach of the State legal team was that on the conclusion of the tribunal they sought costs not against the Goodman group who had been forced to admit its involvement in multi-million pound tax evasion, not against the Goodman companies which had been found by the tribunal to have been involved in a wide range of malpractices, including the theft of beef, but against Granada Television which produced the "World in Action" television programme.
What does it say about the State and its legal officers that the only party it pursues for costs is Granada Television? The only person against whom a prosecution has been initiated is the journalist who made the programme. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the State regards it as a lesser matter to offend than to draw the attention of the authorities to the offence.
Like everyone else I am concerned about the ultimate financial cost of the tribunal. However, a number of points has to be made. First, nobody — including Mr. Justice Hamilton, I am sure — could have envisaged that the tribunal would have taken so long to establish the facts. Second, it was a Fianna Fáil appointed Attorney General who agreed the substantial level of fees paid to the lawyers acting for the State and the tribunal, and it is the Attorney General who must therefore accept responsibility for the costs involved.
The costs are only one side of the balance sheet. A substantial part of the fees paid will, in any event, make their way back into the Exchequer by way of the withholding tax. Very substantial sums of money have already been recovered in evaded taxes as a result of inquiries instituted by the tribunal on the basis of documentary evidence supplied by Deputy Rabbitte. I ask Fianna Fáil Deputies who attempted to imply otherwise to bear that in mind.
A Deputy
The Deputy is wasting his time.
Further very substantial sums will be saved by the fact that the Revenue Commissioners have been alerted to the system used and that they have taken steps to end those scams — not just in the beef industry but in other industries as well. Yet more money will be saved as a result of the new regulatory and control procedures, some already put in place as a result of matters uncovered by the tribunal and the others which have been recommended by Mr. Justice Hamilton and which the Government has promised to implement. We have to see them.
Nobody can put a financial value on the benefit to the Irish economy of the enhanced reputation and standing of the Irish meat industry at home and abroad if the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Hamilton are implemented, but it is likely to far exceed the cost of the tribunal. The Irish taxpayer will be a substantial net beneficiary of this tribunal.
In the nature of things we cannot deprive the public of this form of accountability. I resist any attempt to say that there cannot ever be an independent tribunal again. There is clearly a need to look at ways in which tribunals can be less costly and what mechanisms are required to make them unnecessary. We need also to look at alternative forms of public inquiry. We must learn the lessons of the past three years. The most important is that, as Mr. Justice Hamilton remarked, the tribunal might have been avoided had Ministers been more forthcoming in replies to Dáil questions. Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that there has been any change of attitude or practice on the part of this administration on that score.
Open government, an obligation to give honest answers to legitimate questions, access to information and public accountability must become a reality and not remain aspirations. There must be institutional changes. We need a code of practice for Government Ministers backed up with greater powers for Dáil committees, as such as the Committee of Public Accounts, to monitor Government activity, to investigate it where necessary and to inquire into matters of legitimate public concern. If this is the outcome then the expenditure on the tribunal will have been worth while.
The questions left unanswered will remain on the political agenda and Fianna Fáil should bear that in mind. The decision at the Labour Party to turn a blind eye to the standards it espoused in opposition by going into coalition with Fianna Fáil and continuing to support the Taoiseach, despite the findings of the report, will return to haunt Deputy Spring and his colleagues. They also should bear that in mind.
In the closing comments of my address I will focus in on the last few points raised by Deputy De Rossa of Democratic left.
Let me make it clear that I am not a specialist on the subject matter of the tribunal's deliberations over the last three years. Unlike the main players in this House who were represented at the tribunal and who have spoken in this debate, I have not had a direct relationship with the tribunal. I will, therefore, focus on a general evaluation.
As we know, the report makes rather difficult reading. It is obviously a carefully crafted and exactly phrased document which applies a logical and a sober legal analysis to the issues thrown up by the Oireachtas when the tribunal was established. Mr. Justice Hamilton has structured the report on his brief of carrying out a fact finding operation and there is no point at this stage in my attempting, or indeed any other Deputy attempting, to re-open the particular facts argued for so long before the tribunal. Instead it is incumbent on this House to apply a wider political analysis to the findings of the report and to see what implications arise for our national political life.
The commitment that the Programme for a Partnership Government gave in January 1993 was to implement the findings of the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. Labour in Government confirms that commitment now in this debate and with this motion. We will implement all the recommendations of the beef tribunal. I would want to go further, and propose that we act not just on the specific recommendations of the report but also implement any other reforms that spring from the analysis in the report. The obvious shortcomings in our political system which are disclosed by the report must be addressed. It is our task as politicians to complete this analysis and to agree on what must be done. Like others, I must say that I am astounded by the massive tax fraud by the Goodman companies, the abuses of the system of regulatory control endemic in the beef processing industry, the appalling handling by the then minority Fianna Fáil Government of that industry and of the export credit insurance scheme, the very doubtful role of professional advisers, and the lack of candour and transparency shown by the political system in dealing with reasonable requests for information. Never again can we allow this to happen. As long as Labour is in a position to prevent it, it will not happen again.
Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the report present a whole series of major policy decisions by the Government of the day designed specifically to assist the Goodman group. My colleague, the Tánaiste, has already pointed to the public support given by the Government for the promotional efforts of that group; the blank cheque approach to the granting of export credit insurance; provision of grants; the wholesale ignoring of reasonable objections raised by public servants and the degrees of access at all times to Ministers by Goodman International. We have to live with the financial and legal consequences of decisions made in those years.
Nothing I say in this House can change what happened but we can change our approach to relations between business and industry for the future. Since I became Minister for Enterprise and Employment in January 1993 I encouraged a positive environment for business. I explained to private sector interests that we required a vibrant and successful business community which will develop wealth for the benefit of all the nation. My approach to business is open and transparent. The doors of my Department are open to every Irish company with ideas and plans. No one can doubt the bona fides of my office or of the Labour Party in the promotion of the private sector.
I have steered the report of the industrial policy review group, better known as the Culliton report, and the recommendations of the Moriarty Task Force through Government and I am engaged in an ongoing process of implementation of the specific recommendations. In accordance with our commitments under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work I have engaged in widespread social and economic consultation with all the social partners, to build a broader consensus for the development of our industrial base and our economy generally. My point is that my policy favours Ireland and Ireland alone. Never again must a policy decision be taken to effectively favour one company or individual in a secret or reckless way which puts at risk the common good of our economy and society.
In keeping with the approach in the Government programme to openness, transparency and accountability, I have set about providing an environment of business standards which will match those of any other country in western Europe. The company law review group established by me earlier this year has a mandate to furnish an interim report on a number of specific items of policy by the end of November. Among the areas for reform are some which bear directly on the findings of the tribunal of inquiry.
It is somewhat ironic that the review group will report on the workings of the examinership system which was set up initially to cater for the difficulties being experienced by the Goodman companies. The original examinership legislation was introduced in great haste in August 1990 and has not proved a resounding success. I hope we can fine tune it so that the maximum number of companies can be saved while at the same time companies which are bound to fail anyway do not abuse the protection of the courts provided by the 1990 Companies Act.
The company law review group is also dealing with the whole topic of corporate governance. It is widely recognised at the end of the 20th century that the management of large companies must become much more accountable and open with their shareholders, their employees, their creditors and the public generally. The review group is examining the Ryan report on accounting standards and I know that one of the items before the group is the extent to which there should be a duty on auditors to report wrongdoing in companies. It is not acceptable that there should simply be an ethical obligation on auditors to act. Their hands would be much more open if they have the force of law requiring them to report tax fraud and indeed other wrongdoings to the authorities.
In response to Deputy De Rossa, I am aware of the concerns expressed by the accountancy professions regarding the implications of enshrining a specific recommendation in the Finance Act, 1995. We will have to overcome those difficulties to ensure that we have a sensible statute. I give the House a commitment in that regard today.
I will place the interim report of the company law review group before the House at the first opportunity and bring forward legislation to give effect to its recommendations at the earliest possible time. Before I leave office I intend to leave in place a structure of business standards which will ensure that honest decent business people have nothing to fear from those who cut corners or break the rules.
On the system of dealing with legitimate concerns and questions raised by Members of this House and the public generally with the Administration, the failure to deal openly with parliamentary questions as exposed by the report of the tribunal is nothing short of a scandal. My sympathy is with the dedicated public servants who were encouraged to provide replies that were a bland and anodyne representation of policy and practice, instead of the hard facts which were legitimately sought by my colleagues in this House. The effort put into preventing information being given to this House was symptomatic of a culture of secrecy and paranoia which has no place in modern Ireland.
I will seek to provide full and frank answers as far as possible and at all times to Members of this House and to the public. I have invested a good deal of time in turning around the work practices which for so many years made it difficult for the public to communicate with the former Department of Industry and Commerce.
Much more needs to be done. I agree with the Tánaiste that we need a thorough analysis of the level of accountability provided by the political system. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, is preparing legislation on freedom of information which, taken with the Ethics in Public Office Bill and the proposed electoral Bill on political funding, will go a long way towards creating the open environment we want to achieve. She has described at length, in her contribution yesterday to this debate, the developments which will take place. I commend anyone interested to read her speech. I confirm once again that we will do what has been promised. On the prosecution of a journalist for refusal to disclose her sources of information to the tribunal I appreciate and accept that the chairman of the tribunal has to operate the rules of evidence in accordance with the law. It is absolutely unconscionable for persons who supply information to the public, such as journalists acting in good faith, to be exposed to the hazard of criminal sanctions. This is even more the case when the matters exposed include systematic tax fraud and wrongdoing. By contrast, each member of the public who notifies the Garda Síochána of the occurrence of a criminal offence or, as in the case in my Department, where a member of the public notifies the Director of Consumer Affairs of a breach of some consumer protection regulation, that informant is guaranteed complete confidentiality. Perhaps we should not extend the same privilege to journalists in every case, but we certainly cannot go on with a system under which the first person to be threatened with criminal prosecution arising from the beef tribunal inquiry is a bona fide journalist. Whatever needs to be done to protect this journalist must be done and the Tánaiste gave a commitment in that regard in his contribution.
The public expects that the wrongdoers will be dealt with and I earnestly hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions will without delay take all necessary action to deal with the facts disclosed by the tribunal report. Again in response to Deputy De Rossa, it is now a matter for the DPP to initiate such prosecutions.
The DPP is an independent officer and rightly so. The ordinary decent people of this country await and expect vigorous action from the prosecuting authorities against the tax defruders and their accomplices.
With regard to the future, the Tánaiste has proposed a group of eminent persons, nominated by the political parties in the House, to examine the issues of accountability and reform highlighted by the report and this group would report directly to the House. I endorse this proposal and I hope the various parliamentary party Leaders will agree to nominate persons of appropriate standing so this work can be undertaken as soon as possible.
I congratulate the Tánaiste and my former colleague in this House, Barry Desmond, on the tremendous public service they performed in the late 1980s in highlighting the irregularities in the beef industry. They have enriched political life here and upheld the finest standards of parliamentary democracy. All Members of the House owe a debt of gratitude to those Deputies and indeed to the other Deputies who raised similar matters. My colleagues have helped to preserve the standards of our democracy and have made a significant contribution ensuring a high standard of behaviour in our public administration.
I have every confidence that the partnership Government will take all action required to prevent any repetition of the events of the late 1980s and that the Government agenda will move our standards of democracy to the highest possible plane. As Minister for Enterprise and Employment, my objectives are to promote high and sustainable growth in industry and services, along with rising employment, coupled with high standards of business behaviour supported by whatever legal sanctions are required.
The world is changing rapidly and we must change with it. Improved standards of public administration and high standards of transparency, honesty and efficiency are increasingly required by the rapidly globalising world economy. In short, in the new world economy of the coming century, we need to establish and maintain new standards which will give Ireland a unique competitive advantage. In a major speech reviewing the prospect for Ireland in that emerging new global economy I put forward five goals which we could attain by the year 2010.. I set out those goals in a speech in June. They are as follows: (i) to reach a per capita income equivalent to the European Union average; (ii) to achieve full employment for all seeking work; (ii) to have the best managed and preserved environment in the European Union; (iv) to be seen as the best location to do business in Europe because we have the best public administration system in the Union; (v) that we would be perceived by those outside Europe as the best entrance into Europe for English-speaking business.
If we are to have the best public administration system in the European Union, then it will be honest, transparent and efficient. If we are to attract investment from outside Europe through Ireland to the Union, then these people will want to be sure they are secure and safe when doing business in Europe through Ireland. This issue is of enormous importance and will increasingly become more so in years to come.
We need to introduce the many reforms I described not only to correct the wrongs of the past, but to build a solid and profitable basis for the future. These reforms are not only morally and ethically correct, the make sound business sense as well.
Throughout the debate the Labour Party has been criticised by some speakers in this House, especially from the Opposition benches. Fine Gael should remember where it is coming from in this context. During 1987 to 1989, the period when the bulk of the wrongdoings occurred and when the policy disasters were beginning to emerge, Fine Gael was, in the last analysis, keeping in power, through the Tallaght strategy, the minority Government of the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey. The Tánaiste has already outlined to the House Deputy John Bruton's political passes at Fianna Fáil under the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, after the 1989 election when the merits of a Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael partnership apparently exercised his mind with some degree of excitement. Of more importance, it was not Fine Gael who led the process of exposure of wrongdoings in the beef industry. It was Deputies Desmond, Spring, O'Malley, Rabbitte and others who took up that formidable task and fought against intimidation and abuse from Fianna Fáil and from the commercial interests involved. What a nerve Deputy Gay Mitchell and others have to attack Labour now on this issue when from 1987 to 1989 and afterwards their interest in wrongdoing was minimal. Then they were mute mules; now they pretend to be frustrated angels. They are absent now with the exception of Deputy Kenny.
Was the Minister's speech written in Kitty O'Shea's?
I admit that none of us in political life is without blemish. We may accept what the tribunal says, but we may wish to draw different interpretations from certain of the facts outlined.
All of us in politics have many lessons to learn from what Mr. Justice Hamilton said. We have now to look to the future, to refer to the findings of the report when necessary to improve the quality and openness and public relevance of what we do in this House.
To all those Deputies in this House and to many people outside who are unhappy about Labour in Government I say that in 1992 Labour promised change, ethics in Government and justice in economics. For many the formation of the partnership Government of Labour and Fianna Fáil appeared to deny that change. Many were confused, some were disappointed and Fine Gael was outraged, but in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "they would, wouldn't they."
There has been more change in the past 20 months than in the past 20 years. I will deal with three areas in this regard. After 20 months in office we have the best managed and best run economy in the European Union, having regard to the five criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty with respect to economic and monetary union. It is inconceivable that 21 or 22 months ago anyone would have predicted that a Labour-Fianna Fáil administration would be able to say that. I challenge anybody inside or outside the House to rebut it. In addition to that, according to the ESRI and confirmed by many other independent economists, we have the best prospects in 20 years for medium term economic growth and employment. The national plan complements that and the many reforms and developments, from the implementation of the Culliton report to the establishment of the county enterprise boards, are all evidence of this. There is more to come. We are not afraid to take difficult decisions and those made in respect of the Shannon stopover, Aer Lingus and Irish Steel are a clear indication that we combine ethics in Government and justice in economics. Significant proposals are being developed to transform the whole area of long term unemployment. In the past 20 months there has been change beyond belief in our economy which no one could have anticipated in the dark Christmas and New Year of 1992 and 1993.
With regard to social reform this Government will be known in future as the one which transformed Ireland from a confessional state to an open pluralist democratic republic. The Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, and the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach are in the process of introducing a range of reforms as set out in the Programme for Government. Both parties in Government are committed, and both parties will deliver. Social reform has been established with regard to family planning after the nonsense of more than 20 years and the famous McGee case. A number of years following the deliberations of a European court we have had the full and progressive decriminalisation of homosexuality, which extends beyond the position that prevails in Great Britain.
In the area of Dáil reform, we have done more in 20 months than has been achieved in the past 70 years, and there is more to come. As outlined in the Programme for Government, and described by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, such reform includes legislation on ethics in Government, State funding for political parties, Dáil reform, new structures compelling witnesses to attend before committees as well as legislation on freedom of information. All that legislation is promised, some has been delivered and the rest will follow shortly.
The Minister should be promoted to the office of Taoiseach.
This Government has played a unique role in bringing about the complete cease-fire in Northern Ireland after 25 years. The Downing Street Declaration, for which the path was paved by the enunciation by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, in his six principles speech, gave the light for the IRA-Sinn Féin leadership to end the violence. That could not have happened without the input from the Irish Government and it would not have come about had Labour not been in Government. In a number of weeks the forum for peace and reconciliation will build on this breakthrough. In addition, the framework document being drafted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Northern Ireland office, to be agreed between Dublin and London, will outline a clear and an honourable way forward for all people and both traditions to find a lasting and peaceful resolution to more than 100 years of destruction and violent conflict.
In the three areas to which I referred, the economy, social reform and the North, dramatic, courageous and meaningful change has already taken place. To all the critics of the Labour Party inside and outside the House, I say that it has come about because, and only because, Labour is in Government. We have worked well with Fianna Fáil, but Fianna Fáil did not and could not have made those changes on its own or even when it had the support of the Progressive Democrats. Labour's role was, is and will be central and critical. These changes could not have been made without the support and the political commitment of Fianna Fáil. The Taoiseach has rightly earned great credit for the present ceasefire in Northern Ireland and, in turn, he paid public tribute to the leadership and support of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, leader of the Labour Party.
In regard to the theme which has run through Opposition Members' contributions the debate that Labour should forego its opportunity to change the future because of wrongdoing for which we had no responsibility and which, in some cases, was tacitly supported by the silence of Fine Gael and the extraordinary behaviour of Deputy O'Malley when he was in office and could have looked at those files himself——
He cancelled the policy.
Nothing substantial was done. We will implement the Programme for Government and complete our term of office. We will continue to transform the economy. We will continue the programme of social reform in respect of which we have already travelled a long distance and we will solve the problem of peace and progress in Northern Ireland as evidenced by the extraordinary progress we have made already in 20 months. With that prospect, mean and miserably-minded Deputies, driven in many cases by envy and frustration, want us to leave Government, when we have the prospect of transforming this country before the end of the century, and for no other motive than their own anger, isolation and total political incompetence. Three parties who could hardly talk to each other 20 months ago cannot now get out of the same bed without the need to try to attack us. We have transformed this country, we have driven those three parties together as a result and we will not be put on any false hook because those parties want us to get out. We will continue to transform the country and we will have a pluralist, open, democratic republic which will be the envy of the political union in Europe.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is a hypocrite.
The word "hyprocrite" is disorderly.
The Deputies opposite can shout and roar all they like——
(Interruptions.)
Let the Opposition Members eat their own words and stop acting the idiot.
That Minister has such respect for this House that he walked out.
Deputy Carey has already made a contribution in this House. He may not speak a second time.
The Minister referred to his colleagues as idiots. He should withraw that.
Is Deputy Harney the designated spokesperson for her party and availing of the one hour time slot?
The Labour Party made promises here before and did not keep them.
Deputy Carey has created disorder. He must desist.
I acknowledge, like many other speakers, that this debate takes place in the shadow of the historic exciting and welcome prospect of an end to IRA violence. For that achievement the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste deserve credit, the support of all parties and the genuine appreciation of all Irish people. On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I was pleased to offer that support earlier this week but it would be misleading, dangerous and wrong to infer or to conclude, as some people have done, that the positive outcome to date of the developments in Northern Ireland can or should be allowed to obscure the vital and fundamental public policy issues which flow from the beef tribunal and, in particular, its indictment of the ministerial behaviour and competence of the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds. A good performance by the Taoiseach in one area of public policy does not exonerate him from disastrous public policy deficiencies and incompetence in many other areas and to suggest such a thing, as the Labour backbenchers tried to do yesterday, is ludicrous.
It is ridiculous to suggest, as Labour Deputies did that it is a choice between peace and accountability. We want peace and accountability. Listening to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment as he spoke of the reforming measures of Minister Howlin reminded me of a choice that was put up between jobs and condoms. The choice between peace and accountability is as ridiculous as that choice which Minister Howlin rightly rejected. It is ridiculous to suggest, and it would be totally wrong to assume, that because the events pertaining to the beef tribunal happened a number of years ago when the Labour Party was not in Government that they are no longer of any concern. The other morning Deputy Yates and I listened to heckling from the Government backbenchers. As we were about to vote on having a question time in this debate Deputy Mattie Brennan shouted across the floor: "It is a dead duck now anyway". That is the attitude of Fianna Fáil — if it can get away with it that is all that matters.
That is not my standard or the way I approach this debate. I could say the debate, like so much else about this Government, is a meaningless and empty charade, but they are not my words. They are in fact the words of Deputy Dick Spring on 5 November 1992. I could say at the outset that I am astonished that the Taoiseach has chosen to treat the matter which gave rise to this debate with such contempt. It was again the Tánaiste who said this on 31 October 1990.
The debate in this House on the beef tribunal report has turned out to be the classic dialogue of the deaf. When Deputy Dick Spring described the present Taoiseach's behaviour between 1987 and 1989 as a policy disaster, the Taoiseach said in response that they did not expect any bouquets from the Opposition of the day. The present Opposition did not expect so much fertiliser. It was predictable that this would be the case from the moment when the request from Opposition parties for a question and answer session on the topic was refused.
In recent weeks we heard complaints from Garda sources of their inability to deal with criminals who, when questioned, say nothing or repeat the same meaningless phrases time after time. The Garda say that they stare at them or at the wall. Over the last number of days we have been treated to the parliamentary version of this tactic.
There are many in this country who are rightly suspicious that the State, its arms and agencies have from time to time been hijacked by public representatives for their own private gain or for the gain of their friends. Much of the public's suspicion has to do with our failure to manage two kinds of relationships and to distinguish between two kinds of interest, the public and the private. The first kind of relationship which we have failed to manage is the relationship between private business people and the State. I have long been sceptical of too close a relationship between business people and the State. In my experience business people are usually better off operating on their own with as little interference as possible. I stress that the only requirements that should be placed on them is that they, like everyone else, are subject to the rule of law. It is in the interests of everyone in this country that nobody should be exempt from the rule of law.
There can be no doubt that we have a real problem in political life even contemplating the existence of, let alone tackling, what is called white collar crime. Deputy McDowell referred to somebody being in jail in his Armani suit: perhaps that person will wear an Irish suit but buy foreign beef. Some like to think that white collar crime is some kind of proof of the inevitable corrupting influence of market forces. This is complete rubbish. To operate, the white collar criminal, like a parasite, needs a host business to feed on. Where the white collar criminal really thrives is in that zone where the interests of the Government are so closely bound up with private commercial interests that no one can see the join. However, the white collar criminal, like a drug pusher, needs an enabler, a facilitator.
Where a Government is prepared to offer some business a risk-free ride while taxing others out of existence, a Government which in the name of the national interest is prepared to destroy ordinary distinction between honesty and theft, the white collar criminal does not really stand out. He does not stand out because slowly and insidiously, through political contacts and through invoking the so-called national interest, the distinction between honesty and theft is obliterated. No criminal stands out in this kind of climate unless he happens to be an ordinary working class criminal. In that case we must build more prisons to lock them up.
What has emerged from this tribunal is something which the tribunal did not set out to discover. What has emerged is a picture of public life in Ireland, of two laws, or rather a picture of one section of society where the law is applied, tax is paid and criminals are fined and locked up. There is also the picture of another privileged section, an élite whose job it is to work out what is in the national interest, and the national interest; an élite whose job it is to turn a blind eye if it happens to be in a position of influence or authority, an élite whose job it is to cut corners because, as a number of journalists discussing this matter have shamefully suggested, that is how business is done. By no stretch of the imagination is this activity to be called business.
This state of affairs which is so readily condoned in Ireland gives rise to a climate where the clever thing to do is not to take the risk at all, not to develop your business but instead to meet, know and influence people in positions of political power, people who are in a position to help your business by tilting the tables against the competition. Mr. Goodman was so clever that he could influence, or, should I say, make his point of view known to Ministers of the day. In seeking to improve his or her life the ordinary citizen does not have that kind of access to Government. Those of us who try to change things, who blow the whistle, who expose the truth by pointing out what is wrong, perhaps not always in a very articulate way, are accused of being moralistic, of being holier than thou, of not really knowing how the game is played and are probably jealous because they are not the ones dishing out the goodies.
When I returned from holidays last weekend and heard that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Susan O'Keeffe, an outstanding journalist who blew the whistle, I was absolutely appalled. Susan O'Keeffe stood by the ethics of her profession — I think it is Clause 7 of the NUJ code of ethics which states that you do not reveal a source. Because she stood by the code of ethics of her profession she is probably the only person who will go to jail as a result of the beef tribunal.
I wish to refer to the Goodman organisation. Deputy McDowell yesterday informed the House of a slight experience I had with that organisation. I took part in the "Saturday View" programme the Saturday after the Government agreed to the famous IDA package. The Minister, Deputy Woods, also took part in the programme. I questioned whether a company as large as Goodman should get grant aid, whether it was the best way to spend public money, whether there was something wrong with our economy if a company that controlled 4 per cent of GNP had to be grant-aided in this way to create jobs. All I did was ask a question. Within an hour of that programme being broadcast the press officer of my party was hounded by executives of the Goodman organisation — this crazy woman was to be silenced. Mr. Goodman wanted to see Deputy O'Malley. He presumed that because he had given my party money he had silenced me and my colleagues, but Mr. Goodman made a mistake. I know from that encounter that when Mr. Goodman gives money, Mr. Goodman demands a favour, and he does not waste his money.
And he gets it.
The Goodman organisation has been accused of lying to Moslem customers about the nature of the meat sold. There was widespread use of forged stamps and other irregularities. Above all, there was massive tax evasion which was not only known to top management of the group but authorised by them and professionally planned and executed. Documents were forged and bogus payments were recorded to non-existent farmers and hauliers. At the tribunal's request the RUC spent significant resources in a search for a non-existent Crossmaglen haulier. The rip-off was enormous. The report states that this was practised in all plants with the knowledge of management of the group. The report goes on to say that the system of concealment was common in all relevant plants, was known to top management of the group and undoubtedly authorised by them.
Mr. Goodman, through his spin doctors, claimed he was vindicated — I think he said there was a rebuttal of all the allegations against him. It should not be forgotten that in an effort to vindicate his good name at the tribunal Larry Goodman and his lawyers lashed the chief witness against the company, Patrick McGuinness. He was asked by Seamus McKenna acting for Mr. Goodman: "Do you have any personality difficulties? Do you do odd things from time to time?" Mr. Gleeson, Goodman's corporate lawyer, accused Mr. McGuinness of a disgraceful piece of treachery to the country. Those who blow the whistle are supposed to be the people committing treachery.
It goes to show how far we have sunk when a reporter in The Sunday Business Post, eager to defend capitalism, seizes upon Goodman International, an enterprise — if that is the right word — whose entire income was derived from State support and guarantees of one kind or another, as a paragon of capitalist virtue. There is no doubt that Goodman International, at least in its former semi-monopolistic incarnation, was entirely a product of Government support. Whatever the skills of the organisation in its younger days, there is not much business skill in selling into a market where there is no theoretical possibility of losing and where the insurance premiums and payouts are picked up by the ordinary man in the street.
It may surprise people to know that Mr. Goodman's companies are still benefiting. They availed of the amnesty, the tax cheats' charter. What may not be known to many people in this House is that two months ago the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, designated one of the Goodman companies in Longford under the urban renewal scheme. Deputy Stagg recently expressed on radio his total satisfaction with the Longford designation. Mr. Goodman is still benefiting, there is no doubt about that.
Did Albert know?
There are many other companies in Longford involved but I do not have time to read them out. Mr. Goodman, instead of being prosecuted or sued, is suing the State. The biggest scandal in the history of the State was not enough. He is suing for compensation.
Before I move on I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague, Deputy O'Malley. I refute what the Minister, Deputy Quinn, said just before I spoke. He said Deputy O'Malley did not do anything significant. If it were not for the then Minister, Deputy O'Malley, as the tribunal has established, the Goodman companies would have received well in excess of £100 million of taxpayers' money. Deputy O'Malley voided the policies. His predecessor did not do that, even when the facts came to light. I hope I am not being too proud because he is a Deputy of my party, but this country owes Deputy O'Malley an enormous debt of gratitude for what he did.
Hear, hear.
If the Labour Party was in Government then there would have been no tribunal. The Tánaiste would have looked at the file and that would have been sufficient.
This whole affair is a scandal. Far from challenging the principle that some people are above the law, it enshrines it, and in doing so it enriches their fellow travellers. Those individuals who at various times were held to be above the law because of their wealth or because of friendship in high places are the real enemies of public interest. It is clear that the Taoiseach and the Government have hidden behind what they call the national interest.
The tribunal referred to the Taoiseach determining what he saw as the national interest. The national interest is in effect defined by what the Taoiseach says it is. For example, if the Taoiseach said that flying pigeons could be subjected to export credit insurance, that is the national interest. In upholding the rule of law the national interest does not mean prosecuting organisations which have been involved in major fraud. In the tribunal of inquiry the national interest cleary does not mean even the theoretically possibility that those being investigated might get into trouble, even when they admit to fraud and tax evasion.
From the point of view of the ordinary member of the public, the national interest means what the Taoiseach says it means; gambling with taxpayer's money in the interests of one company, one man almost, against expert advice; the national interest meant that what was good for Goodman was good for Ireland. The two were supposed to be synonymous. I cannot sum it up any better than the Tánaiste who said: "as far as that Government was concerned what Larry Goodman wanted, Larry Goodman got".
The biggest fraud in the history of the State was not enough, as I said earlier, Mr. Goodman is now looking for compensation. The ordinary person is sick of all this, robbed of opportunity and income by a self serving administration and browbeaten into thinking that is the way the world works, people feel paralysed when confronted with this situation. I would like to advance the ordinary person's interest in this matter as being in the public interest. It is not in the public interest that the authorities should have much less interest in enforcing the role of law than in the case of an alleged shoplifter in Henry Street. The public interest is not served by paying lotto like fees to all five barristers and two firms of solicitors who represented Mr. Goodman and his organisation before the tribunal. I found that recommendation of the chairman disturbing, I saw the chairman's argument that if you co-operated with the tribunal you would get costs. I do not believe Mr. Goodman co-operated with the tribunal. He went to every court of the land to stifle its work. At every opportunity he tried to stop the tribunal finding out and before the tribunal he tried to gag every journalist who investigated what was happening.
Hear, hear.
When I read Mr. Fintan O'Toole's draft apology, I smiled. Whether it be private business who have gained or the politicians who have helped them on their way, the one common denominator has been a willingness, by not applying or seeing that it is applied, to flout the rule of law. What do breaking and entry, grevious bodily harm, assault, fraud and theft, all have in common? They are crimes and, where reasonable evidence exists that a crime has been committed, an ordinary individual is prosecuted and thus risks appropriate punishment by the courts. Not a single person in this country believes that even though it uncovered evidence of significant fraud somebody will carry the can, except, of course, the journalist who blew the whistle. There is no doubt there is one law for those with friends in high places and another for ordinary citizens.
Deputy O'Malley referred to the former premier of Western Australia, Mr. Burke, who is serving a two year sentence for fiddling expenses to the tune of £8,200, as Deputies Rabbitte and O'Malley said if he had stayed in the land of his ancestors, the land of saints and scholars, he would not be in jail. Mr. Craxi, a former premier, is on the run from Rome and has been sentenced to eight and a half years' imprisonment, as soon as he arrives at Rome airport he will be put in jail. Mr. Poul Schluter, who had done nothing, resigned in January 1993 because he stood by a Minister who had lied. The head of the FBI, Mr. Sessin, resigned from office last year because his wife went shopping, used his car and was caught with a few logs in the boot. The story is very different in Ireland. Time and time again the Taoiseach repeated that he has been vindicated. He believes that what he insists he did not know cannot hurt him: he did not know that we would not get the £8 billion, he did not know about the £1 million investment in his own company, he did not know about the Masri passports and he did not know that on 21 October 1988 he decided to allocate export credit insurance to two companies. He did not know who told him that Anglo-Irish Beef Processors would apply for export credit insurance cover for $134.5 million contract. He did not know where the beef was coming from, where it was going or whose beef it was. The Taoiseach celebrates ignorance and the Tánaiste supports him in his incompetence. Perhaps he should plead diminished responsibility. No matter what Fianna Fáil Ministers keep telling us, the Taoiseach stands condemned for his conduct in the export credit insurance scheme and his subsequent actions, everybody in the Opposition knows that and his coalition partners know it too.
Throughout this debate Fianna Fáil speakers have done precisely what Deputy Spring accused them of doing in November 1992. They have, to quote the Tánaiste "treated the tribunal like a political football and are taking every opportunity to cheapen it" because "the truth is hurting". It was for that reason that the most transparent of the spin doctor tricks, the distorted leak, was used before the report of the tribunal became available. This course of action has been expressly defended by the Taoiseach while the Tánaiste regards it as completely unacceptable and counter-productive. In his view it damaged trust. To support his vindication the Taoiseach knitted two passages from the report separated by 31 pages. In this debate the Taoiseach's shabby tricks reached a new low. On Thursday he vainly attempted to deal with the finding of the tribunal that he had from first to last disregarded official advice and that he had consistently accepted the arguments of Mr. Goodman without independent appraisal. In a passage of the speech which clearly shows his total vulnerability on this issue he referred to this week's historic developments in Northern Ireland. He asked:
Does anybody think that in helping to reach this point I have not had to take many critical decisions, without being able to take cover behind official advice?
Does anybody think we could have reached this point without personal political initiatives and risk-taking on my part? The country is fortunate that I did not take official advice in this case, yet the only crime I am now being accused of, is that of having disregarded such advice in the past.
This attack by the Taoiseach on the role and capacity of our public service is without precedent in the history of the State. The Taoiseach said this in the presence of the Tánaiste and even though his contribution followed he did not comment on it and did not protect his own public servants. If the country is fortunate that he did not take official advice on the steps leading to the cessation of violence that amounts to a claim that he, in the teeth of the public service, procured this development. Never has the pursuit of peace been so prostituted in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I know many of the public servants involved in Anglo-Irish relations over many years, they are of the highest calibre and totally committed to peace and reconciliation on this island and to imply they are not or that they are in some way unhelpful is the lowest of the low.
The tribunal, whose report we are debating was brought into being by the unanimous vote of this House. Despite this fact the Taoiseach and other Fianna Fáil speakers have attempted to suggest that the tribunal was brought into being needlessly and for purely political advantage by persons making untrue allegations. This lie must be nailed. The tribunal was necessitated because successive Ministers, including the Taoiseach, consistently and almost instinctively adopted a deceptive and misleading attitude in their accountability to this House and to the Deputies who made inquiries outside it. Let me document a few of the misleading things that were said. In April 1989, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce referring to export credit insurance told the Dáil: "The first two companies to apply had at the time of their application firm contracts for the supply of beef to Iraq". The tribunal found that Hibernia did not have a contract when it applied and was granted cover. In March 1989 the then Minister for Agriculture when asked by the former Deputy, Mr. Barry Desmond, whether the documents in the case of the Goodman plants in Ballymun and in Waterford had been referred to the Garda said "that's not so." The tribunal found that this matter had in fact been referred to the Garda Fraud Squad by the Department of Agriculture 13 months earlier. On 15 May 1991 the then Minister for Agriculture and Food Michael O'Kennedy told Deputy Spring that neither he nor his officials were aware that Mr. Goodman had false stamps in his possession. The tribunal accepted the evidence of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Food that the Department knew and had informed the Minister. In most other countries, if not all, a Minister who lies to Parliament would do the honourable thing and resign and if he did not he would be fired. Naturally that does not happen here. On two occasions in the hearings the chairman of the tribunal observed that the tribunal at least in large part would have been unnecessary if parliamentary questions had been properly answered.
Fianna Fáil speakers have consistently attempted in this debate to belittle the effect of the tribunal. The Minister for Justice, for example, the person one would expect to defend it most of all, said: "Most of the population are fed up to the gills with all the brouhaha of the beef tribunal." The Minister did not see fit, despite the fact that she is the Minister for Justice, to condemn the white collar criminals to whom I referred earlier. Contrast that with the view of the Tánaiste who stated: "I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that the way that we in this House deal with this report has the potential to mark a defining moment in the public life of this country".
I believe this is a defining moment. A sorry tale of lies, deception, imprudence, to quote the report, gambling with the Exchequer's resources, as the Department of Finance put it, incapacity in high office and tax evasion on an unprecedented scale has been revealed. Not one of these matters has been condemned by any Fianna Fáil Cabinet Minister. The most the Taoiseach can do is to acknowledge that the tribunal identified a weakness in the system. This is the looking glass through which the Taoiseach lives. The system is to blame, the Civil Service is to blame, the people who made false declarations for insurance purposes may be to blame but he, at the apex of constitutional and administrative responsibility, is blameless.
It is less than two years since the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, said of the Taoiseach: "This is the Taoiseach who constantly claimed that the buck stopped with him while making every attempt to ensure that the buck stopped with his public servants who advised him on behalf of the State". The Taoiseach has acknowledged, because he had no alternative, that the tribunal was correct in finding that the export credit insurance allocated by him for beef which was covered was not justified and conferred benefits on the economy which were, according to the report, "illusory rather than real". But the Taoiseach says this was because he did not know, that he was deceived into thinking the beef in question was Irish beef. Apart from the fact that this ignorance, self induced by commission and omission alike, is no defence at all, he has wholly failed to address the fundamental question of why export credit insurance was being granted in respect of Iraq at a time when the Civil Service was advising him that Iraq was effectively bankrupt and the Department of Finance was telling him he was gambling with the nation's resources.
There is only one conceivable explanation as to why the Taoiseach did this and it has already been given by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring. He stated: "In the area of policy, however, it is clear that the entire culture of the Government of the day was ‘whatever Larry Goodman wants, Larry Goodman gets"'. Everyone hearing this summary from the Tánaiste will form their own view as to why the then Minister, Deputy Reynolds, was so unfailingly obliging to Mr. Goodman.
Deputy Spring concluded in his speech in this House that "the interaction between the Goodman company and the Government of the day gave rise to what I have already referred to as a policy disaster". This, in effect, is a restatement of what Deputy O'Malley stated a long time ago, that the management of export credit insurance by Minister Reynolds was "reckless, foolish and unwise".
It is now clearly the unanimous view among all Members of this House, other than Fianna Fáil Members, that the statements of Deputy Spring and Deputy O'Malley are true and the tribunal confirmed that. In answer to all this, the Taoiseach's tactics have been as old as spin doctoring itself. He claims to have been acquitted of an allegation that was never made against him by Deputy O'Malley, that of corruption or dishonesty. Based on that, he claims that Deputy O'Malley is now, in the aftermath of the report, changing this allegation to one of incompetence or incapacity.
The fact is that after every day of Deputy O'Malley's evidence to the tribunal, the Taoiseach's Government spokesman, Sean Duignan, briefed the press and stated that there was no threat arising from the evidence to the validity of the then Government because, and he quoted the Taoiseach: "Deputy O'Malley had not attacked Mr. Reynold's personal character or accused him of dishonesty or corruption". This fact was noted by Deputy Spring in this House on 5 November 1992. I reiterate clearly and unambiguously now what Deputy O'Malley accused the Taoiseach of, an accusation supported by the tribunal and by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring. He accused him of being reckless, foolish and unwise, gambling with public money, showing a frightening disregard of official and professional advice, a lack of straightforwardness in his dealings with this House and a failure to take elementary precautions which the tribunal holds were required by the national interest to ascertain the nature of the beef for which he was granting export credit insurance. As for his allegation of favouritism, what better words can be used to describe the situation than those used by Deputy Spring: "whatever Larry Goodman wants, Larry Goodman gets".
What were the consequences of this relationship? Again, I cite the words of the Tánaiste when he spoke in this House on Thursday:
This led to an unlawful decision to interfere with the decision-making processes of the IDA. It led to the reintroduction of export credit insurance for Iraq, against all the best advice available. It led to the limit on that insurance being increased whenever Mr. Goodman wanted it, and ultimately to the substantial exposure of taxpayers' money. It led to the advice of experienced and capable public servants being ignored and over-ridden time and time again — to the point where their advice was almost irrelevant to the development of public policy. It led to breakdowns in the normal relations between Government Departments, with a consequent effect on Government procedure and practice.
I want to quote from an experience Mr. Goodman had when he was dealing with the then Taoiseach. In evidence to the tribunal he said he met the then Taoiseach regarding the proposed IDA grant aid package, on which I commented on the radio programme "Satuday View". He told the Taoiseach he just would not accept it — it was not right. He was asked the question: "presumably you expected the Taoiseach to be convinced by you?" He was also asked: "what did you ask him to do?" Mr. Goodman said: "I can't recall requesting him to do anything". Four days later, however, the jobs target clause was dropped. When I heard the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, say he intended to stay in Government because of employment I thought that was a bit of a joke, with the Minister and a Taoiseach who supported dropping the jobs target.
I wish to read to the House a letter from Mr. Fitzpatrick of Taher Meats because it makes interesting reading. They were so frustrated at not getting cover they said at one stage:
We are now sick and tired of our singularly unfair treatment from ICI in regard to cover for Iraq.... Mr. Naser Taher, who is the principal shareholder in Taher Meats, is totally confused in regard to this ICI business and cannot, for the life of him, understand how only one or two meat companies are able to secure cover from ICI. He wishes to know what is the secret, what does he have to do, who does he have to see, who does he have to talk to in order that we might get cover for our Iraqi business? He only asks for equal opportunity for competition in this market...
As an Irishman, who once had to emigrate, I would be appalled if foreign investors were effectively told that they were not wanted in Ireland. I would have thought that with the state of the agri-business sector at the moment in Ireland, that we needed more, not less, competition.
He went on to ask if all the money was gone and so on. I read out that letter to the House because it is rather funny. I contrast that — and I am making a serious charge here — with the way the Irish Embassy in Baghdad operated. A representative from Taher Meats went into the embassy. He thought he was dealing with the third secretary when he walked into the embassy only to discover Mr. O'Connor of Anglo-Irish Beef Processors sitting at the desk working. He thought this was very strange as he was going into to obtain information.
There is much condemnation of public administration in this report; Mr. Shorthall for changing the document and the man in the Department of Industry and Commerce who was congratulated for misleading and confusing the former Deputy Pat O'Malley. I wish to quote from the relevant portion of the memorandum from the Department. Deputy Pat O'Malley telephoned to get information about a discrepancy. It reads:
I believe Mr. Fanning handled this particular telephone call with considerable skill given the invidious position in which he found himself.
He went on to say:
The information given by Mr. Fanning is factual and will. I think, probably confuse the Deputy especially in relation to paragraph number 3.
Shameful.
My experience of the public servants I worked with is that they are dedicated people of outstanding ability. One person I wish to mention is Mr. Bolster in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Time and again he was in contact with the embassy in Baghdad saying: We have had an application from Mr. O'Halloran of Agra Trading who wants a visa to go to Baghdad. He wants introductions and to do business. The Ambassador Mr. McCabe kept delaying and eventually said he was sitting on it because Mr. Goodman was there doing business. He said Mr. Goodman told him he would sign a contract, that CBF were backing only him and he was not to tell the Department of Agriculture and Food as he did not want euphoria among farmers.
Mr. Bolster's comments were so encouraging. He stood up for what was right. He wrote constant memos, checked with the CBF and discovered what Mr. Goodman said was not the case. He said it was the responsibility of the Department to be fair to everyone and they could not discriminate. That is in sharp contrast with the officials in the Departments of Industry and Commerce and Agriculture and Food. I also put on record the excellent advice given by the officials in the Departments of Finance and Industry and Commerce cautioning against what the Minister Deputy Reynolds was doing and defending the public interest.
In his contribution, the Tánaiste did not withdraw any of his allegations. He simply decided not to take any action on them. I suggest his attitude is inconsistent and misguided. It is often said a week is a long time in politics but the half a mile from Dublin Castle to Iveagh House is a long distance as far as the Tánaiste is concerned.
What the Tánaiste said about Deputy Bruton was breathtaking. He said he applied different standards at different times depending on his political prejudice of the moment. I cannot think of anyone that is more untrue of than Deputy Bruton but I can say of whom it is definitely true and that is Deputy Spring. When Deputy Spring went into Government with Fianna Fáil it was a one way ticket. Anyone listening to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment need have no fears about that.
Many would agree that we must never again allow a situation to develop where it would be necessary to set up a vastly expensive tribunal of inquiry to ascertain facts which should be capable of being ascertained in the course of parliamentary business, as this House asserts its right to have the Executive accountable to it. This accountability is required by the Constitution and is the only way in a democratic country that Executive power can be properly exercised. Unfortunately, nothing has really changed from the time people sought information a number of years ago on export credit insurance.
I tabled the following question at the end of June:
To ask the Taoiseach whether it is the Government's strategy to drop Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in exchange for institutional links between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which would have executive powers, as he is reported to have stated in Boston on June 20, 1994; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Ceann Comhairle ruled my question out because he said the Taoiseach answered it on 8 March. The Taoiseach did not make the statement until 20 June. We had some correspondence about this and the Ceann Comhairle said he ascertained there was no shift in Government policy. It was not for me to ascertain that by asking the Taoiseach, the Ceann Comhairle did it.
The Deputy will agree that it is very wrong, improper and disorderly to seek to involve the Ceann Comhairle in a controversy of this type. The Ceann Comhairle is a neutral officer of the House. He is impartial and should be seen to be above politics and controversy.
I am talking about the procedures.
He scrupulously upholds that principle inside and outside the House.
The procedures are not neutral.
If there was a doubt about the validity of my answer at that time there were other means open to the Deputy and others.
I am talking about the procedures. In April, Deputy Michael McDowell asked the Minister for Justice the following question:
To ask the Minister for Justice if citizenship had been granted in respect of an investment in a business in which any member of the Government had a beneficial interest.
The question was disallowed. Why? Because of imputation. When he took the matter up with the Ceann Comhairle and asked "what if it is true?" he was told to put a substantive motion. Deputy McDowell had to go to the bother of drafting a Bill and arrange with Deputy Rabbitte to oppose it in order to have the matter discussed in the House. Is this a parliamentary democracy? The Masri passport affair came from that. If a Bill had not been brought before the House and if Deputy Rabbitte had not obliged us we could never had raised the matter on the floor of the House.
Perhaps the most serious matter of all is the communication my former colleague, Pat O'Malley, had with the Ceann Comharile. In a letter to the Chair he said:
...the tribunal has established that the information given by the Minister in reply to one of my questions was untrue and that the replies given to other questions were deliberately misleading and had to be withdrawn when the Minister replied to subsequent questions....
On 24 May, 1989 a question appeared in his name which had been amended without his consent. It ensured that the Minister avoided informing the Dáil that he had received information which explained the discrepancy. Former Deputy Pat O'Malley's question was to ask why was there a discrepancy between the amounts of cover for beef to Iraq which exceeded total exports there. This had come to light in the Department three weeks earlier. On 1 May Mr. Brian Britton informed the Department as follows: let us keep this matter between ourselves. An action plan should be agreed to deal with the increasing number of Dáil Questions and media speculation relating to this issue.
That is the shame of it.
Former Deputy O'Malley's question was disallowed although it was sent to the Department of Industry and Commerce which said the question had been answered already but it had not.
That is a disgrace.
I put that on record because, as the tribunal said, if questions had been answered we might not have needed the tribunal.
What do the decent Ministers in the House say about that? Do they stand over it?
We will never reach a point where the Executive is accountable to the House if the House does not assert its privileges and prerogatives in this regard.
Following a lengthy and expensive inquiry facts have been elicited which reveal a disastrous management of public policy by an identified Minister. Yet if the House does not acknowledge those findings and does not ascribe responsibility to that Minister we are saying in effect that the Executive is no longer accountable to this House. If the Tánaiste who made the allegations in sworn evidence to the tribunal does not stand over them when he votes in the Dáil today then he is saying the judgment of Dáil Éireann and the majority of the Deputies thereof cannot be given full expression because to do so might upset the Executive. This is to relegate to the House a purely cosmetic role. It is to subvert the constitutional accountability of the Executive and to say that the Executive cannot be effectively controlled by the House except on the utterly predictable and highly stage managed occasions when the Labour Party decides its political interests require administering a coup de grace to Deputy Reynolds, although I predict it will be the other way around. This is an unfortunate reflection on the procedures of the House.
Other parties in Government, including Labour in the past, asserted the prerogative of the House and declined to sanction the continuance in office of Ministers who, by reason of incapacity or otherwise, were judged unfit for their positions. In voting down an amendment which expresses its own judgment the Labour Party is taking a significant step in the well advanced process where it is approaching the status of clone of its present partners.
The Tánaiste spoke two and a half years ago about the cancer growing in the body politic. He must know that if cancer is not treated properly it spreads rapidly. It is a joke for the Labour Party to think that promising a five person wise man or woman commission to look at the procedures of the House will solve the problem when it voted against having an opportunity to ask questions. Ethics in Government and trust in politics can all be thrown out the window. It does not mean anything any more because the Labour Party have a one way ticket to Government. It is there and will not leave until it is pushed.
Labour voted against the opportunity for us to ask questions. I will put on record the questions I would have asked because I have been told any such questions will be answered later.
First, why, in view of the fact that he was specifically informed by the Irish Iraqi Ambassador in December 1987 that intervention beef was being used for the Iraqi contracts, did the then Minister, Deputy Reynolds, continue to issue further export credit insurance for Iraq for 11 months and claim under oath at the tribunal that he did not know intervention beef had been used? Second, why was the Goodman company allowed to draw down approximately 90 per cent of the section 4 facility worth some £27 million of the aborted development plan before the contract was even signed? Third, why was the jobs performance clause attaching to that project dropped and was it for any reason other than the Goodman organisation wanted it dropped? Fourth, why did the then Minister, Deputy Reynolds, tell the tribunal under oath that there was never a policy to confine export credit insurance to just two companies when the tribunal clearly finds that by his decisions of October 1988 Minister Reynolds understood that he was fulfilling a Government policy to confine export credit insurance to these two companies?
Fifth, why in October 1988 did the then Minister, Deputy Reynolds, tell his then junior Minister, Deputy Séamus Brennan, who came in here the other night to defend him so well, that there was no policy to confine export credit insurance to two companies when during that same month he told departmental officials to confine cover to two companies? Sixth, why did he not protect the IDA, for which he had statutory responsibility, when the Government deliberately decided to break the law in relation to it in March 1988 and when his then departmental secretary had informed the Government secretary that they had no authority to so act?
Seventh, why did the Department of Agriculture and Food alter a document confirming that the Iraqi beef contracts included intervention beef? Eighth, why did the then Minister, Deputy Reynolds, tell the tribunal under oath that at a meeting on 21 October 1988 he had not decided to allocate export credit insurance cover to Goodman and Hibernia when, as transpires, the tribunal report finds explicitly that he did so? Ninth, if there was no personal closeness with Mr. Goodman, how does the Taoiseach explain the extraordinary generosity of the 1987-89 Government to his company? Tenth, how does the Taoiseach reconcile the fact that in June of this year he said he had relinquished active involvement in C & D Foods Limited 14 years ago, in 1980, with the sworn evidence he gave to the tribunal in 1992 that between 1982 and 1987 he had spent five years developing his business? Those are just some of the many unanswered questions. When the Taoiseach became leader of Fianna Fáil he promised to let in the light. He said in his speech that he had anticipated the questions and would deal with them and there was no need for a question and answer session. Yet, he has not answered anything.
I want to remind the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and his colleagues in the Labour Party which today has more than five times the number of Deputies in Government than we had, not to trudge lamely like sheep in support of their Fianna Fáil colleagues. On a number of occasions which were just as critical as the one arising from the beef tribunal report, the Progressive Democrats stood firm and were prepared to leave office. We insisted on the maintenance of appropriate standards of accountabilty in the House and a correct level of trust in Government. We are not saints of the plaster kind or any other but there are certain basic standards by which ordinary decent people require us to abide, and we hold office on their account.
In November 1992 when again the matter of trust, credibility and accountability by the Government of the day was on the line, no less than it has been placed on the line by the findings of this report and the damning indictment of the competence of the man who is now Taoiseach at the behest of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats made the tough decision of resigning from Government rather than tolerate totally unacceptable standards. However, it is clear that the Tánaiste is happy to apply different standards at different times. A week may be a long time in politics but the half a mile from Iveagh House to Dublin Castle is much longer. How different are his standards now from the standards he demanded in no less than three confidence debates in October 1990, October 1991 and November 1992.
It is clear to everyone that the Tánaiste is determined to stay in power, to stay in Government. On 17 October 1991 the Tánaiste stated: "The questions raised by these issues must be answered because they go to the very heart of parliamentary democracy". I concur with those remarks. I am sure the Tánaiste would at least agree that the very extensive tribunal report has thrown up almost innumerable questions on this very issue which should be answered since they do go to the very heart of parliamentary democracy. Yet faced with a litany of very important questions to be answered the Taoiseach, is no longer concerned with resolving matters which go to the heart of our parliamentary democracy.
During the same debate in October 1991 the Tánaiste stated: "The people are entitled to expect hope from politicians. The people are entitled to demand the restoration of high standards in high places". Relating these fine sentiments to current events and bearing in mind the policy disaster which the Taoiseach has been exposed as presiding over and the outrageous way in which he has abused the tribunal's findings with his false claim of total vindication, does the Tánaiste honestly believe that the behaviour of the Taoiseach in the events flowing from the tribunal amount to restoring high standards in high places? I pose that very important question to the Tánaiste for two reasons: first, because he is the man who in recent years has repeatedly articulated the necessity for public accountability and, second, and more importantly, he and his party are now in the pivotal position of ensuring delivery of these standards by the Government of the day or, in the event of failing to secure them, of having the ultimate sanction of withdrawing from a Government which refuses to operate in accordance with these elementary and essential standards of public accountability in political life.
This is the same Taoiseach who repeatedly says that the buck stops with him but who makes every effort he can to ensure that the buck lands in the lap of civil servants who work for him on behalf of the State. This is the same Taoiseach who preaches about respect for the institutions of the State and this House but who, as the Tánaiste said, has lost the ability to conduct himself with dignity in any crisis. Reflecting on the manner in which the Taoiseach highjacked the report's findings, does the Tánaiste identify a man unable to conduct himself with dignity in a crisis? When the Tánaiste reflects on the extravagant claim by the Taoiseach in the House that he has been totally and fully vindicated both personally and as a Minister does he agree with him? How in heaven's name can the Tánaiste sit beside the Taoiseach during times like this, bearing in mind the tribunal's explicit finding that he had failed totally in the discharge of his responsibility for the national interest by omitting to examine the source of the beef which he insured at a risk well in excess of £100 million of taxpayers' money and took what his civil servants described as a gamble with the Exchequer funds?
Does the Tánaiste believe that the Taoiseach was vindicated by the report in so far as his performance as Minister for Industry and Commerce during the period 1987-89 is concerned? Even more pertinent in the light of the 1990 statement, what does the Tánaiste make of the Taoiseach's failure to take responsibility for misleading the House in June 1988 when he moved legislation to increase the ceiling for export credit insurance but concealed from Members of the House the real reason he was doing it, that is for the benefit of Goodman exports to Iraq? Adverting to that fact the Taoiseach told the House that he delivered that speech "exactly as it was prepared by senior civil servants in my Department ... on this occasion I had no additional input to the speech and made no alterations ... this speech was prepared by senior civil servants in my Department and I delivered it on this occasion as it was written". Civil servants could not have written a different speech because they were not at the meetings and they did not know what was going on. Does the Tánaiste identify a Taoiseach who repeatedly says that the buck stops with him but who in reality seeks to ensure that the buck lands in the lap of civil servants who work for him on behalf of that State?
It appears to me that this behaviour on the part of the Taoiseach, as recently as Thursday last in this House, conforms absolutely to the unedifying description offered by Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, two and a half years ago. The Tánaiste and the Labour Party are in Government. By the new standards they now apply to political behaviour, the role of the Labour Party in this Government is far more important than the credibility of politics itself.
In relation to the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, his decision to grant valuable export credit insurance cover for large quantities of beef between 1987 and 1988 had no real benefit for our economy, given that in excess of 90 per cent of that beef was sourced outside the county or came from intervention. Yet the Taoiseach persists with his inaccurate and distorted claim that this action of his helped to boost cattle prices and farm incomes. He suggested in this House on Thursday last that there were real benefits to our economy.
The former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, writing in The Irish Times on 13 August 1994 said: “If the electorate comes to lose faith in all politicians because they attribute to all the deficiencies of a few the maintenance of standards in politics will quickly become impossible”. In this House on 31 October 1990 Deputy Spring said: “The credibility of politics is far more important than the fate of any Government.” I agree that the credibility of politics is far more important than the fate of any Government.
I quoted earlier comments which the Tánaiste made about the cancer that was hitting the body politick. Cancer speads rapidly unless dealt with. I say to the Labour Party — and there are four of them who do not even have the party whip; apparently they are not even concerned and will not vote with us — that their actions and vote are an absolute disgrace.
I know the culture that predominates in the Fianna Fáil Party. There was once a time when there would have been one or two members of that party who would have spoken out; on this occasion there is no one. Shame on them all because what happened between the years 1987 and 1989, on the part of a minority Fianna Fáil Government, is ample evidence to suggest that Fianna Fáil never should be in power alone because they cannot be trusted. That is not a holier than thou, high moral claim; that is a fact. Fianna Fáil believe they have a God-given right to rule. They believe that, even when they do not win a majority in freely held elections, they have a right to govern, as though they had obtained that majority. They trample on their colleagues, they have no regard for standards. Fianna Fáil's only problem is being caught out and, if one is caught, one is a fool. They were caught out on this occasion because Deputy Desmond O'Malley insisted that they be caught out. The taxpayer was saved and lost only the £8 million to which Fianna Fáil Ministers have referred because Deputy O'Malley voided their policies. Some say it would have come to light when the documents came in that the beef was not sourced in Ireland or came from intervention. How was it that the false certificate of one company sent to Minister O'Malley which he passed on to the Department of Agriculture did not come to light until we had the tribunal? I have no doubt that the claim would have been made.
The saddest thing of all is the current action of the Goodman group, suing this State for up to £200 million on the basis of the word of the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds. The then Minister was reckless foolish and unwise. It is not a choice between peace or accountability; it is a choice between standards. It is all about accountability.
Among other things, the motion before the House thanks the chairman of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry for his work. I am sure every Member will agree that he deserves the deep gratitude of the House for the enormous task he undertook and completed over thee years of very hard work. As the tribunal was established by order of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry it is appropriate that I should record my personal thanks to Mr. Justice Hamilton.
The tribunal of inquiry, the report of which is the subject of this debate, was established in response to a series of allegations made in the Dáil, and elsewhere, regarding the conduct of the beef industry and the public servants and Ministers responsible for regulating it. These allegations were of the most serious kind involving fraud by the industry and acquiescence in, and even facilitation of, that fraud by public servants and Ministers. The alleged reasons for such acquiescence and facilitation ranged from incompetence to corruption. Those allegations were of the most serious and potentially damaging kind.
I welcome this debate on the report of that tribunal. However, I am disappointed that the shortcomings, malpractices and weaknesses in the systems and methods shown up by the report have not been commented on. Hardly any Member advanced a further suggestion for tightening up those procedures and measures. Rather did Members recycle and reinvent the wheel of the same old allegations, using the privilege of this House to do so.
Before getting into the details of the report I want to address the most serious accusation directed at me by Deputy Avril Doyle, that I misled the tribunal concerning the degree of involvement of the then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, in the Goodman development plan. This is a more serious slur on me personally. I reject it out of hand. The position is that my evidence to the tribunal at all times was based on my knowledge of the events leading up to the Government decision on the Goodman development plan. I reject Deputy Avril Doyle's attempt to suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is that there is no inconsistency between what I told the tribunal and the evidence of the former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey. My evidence to the tribunal was that, after the Government meeting of 26 April, 1987 I was given primary responsibility for progressing the Goodman development plan. The Former Taoiseach was not involved thereafter on a day to day basis.
The Minister said he had nothing to do with it; he had not anything to do with it was the Minister's line.
Please, Deputy, the Minister is in possession.
Deputy Avril Doyle refered to three meetings between the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, and Mr. Goodman and suggested that this was evidence that Mr. Haughey was closely involved in the plan.
The Minister said he had not anything to do with it, on evidence to the tribunal.
Of the three meetings referred to by Deputy Avril Doyle, the first was the meeting on 9 April, 1987——
I beg the Minister's pardon. I want the same order to obtain as obtained for the last speaker. I will not permit these interruptions. The Minister withour further interruption.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you can hardly blame me for Deputy Doyle's——
Check the transcript, day 56, the Minister's evidence under oath, when the then Taoiseach, according to the Minister, had not anything to do with it — the Minister's words — nothing at all.
Deputy Doyle, I would earnestly request you voluntarily to refrain from interruptions of that kind.
I want to keep the record straight, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I respect your ruling.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you can hardly blame me for Deputy Doyle displaying her ignorance in this House. I would ask her to restrain herself——
On a point of order——
A point of order from Deputy Rabbitte.
I know she is under pressure. I have no intention of adding to that pressure but she should restrain herself.
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is it not the case that the transcript for day 56 clearly has the Minister for Agriculture querying, or stating rather, that the former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, did not have anything to do with the plan?
Deputy Rabbitte, that is not a point of order. The Minister to resume.
I am endeavouring to make a contribution to this House——
The Minister is making a feeble attempt to mislead the House but the facts are there on the evidence of day 56.
Deputy Doyle, please allow the Minister to proceed withour further interruption.
Deputy Avril Doyle referred to three meetings between the former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey and Mr. Goodman and suggested that this was evidence that Deputy Haughey was closely involved in the Goodman plan——
There were 11 meetings.
I want to point out that, of the three meetings referred to by Deputy Doyle, the first took place on 9 April, 1987, some two weeks before the Government meeting of 26 April, 1987, and the final meeting took place on 15 June, 1987 after the details of the plan had been finalised by the IDA. There is simply no inconsistency between my evidence and that of the former Taoiseach. Mr. Haughey, who himself told the tribunal that he ... "was not aware from day to day of the detailed negotiations which would be taking place; that would be a matter for Joe Walsh and the IDA."
That is a quotation from Question No. 277, volume 127A.
On a point of order, is it in order for the Minister to continue to mislead this House and inaccurately interpret evidence he gave under oath to the tribunal on day 56? Is that in order?
Deputy Doyle, it is not in order to seek to raise a point of order which is not one.
Is it in order for the Minister to mislead this House?
Please Deputy Doyle, resume your seat.
(Interruption.)
Nobody spoke of the intimate details. The Minister told the tribunal that the Taoiseach did not have anything to hide.
Please, Deputy Doyle, resume your seat.
I am not talking about the details. The Minister is the person with the details. He said the Taoiseach had nothing to do with the Goodman-IDA plan.
I asked Deputy Doyle to voluntarily refrain from making these interruptions. It would pain me to have to resort to the mechanisms available to me. I ask the Minister to continue without further interruption.
This is another example of a Deputy's refusal to accept the findings of the tribunal.
This House is afraid of the truth. The Minister is afraid of the truth. The Minister will not run away from this one. Read the transcript of the evidence, day 55.
The Minister, please.
The tribunal has fully accepted that there is no inconsistency between my evidence and that of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey.
Read the transcript of the evidence, day 55.
It is highly unworthy of Deputy Doyle. She shows total disregard for the Chair. I appeal to her to refrain from interrupting in this fashion.
The Minister is not responding to Deputy Doyle's allegation yesterday.
The integrity, independence and objectivity of public servants and institutions for which they worked were called into question by the allegations made in this House which led to the tribunal of inquiry. Likewise, the honesty and the moral authority of our elected representatives — our politicians — were also called into question. If upheld, those allegations would have amounted to a most damning condemnation of Irish public life and of how we, as a nation, conduct our business. The tribunal found no basis or evidence to support the allegations made against the integrity of public servants or Ministers.
The first issue I want to address is the remarkable similarity between contributions from Democratic Left and the Progressive Democrats. Having failed at the tribunal to establish political malpractice, they now reject its findings. These two parties and in particular Deputies O'Malley and Rabbitte were to the fore among those who were instrumental in having the tribunal set up.
In their allegations against the Fianna Fáil Government of the day they talked of "golden circles", "turning the blind eye", "extreme political closeness", "blatant political favouritism", "inside political tracks", "the abuse of political connections"— any slur you could find in the dictionary. We were told that nothing less than a full public hearing by a tribunal of inquiry would expose the facts to the clear light of day. This House put the tribunal in place and quite rightly the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Hamilton, heard evidence from all and sundry. No stone was left unturned to establish the facts and the inquiry took place over 231 days. At least £35 million was spent in establishing the facts behind the wild allegations of political corruption. Public advertisements appeared in the newspapers inviting submissions from anybody who had any complaints to make about what was alleged. I want to remind the House — and none more than Deputy O'Malley — of the words of Mr. Justice Hamilton on page 13 of the report.
The function of the tribunal was to carry out a simple fact-finding operation into the truth or otherwise of the allegations regarding illegal activities, fraud and malpractice and in connection with the beef processing industry made or referred to in Dáil Éireann and on a television programme transmitted by ITV on 13 May 1991 and in presenting this Report has sought to confine its role to that function.
In this fact-finding mission the tribunal sought and heard evidence from every side. In one of the most thorough investigations ever conducted in this country evidence was heard from 475 witnesses over 231 days and the transcripts extend to 452 books.
During the hearing hard evidence was required to be produced to back up what up to then had been mere allegations. This, of course, devastated the vast bulk of the allegations which evaporated more quickly than water in a desert in the absence of sustaining evidence.
The main thrust or theme of the allegations was that there was political malpractice and that it was endemic in our public administration. Many people in public life and in the public service have suffered enormously over the past five years through a concerted campaign of what we now know to be unfounded vilification, innuendo and downright lies, none more so than the Taoiseach. Deputy Reynolds.
The tribunal finding was that these allegations were unfounded and again I want to quote the facts established by the tribunal at page 231 of the report:
There is no evidence to suggest that either the Taoiseach at the time or the Minister for Industry & Commerce at the time was personally close to Mr. Goodman or that Mr. Goodman had any political associations with either of them or the party that they represented.
Because of the position of Mr. Goodman in the agricultural life of the country and because of the obvious concerns of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry & Commerce to develop the agri-food sector of the economy and exports of value added products, leading to job creation there is no doubt but that Mr. Goodman had reasonably ready access to members of the Government, including the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry & Commerce for the purpose of discussing his plans for the development of his companies and his exports. It is clear that he had similar access to the previous Taoiseach, Mr. FitzGerald and members of his Government.
The report also states on page 232 that there is no evidence to suggest that the Taoiseach's "decisions were in any way based on improper motives, either political or personal". Deputy Bruton, who made no allegations about export credit insurance prior to the tribunal, devoted most of his speech last Thursday to this topic. He made another vain attempt to vilify the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds. However he cannot escape the findings of fact —"no improper motives either personal or political" were attributed to the Taoiseach by the tribunal.
Give us an explanation. Why did he do it?
This was a very bad week in which to vilify the Taoiseach. Only nine months ago Deputy Bruton said that the judgment of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste had to be questioned as they had invested so much effort in a process which yielded no return. He went on to say: "It is doubtful if there was ever much prospect of rational dialogue with an organisation like Sinn Féin which for years had supported the absurd idea that the best way to achieve Irish unity was to kill people". Deputy Bruton said he was sad and surprised that our political leadership had fallen for the tactics of Sinn Féin and the IRA.
We will see.
Another Member of this House, Deputy Michael McDowell, who lectures us regularly here questioned the judgment of the Taoiseach only nine months ago. He said: "It is wholly wrong and destructive to posture in public as supporting unrealistic and unattainable political goals while privately conceding that the likely agenda is very different. In the short run Government Ministers would do us all a favour by stopping their cant about unrealistic solutions". The fact of the matter is that we now know the outcome of the Taoiseach's judgment.
I know it is difficult to eat humble pie and that it is difficult to back pedal. In fairness to Deputy Bruton he ate a large amount of humble pie, and did so very generously, on the debate on the IRA ceasefire.
Did the Minister write the article for today's issue of The Cork Examiner?
Yes, The Cork Examiner issue of 2 September 1994.
What else did the Minister tell them?
To eat another helping of cold meat pie for a second time in the same week must be extremely difficult.
The Minister is good at the spin doctors.
In accusing the Taoiseach of breaking Cabinet decisions Deputy Bruton misquoted the Cabinet decision of 8 September 1987 to make his point. His argument was based on a major gaffe. At best, I can only assume that he misunderstood the decision.
During this debate Fine Gael Deputies seem to have been suffering from collective amnesia when it comes to their relationship in the 1982-87 period with the Goodman and Hibernia companies. They showed, for example, that the then Government and the relevant Minister ignored professional advice in giving export credit insurance.
The tribunal states — this is more humble pie that has to be eaten by the Opposition and I know it is difficult twice in the same week — on page 48:
In the course of a telex dated the 27 day of April 1983 forwarded to the Department the Insurance Corporation of Ireland reviewed the situation in regard to Iraq and recommended that "we completely suspend all cover for Iraq immediately except where there is a guarantee of payment issued outside that country in the form of a bank guarantee or a confirmed irrevocable letter of credit".
On 15 June 1983, the relevant Minister submitted to the Government a memorandum for Government in favour of providing export credit insurance for Irish exporters dealing with Iraq. Here we have a clear case of a Minister in the FitzGerald led Government going against the professional advice of the Insurance Corporation of Ireland.
Many Deputies, in refusing to accept the findings of the report, have alluded to the Goodman companies' relationship with the Fianna Fáil Government, but we find on page 49 of the report that Hibernia and the Goodman company were the only two companies to obtain export credit insurance which was granted in respect of beef exports to Iraq in the period March 1983 to March 1987. Whether Members like it or not, that is the finding of the tribunal.
The availability of such insurance was regarded by these companies as of considerable importance and both companies made regular representations to the Minister and other members of the Government for an increase in the amount available for such insurance, increases in the level of cover and the period of cover. These representations were made by letters to and meetings with the Taoiseach. Mr. Garret FitzGerald, and individual members of the Government, including the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Noonan. The fact that special treatment was accorded to Goodman and Hibernia in the period 1982-1987 has been conveniently forgotten by the Fine Gael benches.
While on the issue of accepting professional advice, I would point out that Deputy O'Malley when asked in the House on 26 February 1991, by none other than Deputy Bruton, why he had disagreed with advice from his civil servants, and whether there was a precedent for this, he replied:
I imagine there are precedents for a Minister and a Department taking a different point of view. I would hope that there are. It is very unhealthy if a Minister is only expected to rubber stamp whatever his Department comes up with, and that is not my way of operating.
From their contributions to this debate it would appear that Progressive Democrat Deputies accept this to be true only in relation to Progressive Democrat Ministers. Putting it another way the Progressive Democrat approach is conditioned by whether it is in Government. This was evidenced by the very warm letter issued to his counterpart in Iraq by Deputy O'Malley as Minister for Industry and Commerce which Deputy Burke read into the record of the House yesterday. There was also a very warm letter from Deputy O'Malley to Larry Goodman which states:
I was delighted to meet you the other evening but I'm sorry that, through nobody's fault, things were rather rushed. I hope that you will have dinner with me in Dublin some evening after the election when we can discuss matters in more detail in a more relaxed atmosphere, [perhaps over a bottle of Beaujolais or a bottle of 82.]
That letter is quoted in volume 109B of the evidence dated 6 July 1982.
They did not meet for that dinner.
In fairness, it was a telephone call to Albert, not a letter.
On parliamentary privilege, because they are the elected representatives of the people, Members of this House are accorded certain privileges in what they say here. This privilege places a heavy responsibility on Deputies to ensure that they are fair and accurate in what they say. It is a privilege that has been seriously abused by one or two Deputies in the issues placed before the tribunal.
It is totally unacceptable that it should be abused by those who seek to promulgate their invective, their wild accusations and personal vendettas in a way which only brings shame on us all and holds this House up to public ridicule. Driving it all is a lust for power and influence, a love of the cheap shot delivered for the media and aimed at the lowest common denominator in our society. It is, of course, the most cowardly who seek refuge in this perverse approach to conducting Dáil discussion and debate, knowing, as they do, that no matter what the circumstances are they can shout and scream whatever slurs they like across the floor of this House without fear of being forced to substantiate their claims.
Except by the evidence of the tribunal which substantiated everything we said.
I have no difficulty with robust debate but never again should a Taoiseach or anybody else be subjected to the completely unfounded vilification to which the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, was subjected in a sustained manner over so long a period. Neither should Ministers or public servants be open to the possibility that some unscrupulous Deputy could make this type of baseless allegation against them. It is not good enough for Deputy Rabbitte simply to read things into the record of the House that had been said to him but about which he apparently knew nothing. There must be an onus on Deputies to establish the truth of matters before publicising them under the privilege of the House.
It is scandalous that Deputy Rabbitte who made scurrilous accusations about politicians and public servants, accusations which Mr. Justice Hamilton described as having no basis, has not publicly apologised and admitted his flight of fancy for what it was; the old left wing conspiracy theory which would have us to believe big business and the State cosy up to one another to the detriment of the ordinary people of Ireland.
That was well borne out by the tribunal.
That is the Deputy's version of the matter.
Among other things the tribunal found shortcomings in the controls exercised by my Department in the operation of the European Union market support arrangements and I do not wish to minimise them. On many occasions I publicly stated that the tribunal did a tremendous service in highlighting those shortcomings which were found to be due mainly to a shortage of staff, a problem my Department shared with many other public service offices. Those deficiencies have since been addressed and that has been acknowledged by the tribunal. I propose to deal in detail with my Department's controls later.
With regard to the beef industry, the allegations made gave the impression that fraud was widespread and systematic and that the quality of meat being sold by our processors was of a low standard. Certainly there have been specific incidents of fraud detected by my Department or by the customs and duly dealt with. Certainly, further evidence of malpractice emerged in the course of the tribunal. However, the general impression which the allegations conveyed of widespread and systematic fraud and of a practice of selling low quality meat to unsuspecting foreign buyers was shown by the tribunal to be totally false. The allegations did no service to one of our most important industries and certainly did not make the task of holding and winning markets — at best a most difficult one — any easier.
The tribunal's many findings in the course of its lengthy report, have attracted much comment and analysis. One of the most important findings is the first finding, in Chapter 5 about the beef industry. The tribunal refers on Page 32 to the more than fourfold increase in sales of Irish vacuum-packed beef over the years 1984 to 1992 and states that such an increase has been achieved against a background of falling EC consumption, increased pressure from competing meats, alternative protein sources and the growth in the convenience food sector. It also states that Irish beef is a product of the highest quality, justifiably commanding a premium price on international markets. Those who made scurrilous allegations about the quality of Irish meat should have borne that in mind.
As the tribunal pointed out, the importance of this industry in the economic life of this State cannot be overstated. About 100,000 farmers are involved on a full time or part time basis in cattle production and about two million head of cattle are disposed of each year. The beef processing industry is a significant element of the country's industrial sector, employing 4,500 people on a permanent basis and 6,000 at peak time. Beef and cattle exports are valued at approximately £1 billion a year and because of the low volume of imported inputs, their value to the economy is far more than that.
There are some peculiarities about the Irish beef industry. Because of the importance of this industry to the economy and the fact that about 85 per cent of production has to be exported, it has been the policy of successive Governments — supported by the European Union to encourage and promote beef sales, including sales from intervention. This has been done through diverse measures, such as the provision of State funding for CBF and the provision of export credit insurance on a national interest basis as opposed to a commercial basis.
On 17 June 1983, the then coalition Government decided to initiate such a special scheme of export credit insurance specifically for exports to Iraq. There is a clear record of many decisions taken by Ministers in that Government to provide credit insurance for exports to higher risk destinations. The basis for those decisions was the national interest and the perception of the national interest in the case of beef exports was based on the sort of considerations relating to the beef industry to which I referred.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I ask the Minister to answer one question.
I do not contest that perception I agree with it, but I wonder why others chose to try to make a distinction between those questions and other decisions, similarly based and made during the lifetime of the succeeding Government.
The Minister should be a man and take the question.
In other words, it was all right for the 1982-87 coalition Government to make decisions based on the 1983 decision, but it was somehow wrong for the succeeding Governments to do so.
Will the Minister allow me to speak?
Order, please.
The Minister should set a precedent and take the question.
Would the Minister yield to allow me ask two questions? I am allowed to do so under Standing Orders.
Order, please.
Ideally, all sales of beef should be commercial but where sales to intervention are necessary to support the market, it is clearly a matter of some importance that intervention beef stocks are disposed of. In the first place, storage space is limited and if all available space is full then, effectively, intervention is not available as a market support for cattle prices, with the obvious disastrous consequences that could result for thousands of farmers throughout the country. The House will recall that not many years ago, storage space had to be found by the expensive method of hiring freezer ships. It is therefore of considerable importance that there is a continued movement of older beef out of intervention to make room for fresh stocks coming in. Also, the mere existence of high intervention stocks overhanging the market depresses cattle prices. There is also a cost to the Exchequer arising from intervention stocks which in the three years, 1986 to 1988, was of the order of £35 million.
For these reasons, it has, as I have said, been the policy of successive Governments actively to encourage the sale of beef from EU intervention stocks. For example, on 17 October 1985, the then Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy John Bruton, announced, with obvious delight, a sale to the USSR of beef from intervention stocks. I will quote from a press release from that Department at the time.
On a point of order, when the Minister has completed this passage about me will he allow me to put two questions to him?
That press release states: "In a major trading breakthrough today the USSR Authorities agreed to buy a minimum of 20,000 tonnes of beef direct from an Irish trading and beef producing company".
I ask about putting questions to the Minister in the proper way, but I will put them to him anyway.
In his statement which issued from Moscow where Deputy Bruton had gone to promote the deal, he stated: "As the contract is for boneless beef the supply will be from EEC intervention stores in Ireland".
How did I manage to find that out when my successor, Deputy Reynolds, could not find out that the beef he was sending to Iraq was from intervention stores?
He knew the source of the beef.
The Minister, without interruption.
The message from Moscow went on to say that "the opening of the substantial direct deal between Ireland and the USSR will be of major benefit" and that "this will have long term beneficial effects for Irish cattle producers and meat factories as the Soviet beef market is one of the biggest in thw world."
That proves my allegation that Deputy Reynolds knew that he was insuring intervention beef because if I was able to find out that this was intervention beef he was also able to do so.
Deputy Bruton, please desist.
It will have beneficial effects for Irish cattle producers and meat factories.
This proves beyond doubt that Deputy Reynolds misled the tribunal under oath.
Deputy Bruton, please resume your seat. You are being disorderly.
A Minister for Industry and Commerce should know where beef is coming from as I knew when I was Minister.
Deputy Bruton is engaging in gross disorderly behaviour.
Futhermore, I offered no export credit insurance on such beef, unlike Deputy Reynolds.
It is a matter of record that following the execution of the contracts to supply beef to Iraq for which the then Minister for Industry and Commerce——
This proves that the Taoiseach told lies before the tribunal under oath.
——Deputy Reynolds, provided export credit insurance, in October 1986——
Deputy Bruton, please resume your seat.
Sir, I asked to make an orderly intervention as provided under Standing Orders.
The order for this debate does not provide for that.
Sir, it does.
It does not, Deputy.
On a point of order, Sir, Standing Orders do provide for an orderly interruption.
——the average factory price for R3 steers in Ireland——
I have been prevented from making an orderly interruption because of the cowardice of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
I will have order in the House.
The Minister is unwilling to take a reasonable question from me.
Deputy Bruton please resume your seat. You are being grossly disorderly.
Sir, I believe the remarks of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has just hung the Taoiseach.
——was 99.3 pence per pound and by the end of 1988 that price has risen to 118.5 pence per pound.
On a point of order——
Excuse me, Minister. Yes Deputy, I will allow it if it is a point of order.
I want to establish from the Minister if it is in order for him to tell the House which of his lawyers leaked the document to the Sunday Business Post——
That is not a point of order. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and let us get back to orderliness in the House and for the debate. The Minister, without further interruption.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach told the House that ample opportunity would be given for asking the Minister questions. When will the Minister give us an opportunity to do that?
That is not a point of order.
Sir, do you not read the Standing Orders?
Deputy Bruton, please.
Standing Orders provide for orderly interruptions. I am sure the official in the House will confirm that is correct. Under Standing Orders Members may yield——
We have a particular order for this debate.
That does not override Standing Orders. It makes no reference to the fact that under Standing Orders it is permissible for Members to yield so that another Member may put a question. I endeavoured to do that, but the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, out of cowardliness refused to do that.
I call on the Minister to resume his speech.
It is also significant that during a recent radio interview the chairman of the IFA livestock committee said, "the previous Coalition Government introduced export credit insurance to third countries and that it was followed on then by the following Government and yes it was necessary at the particular time to do that."
A number of the allegations investigated by the tribunal related to public servants. They were made against the Garda, Revenue officials and officials of my Department and included indifference to malpractices, not investigating reports of malpractice and obstructing such investigations, not pursuing actual charges with vigour and even agreeing a plan with the Goodman Group to limit the damage involved in the discovery of malpractice at the AIBP plant at Waterford. Most of these allegations were made in this House. None of them has been found by the tribunal to have any basis whatsoever.
It is a matter of deep regret to me that conscientious and diligent public servants have had their collective good name and reputation impugned without any foundation. The last thing our public servants deserve is that the privilege of this House is used to defame them when they have not the opportunity to defend themselves. The allegations concerning public servants were a clear case of groundless allegation feeding upon groundless allegation. I trust that the lessons have been learned and that we will never again hear allegations about public servants being thrown carelessly and maliciously about this House.
The process of attacking public servants continued in this House during this debate. Deputies O'Malley, Rabbitte and Doyle——
The Deputy should be prepared to take it if he gives it.
The Deputy should not worry, I can give it much more coherently than the bombast from the Deputy's party.
——showed from their contributions in this House yesterday that they wish to rewrite the chairman's report. It is quite clear that two of these Deputies, having singly failed to substantiate any of their allegations against the then Government in so far as favouritism to the Goodman organisation is concerned, have decided to aim fresh and unfounded allegations at other targets, notably officials from my Department and its former Minister, under the privilege of the House. Of course, the new targets selected by these Deputies are not capable of defending themselves in the House but that is of little concern to them, whose sole interest is to rewrite the report of the tribunal to their own liking or indeed to their own prejudice. I wish to state in the strongest possible terms that I believe that the behaviour of the Deputies in attacking named public servants who cannot defend themselves before the House is totally unacceptable. I would go further and say that it is obvious and regrettable that the Deputies concerned have learned nothing from the tribunal. The fact of the matter is that the tribunal was established largely because of unfounded allegations made by the two of these Deputies against the then Government and the public service generally under the privilege of the House.
I want to take Deputy O'Malley's criticisms first. Deputy O'Malley alleges that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry failed to inform him that a certificate which he submitted to the Department in 1988 was forged. This is a cheap low shot from Deputy O'Malley who had all the opportunity he wanted to have the matter investigated by the tribunal.
But true.
However, neither he in the course of his very lengthy evidence to the tribunal, nor his counsel, when cross-examining Mr. O'Kennedy and various Department officials, mentioned this particular incident nor did they seek an explanation for the Department's so-called failure to infom Mr. O'Malley that the certificate was forged. Yet he came into the House yesterday and attempted to smear the Department and the former Minister on the basis that they conspired to conceal the forgery from him. The position is that the forgery was not discovered by the Department until June 1992——
Many other things went uncovered until 1992 when the tribunal got behind it.
——and the Department immediately brought the forgery to the attention of the tribunal, which fully investigated the matter. I reject out of hand Deputy O'Malley's attempt to insinuate that the Department deliberately concealed from him the fact that the certificate was a forgery.
We do not believe it.
Deputy O'Malley attempts to buttress his criticism of my Department by reference to the irregularities in the boning hall and the canning plant in Rathkeale and the possession of forged stamps by certain Goodman plants. As far as Rathkeale is concerned, the irrregularities came to light as a result of the information supplied to the tribunal by a former Goodman employee. The Department acted immediately on the information provided and carried out a thorough investigation of the allegations. Any criticism of the Department in the tribunal report in respect of these irregularities relates to the shortage of staff and the report specifically clears the Department of any complicity in the irregularities.
The buck stops at the desk of the Minister.
As regards the possession by some Goodman plants of forged stamps I totally and utterly deprecate the attempt by Deputy O'Malley to insinuate that the illegal possession of these stamps by the Goodman Group was condoned by the Department when the record clearly shows that it was the Department officials themselves who detected the stamps and successful prosecutions were taken in two cases.
Deputy O'Malley also claimed that when he, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, requested information from my Department in November 1989 on the extent to which intervention stocks had been used to fulfil contracts for the supply of beef to Iraq for which export credit insurance cover had been given this information was refused. That claim is totally incorrect. Moreover, it has given rise to much ill-informed comment in the media. I would like therefore to take the opportunity to put the record straight.
The request made, through his officials, by Deputy O'Malley in November 1989 was an oral one and the response of my Department was not to refuse to provide the information but was rather to say that it would take a very substantial amount of time and resources to meet the request.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, do we have to listen to this?
The reason for that response is that, while the information was available in my Department, it was not readily so.
You refused to give the information.
Sales from intervention are not conditional upon the beef being dispatched to any particular destination, except in a minority of cases. Moreover, there was no regulatory reason, EU or departmental, for statistics on intervention sales to be categorised by reference to export destination.
And every good reason for them not to be.
Deputy O'Malley saw fit not to follow-up on my Department's response with a request to provide the information over time.
My Department's initial assessment of the time it would take to provide the information was subsequently well borne out when some 40 additional staff had to be employed over several months to meet a similar request from the tribunal.
I now want to deal for a moment with the alteration made by an official of my Department to the CBF briefing note for the meeting of the Joint Commission with Iraq. I think that it is despicable on the part of the various Deputies involved to use the privilege of this House to abuse the official concerned, knowing that he cannot reply. I have heard various Deputies and commentators speculate about Mr. Shortall's motivation in changing the briefing note but the fact is that on page 544 the tribunal report outlines clearly the reason for the amendment.
What is the reason? Who told Mr. Shortall to make the change.
It has never been my policy or that of my Department to alter documents for the purposes of misleading. I, of course, would condemn any such practices.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister has imputed to a number of us here remarks about Mr. Joe Shortall. We will all withdraw the remarks about Mr. Shortall if the Minister tells us who instructed him to change the document?
Several Deputies, especially Deputies O'Malley, Doyle and Rabbitte, have chosen to suggest a cynical and baseless interpretation to the incident involving the CBF document. The official concerned frankly explained his motives to the tribunal and it is clear from his explanation that he did not intend to mislead anybody.
What is the point in talking to this man, he will not answer anything?
The tribunal report does not attribute any improper motives to him and the outrageous allegations now being made by these Deputies are yet another example of their futile efforts to rewrite the report where its conclusions do not accord with their own views.
Who instructed Joe Shortall to forge the document for CBF? He was not acting on his own initiative. He was under instruction. Put it on the record. Protect your civil servants. Who instructed him?
(Interruptions.)
A separate question is when did he really alter it?
Deputy Doyle's suggestion of revisionism to protect the Taoiseach is both untrue and contemptible. I utterly reject Deputy Barrett's insinuation that the alteration to the document had any implications for the validity of the contracts between Goodman and the Iraqi purchasers. The position is that the tribunal found that the Iraqi customers were aware of the fact that intervention beef was being used to fulfil a substantial portion of the contracts and had waived compliance with the terms of the written contracts, page 545 of the report.
(Interruptions.)
I would like at this point to deal with a further issue relating to the role of public servants. An impression could easily be created that the references to specific malpractices in breach of the relevant EU regulations in the allegations investigated by the tribunal and in the evidence heard by the tribunal were new revelations and had not previously been known to, or detected by, the regulatory authorities, either the Customs or my own Department. The fact is that the vast majority of these specific allegations which were subsequently found by the tribunal to be correct had previously been detected and appropriately acted upon by the regulatory authorities. Likewise, the vast bulk of the evidence presented to the tribunal related to incidents already detected and dealt with by the regulatory authorities. It is also important to point out, in fairness both to the public officials and to the politicians concerned, that the tribunal has had no criticism whatsoever to make on the follow-up action taken by the regulatory authorities in relation to the irregularities detected over the years.
Yes, provoked by the debates here on the tribunal. The tribunal forced you to clean up your act.
This demonstrates not only that the public servants concerned were diligent in their duties but also that their political masters did not interfere with them in the exercise of those duties. Notwithstanding the tribunal's findings Deputy Doyle still had the audacity to come into this House and try to maintain that the State had no intention of pursuing the wrongdoers and that big companies can be seen to flout the law with impunity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are still waiting. Susan O'Keeffe is the only person pursued so far.
As Minister of State in the Department at the time, I am particularly gratified by the tribunal's findings in this regard. I am also pleased that my senior colleague at that time, Senator Michael O'Kennedy, who found himself one of the main targets of these disgraceful allegations of interference with due process, had his integrity totally upheld.
(Interruptions.)
Yet another example of Deputy Doyle's refusal to accept the tribunal's findings is that she puts forward her own findings in relation to the reboxing of intervention beef. To suggest, as Deputy Doyle has done, that the tribunal disregarded a body of evidence concerning reboxing is clearly wrong and a grevious slur on the character, work and findings of Mr. Justice Hamilton.
In the case of AIBP Rathkeale, the tribunal found that the company was both misappropriating intervention beef, the property of the Intervention Agency, for its own commercial use, and that it had also misappropriated intervention beef which had been destined for distribution as food aid in the former Soviet Union. As soon as this new evidence was made available to the Department by the tribunal it was fully investigated by both my Department and the Garda and the papers relating to both cases have since been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Quite apart from any possible criminal case, an appropriate financial penalty, to be agreed with the EU Commission, will be levied on the company. I should also mention that immediately following my Department's first investigation of malpractice at Rathkeale the Department ordered that the deboning of intervention beef should cease at the plant and such deboning has not since taken place there.
I, of course, accept the tribunal's findings that my Department was culpable in not having adequate staff available. In mitigation, it should be said that the malpractices at Rathkeale occurred at a time of a huge increase in intervention intake to which I have already referred and my Department's resources were severely stretched at that time. It goes without saying that these malpractices by AIBP and all similar malpractices in breach of EU regulations and, of course, the systematic breaking of our tax laws by AIBP and the consequent non-payment of over £4 million rightly owing to the Exchequer are all to be condemned utterly and without reservation.
Good.
As I have said, all of these incidents are being examined by the relevant authorities with a view to appropriate action and, in the case of malpractice at AIBP Rathkeale, the Garda have already submitted the papers to the DPP. As Minister of State, I was involved in the processing of the Goodman five year plan. I am therefore personally pleased that the many allegations made about the role of Ministers in relation to the plan have been found by the tribunal to be groundless, with only one exception. That exception relates to the decision of the Government on 8 March 1988 to direct the IDA to remove the employment performance clause from the grant agreement.
A minor matter.
That is not accurate.
In the first place, I would like to make clear that, on the transfer of reponsibility for the food industry to my Department in March, 1987, in practice the IDA reported to my Department on food matters. As a result the Minister for Agriculture and Food was the lead Minister in regard to IDA projects and that reponsibility was delegated by the the Minister to me.
Albeit not willingly.
The Government which took office in March 1987 saw the food industry as having a key role to play in national economic recovery. In line with the Government's view of the food industry, a plan, entitled A Future in Food, for its strategic development was drawn up by the IDA and the Department of Agriculture and Food. That plan has played a major role in the development of the food industry by putting forward broad objectives and setting out the strategy to achieve those objectives. Over the period 1987 to 1992, national and FEOGA grants of the order of £300 million were awarded to food industry projects. The investment which was facilitated by such grant assistance has enabled the food industry to increase exports from £2.5 billion in 1986 to £4.1 billion in 1992, an increase of 64 per cent. At the same time, the Irish food industry has developed from a position of heavy reliance on primary products to the point where we now have a most sophisticated and modernised industry rapidly expanding its production and sales of consumer products.
It was in pursuit of this general policy for the food industry that the Government in 1987 decided to encourage and expedite the proposals for a five year beef development plan put forward by the Goodman Group, proposals, I should mention, which had been with the IDA for some months previously.
The tribunal's findings in relation to the Government decision of 8 March 1988 have to be considered in the broader context of the findings in relation to the processing of the Goodman plan as a whole. Those findings were, and I quote from pages 254, 283 and 284 of the report:
in considering the allegations made with regard to the Five Year Development Plan approved by the Authority on the 12th day of June 1987 and approved by the Government on the 16th day of June 1987 it is important to note that this plan did not suddenly emerge on the change of Government in March 1987. "For a considerable time before that the plan had been the subject of negotiations between the IDA and Goodman International.
the concept inherent in the Plan had the full support of the IDA as it was in accord with their development policy
the Plan was also in accordance with the policy of the Government in regard to the development of the food industry and job creation
the support given and assistance provided [by the Government] did not mean that a similar plan put forward by another beef processor would not receive similar support from either the Government or the IDA.
the support and assistance given by the Government and the Ministers thereof prior to the announcement of the Plan did not in the words of Mr. White, the then Managing director of the IDA, in any way amount to ‘political pressure...
at no stage did the Government decide that it would rely solely on the Goodman Group to develop the beef industry
the proposed plan had the full support of the Board of the IDA and ‘the authority', and neither the Board nor ‘the authority' was precluded from assessing the implications of the Plan on the cattle industry because of political pressure"
in view of the failure on the part of the Goodman Group to proceed with the Plan, no grants were paid in respect of any development under the Plan.
These direct quotations from the tribunal report provide as clear an exoneration of improper political conduct as could be stated. It follows logically and directly from that exoneration that the bona fides of the decision of 8 March 1988 on the removal of the annual performance clause is not in question. Indeed, apart from pointing out that the decision was ultra vires, the tribunal makes no further adverse comment on that decision, which, clearly was made by the Government in good faith.
The Government was motivated, first and foremost, by the need to develop the food industry.
My copy of the script states "by the need to create employment", but not one job was created.
The Deputy did not——
The Danny De Vito of Fianna Fáil should stay out of this.
The Government was motivated by the need to create employment and was, therefore, concerned to ensure that the Goodman plan should proceed. It believed that the removal of the performance clause would clear the last remaining obstacle to the implementation of the plan. In the event, as is now well known, the plan did not proceed and no grant, State or FEOGA, was paid. However, even if the plan had proceeded without meeting the projected jobs target, then clawback of grant commensurate with the shortfall in jobs would have taken place after the fifth and eithth years because it was only the annual performance clause and not the overall one, which had been removed. Thus even with the removal of the annual performance clause, any taxpayers' money that would have been paid to the Goodman Group in grants would have been adequately protected.
The focus of the tribunal was, of necessity, on malpractices and irregularities. The extent of such activities should be put into perspective. In the first place, the EU regulations which the regulatory authorities had to supervise were numerous, complex and in many cases lacked clarity. Indeed, the Commission official responsible for the FEOGA, M. Jacquot, told the tribunal that "the Commission hardly spends a day without its services being questioned on the interpretations of one or another provision" of its regulations. In addition, the practical difficulties of implementing these regulations in a typical boning hall are patently obvious. The seasonality of Irish beef production whereby about 40 per cent of the annual kill occurs in a three month period intensifies these practical difficulties. More particularly, in the years 1990 to 1992, there was a dramatic increase in sales to intervention, and this additional work had to be handled within the budgetary constraints on my Department's resources.
My Department has coped extremely well with its regulatory obligations, particularly when account is taken of all the difficulties which I have outlined.
The total financial responsibility of the Department in relation to EC beef support schemes amounted to £8.5 billion over the period 1973 to 1992. During the same period beef production at premises under the Department's control amounted to 7.3 million tonnes, equivalent to 20.5 million cattle.
In respect of these activities, the Department presented annual accounts to the EU Commission which were subject to audit and review by the FEOGA auditors, the European Court of Auditors and Commission Special Investigations; in addition, of course, there was the Department's own internal audit and the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. As a result of the various EU audits and examinations, disallowances by the EU over the period 1973 to 1992 amounted to £3.1 million or only 0.04 per cent of the total expenditure involved. Those figures, I think, speak for themselves.
Of course, no regulatory or policing system is ever perfect. The tribunal has made some general criticisms of my Department's role as regulatory authority in relation to the operation of the EU market support arrangements. It has found that "the number of irregularities disclosed and the failure to prevent or discover same" was "due mainly to inadequacy in the number of staff employed" by the Department. The tribunal also concluded that the inadequacy of staff numbers "undoubtedly led to a laxity in the supervision and control of the system".
However, the tribunal points out that this situation "must be viewed in the context of the huge volume of meat passing through the boning plants" and "the seasonality of much of the activity in this regard". The tribunal also concludes on page 714 that "The steps that have been taken and control systems introduced by the Department of Agriculture as outlined in Mr. Dowling's [the Secretary's] statement to the Tribunal go very far towards dealing with the weaknesses in the system disclosed during the course of the tribunal and have rendered unnecessary many of the recommendations which might otherwise have been made by the Tribunal".
In the specific area of audit, measures have been taken to strengthen the audit structure and staffing within my Department. In addition an external audit committee to monitor and co-ordinate the audit of EAGGF beneficiaries by Revenue and my Department under EU rules has recently been established. This new audit committee will also be reviewing the work programme of internal audit within my Department. The committee will exercise its functions independently of management in my Department. It is being chaired by a partner in a private accountancy firm and its membership includes the head of internal audit in the ESB, one member each from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners and a senior staff member of my own Department. The committee's broadly based experience will add significantly to the effectiveness of auditing the commercial records of firms in receipt of EAGGF guarantee moneys.
At this point, I would like to quote from page 717 of the tribunal report which states that "Having considered the steps taken by the Department of Agriculture as outlined in Mr. Dowling's statement to streamline and improve the control systems against the background of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Department of Agriculture has addressed the problems disclosed therein and has set up a system and established controls which, if fully implemented and sufficient trained staff employed, would greatly lessen the possibility of irregularities and malpractices occurring in the future and recommends that these systems and controls be rigorously enforced." I acknowledge the work of the tribunal in bringing these matters to the attention of the Department. The tribunal has acknowledged and accepted the work we have done and the additional controls we have put in place.
I am not attempting to argue that there were no abuses of European and national regulations in the beef industry. Clearly there were, but by any reasonable interpretation of the report's conclusions, these were not systematic nor general, with the exception of two practices within one company. There were, of course, individual cases of abuse, the great majority of which had been detected and had been or were being dealt with by the regulatory authorities.
This is not to say that the tribunal did not conclude there were some shortcomings in the control arrangements. Inevitably there were, but the tribunal also concluded that these arose because of the huge volume of product being dealt with in the system, the complexity of the regulations and scarce resources, and changes in the control system since 1990 and, particularly, since 1992, have successfully addressed the existing deficiencies. These conclusions are of critical importance. They give the lie to allegations that political or official complicity or indifference contributed to or encouraged abuse. They indicate that the lessons learned from the experience of working the system over the years, from the evidence of the tribunal and from dialogue with the European Commission, have been put to good use in updating, streamlining and making more effective the control arrangements.
I and the Government fully accept the report's conclusions that, effectively operated and properly resourced, the present system will minimise the risk of fraud or irregularity in the future, and the Department and I will act upon its recommendations to ensure that the rules are vigorously enforced. The new independent external audit committee which I have established is further evidence of our determination in this regard.
None of us can afford to be complacent. We must, and will ensure that mistakes made in the past are not repeated in the future. We must, of course, also deal with the consequences of past mistakes. As I said, most of the abuses shown up by the tribunal had been detected prior to its establishment. These were being properly dealt with by the regulatory and legal authorities, including, as appropriate, the DPP. The papers in regard to the major abuse of EU regulations uncovered during the tribunal are with the DPP. The report as a whole has been referred to the DPP to be considered by him in conjunction with the papers already referred to him or in respect of other issues arising out of its findings.
This whole exercise has been a traumatic and indeed costly one for all of us and for the food industry. At the very least, therefore, we need to act, as I believe we have acted, on the lessons of this inquiry. We need to go further. An inquiry of this kind could and should have been avoided. We need to consider how different arrangements might serve us better and avoid recourse to such inquiries in the future. We need in addition to be more disciplined about how we conduct our business here.
Allegations about political favouritism relating to export credit and IDA grants, complicity in or indifference to abuse, unwillingness to pursue wrongdoers, hindrance of Garda inquiries and a host of others have been comprehensively examined by the tribunal and, in its extremely important findings, they have been found to be without foundation. Serious reflections on the integrity of politicians and public servants have been completely rejected. That is extremely important for our standing at home and internationally. Much of the report is an indictment of the abuse of the privilege of this House, which should not have occurred and which I hope will not occur again.
If we get true answers to our questions.
Apart from one or two Deputies, Members of good standing respect that privilege but a couple of unscrupulous Deputies have disrespected and abused that privilege——
What about the Minister who did not tell the truth?
——and refused, when it came to substantiating the allegations, to stand over them.
Having said all that, the Chairman, Mr. Justice Hamilton has, within the almost impossibly wide terms of reference we gave him, done a remarkable job for which he deserves all our thanks, in showing up malpractices and abuse and in showing that we run a tight ship. His findings in many ways have been and will continue to be helpful in improving our systems. What has sickened me after these two days is that the opportunity to suggest ways in which we might tighten up the weaknesses in the system was not taken and the debate was used to recycle the old tired allegations of golden circles, nods and winks that were rejected by the chairman of the tribunal. The very least we can do in deference to the sole member of the tribunal is to accept that having spent three years of his life, hearing evidence from 475 witnesses and sitting for 231 days is to accept him as an honest broker. We owe him our thanks. His findings are valuable and his recommendations either have already been or will be speedily implemented.
Helpful lessons have been learned and acted upon. The reputation of Irish beef remains, as the report points out, extremely high. The beef industry, our biggest single industry has become increasingly market oriented and can significantly develop value added products. The Government is determined to look to the future and to ensure that the potential of this industry is developed to the benefit of the whole economy. We look for the support of Members of all sides in ensuring that we are successful in this.
I strongly support the motion before this House.
I wish to share my time with my colleague Deputy Theresa Ahearn.
Is that agreed? Agreed. May I advise the Deputies that I am obliged under the order of the House to call the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Dempsey to reply at 3 p.m.
The Minister in the course of his speech referred to the relationship between the Goodman group and the Fine Gael Party during its period in Government from 1982-87. If that relationship was so good, why did the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Michael Noonan suspend the Goodman group's export credit insurance to Iraq? If there was any reason to act otherwise, he would not have done it and, of course, there was a good reason for it being restored when his successor in office, Deputy Reynolds became Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The ceiling on insurance increased each year for five years.
The Minister also commented on the export of beef to the USSR. It was ironic that Deputy Bruton knew that this beef came from intervention. With the same advice available, why did the Minister for Industry and Commerce, not know it came from intervention stocks? In addition, there was no subsidised insurance scheme for the export of this beef and the taxpayer was not exposed to any insurance liability.
Ireland was playing Russia on the 16th and unfortunately they were beaten two-nil.
Deputies, particularly Opposition Deputies, have carried out a comprehensive analysis of the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry reflected in the excellent quality of the contributions made by Opposition speakers. The relevant and pertinent questions have been asked in a very precise and direct manner. However the Taoiseach Deputy Reynolds virtually destroyed the very purpose of this debate when he declared on Thursday:
... the tribunal is over. There are no questions still to be answered... We will not now have a tribunal of inquiry into the tribunal's findings.
Surely this debate was to examine the report and pose questions to the Taoiseach and the relevant Ministers, including the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, on the findings of Mr. Justice Hamilton on a number of vital issues, including the Taoiseach's handling of export credit insurance, especially for the Goodman group. The Taoiseach made it clear at the outset that he was not prepared to accept any criticism from the Opposition or the criticisms in Mr. Justice Hamilton's report as criticisms of major consequences. In other words, he regards the beef tribunal and this three day debate on it as unnecessary. The astronomical price of the tribunal was due of course to the high rate of fees set by the Fianna Fáil Attorney General. A number of damning questions remain unanswered. The Government by its refusal to allow a question and answer session at the conclusion of this debate has reneged on its commitment to open and transparent Government.
I am baffled by the attitude of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring. The Labour Party has co-operated with the Fianna Fáil Party to ensure that this debate will be a futile exercise and a further waste of taxpayers' money. It shows how ineffective the Dáil is in getting answers to questions. Nothing has changed since 1987 when the seeds of the inquiry into the beef industry were sown. If subsequently questions on export credit insurance, as it related to the Goodman group of companies had been answered in the Dáil there would have been, as Mr. Justice Hamilton said "no necessity for a tribunal". A question and answer session this afternoon would have removed many suspicions and much of the mystery surrounding many questions raised by Mr. Justice Hamilton and it would be very much appreciated by a discerning and intelligent public who are as interested in important detail as they are in the bottom line. Failure to allow a question and answer session indicates the deliberate smokescreen to obfuscate the facts, leaving doubts and confusion.
As a businessman, the Taoiseach must know the small print in the contract is most important, especially in an insurance contract. The nitty gritty of insurance cover which runs to more than £100 million deserves careful and close scrutiny. It all boils down to the fact that Fianna Fáil believes that what is in the interests of Fianna Fáil is in the national interest. Fianna Fáil believes it controls and owns the institutions in the State and that the purpose of the institutions is to serve the interests of Fianna Fáil first and last. Deputy Spring when in Opposition accused the former leader of Fianna Fáil of being a cancer on the body politic and said Fianna Fáil was a corrupting culture on Irish politics. I suspect that this culture has not changed and the Fianna Fáil leopard has not changed its spots. In his evidence to the beef tribunal and in his contribution on Thursday, the Taoiseach claimed he was acting in the national interest when he granted export credit insurance to the Goodman Group on its exports to Iraq. He justified his decision by stating that:
In 1987 beef exports grew by £78 million.... That same year family farm incomes rose by 38.9 per cent... ... Cattle prices reached their highest level to date.
It is extraordinary that the Taoiseach still persists with this complete misconception of reality because surely at this stage he must know that much of the beef was from outside the State and most of it came from EC intervention stocks.
It was worth noting that Mr. Justice Hamilton qualified his reference to the national interest as being Minister Reynolds's concept of what the national interest is. As I have already said, Fianna Fáil's concept of the national interest is what is in the interest of Fianna Fáil. Clearly it was within this definition of the national interest that Minister Reynolds was operating when he granted export credit insurance to the Goodman group.
The tribunal findings show clearly that there was a total breakdown in collective Cabinet responsibility. The Departments of Finance and Agriculture and Food were aware that intervention beef was being exported to Iraq at that time. At the same time, Deputy Albert Reynolds was going to Cabinet seeking export credit insurance, yet he claims he was not informed either by the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Finance that such cover had to be for intervention beef.
The amounts of money involved were colossal by any standards and any intelligent businessman would have carried out basic fundamental research on the nature of the product being exported. Such fundamental questions were never asked. Failure to ask these questions has left the public deeply suspicious of the Taoiseach's role in this whole affair and a recent opinion poll substantiates this.
It is regrettable that well respected civil servants have been caught up in this nasty affair. I suspect many may feel they were compromised in the process. It is outrageous that an incomplete response to a Dáil question was actually praised for its ambiguity. I have a suggestion for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, who has asked us for suggestions. Fine Gael demands that all Dáil questions, either in written or oral form, be answered fully, truthfully and without deceit. The process by which Dáil questions were dodged and clouded during that Fianna Fáil Administration regarding the Goodman affair was a corruption of parliamentary democracy. One is not totally surprised, however, as this appears to be a core value of the Fianna Fáil culture, referred to by Deputy Spring in his statement.
The Deputy tried to join Fianna Fáil.
One hoped that with Labour in Government we had seen an end to such shenanigans. However, I begin to despair. The antics of the Labour Party during this debate, which has been treated as a mockery by the Government, resembles a jury which condemns Deputy Reynolds for being untrustworthy and in fact acting illegally towards the IDA and bringing about a policy disaster — they bring in a verdict of guilty and then grant an absolute pardon and allow the accused to go scot free. So much for trust and transparency in politics and open Government. The silence of those radical Labour Ministers, who when in Opposition never lost an opportunity to strike at their opponents, is now deafening. Now we have the silence of the lambs. What are their views on the greatest financial rip-off of the PAYE sector? They have voted in through this House a tax amnesty which they and their many advisers must have know would benefit the Goodman company. They are now shedding crocodile tears. They stand guilty of gross hypocrisy and have lost all sense of integrity. Their attitude to the tribunal report is shadow boxing at its very best. This is one aspect of the issue which is most inexplicable.
If Fianna Fáil in Government had answered questions truthfully in this House we would have spared the taxpayers approximately £45 million. What could that £45 million have done for our health, education and environmental services? At a rough estimate I believe it would have provided 15,000 hip operations, for example. The necessity for this tribunal due to unanswered questions in Dáil Éireann is probably the worst scandal of the whole affair. In future years, when people read about the beef tribunal, the basic question will be asked: was it necessary to spend that amount of money when, if our democratic system was operating efficiently, it would not have been necessary? We have to hope that lessons will be learned from this sad affair and that we will have a more open and transparent approach within our democratic system so that there will never again be a reason to set up another such tribunal.
Deputies from Fianna Fáil came into the House during this debate and criticised the fact that the report was being discussed and evaluated by this House. I would remind them that, as Members of this House, they should welcome this debate. This House set up the tribunal of inquiry. It is to this House that the chairman has reported. The tribunal was — in the words of its report — a fact finding operation. We as parliamentarians are the people who are to draw the political conclusions from that report and we are prevented from doing that this week by the failure of those on the opposite side of the House to answer the relevant questions. If Deputies do not wish to do that they should not be here since they are not fulfilling the mandate given to them by the people.
I intended to focus on a very different aspect of the beef tribunal which has been largely ignored until now. It is the aspect of interest to the people. All the details have been examined closely and scrutinised in this House but the people are more concerned with what the beef tribunal has highlighted in relation to the values that are important to us as a people and as a nation. The values to which I refer are honesty, the way of doing business and dealing with others and our work ethic. Unfortunately, the beef tribunal has proven that such values are sadly lacking in those involved in large businesses and in high positions of power in the political circle.
Unfortunately, due to the time constraint, I cannot develop that particular aspect of the beef tribunal but it is the one that concerns me personally and which concerns the people. It is also an aspect which we will find very difficult to rectify, having caused a lack of confidence among the public in those whom they should be able to trust. It will take a long time to replace that.
I wish to make reference to the deliberate attempt by the Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, to mislead this House this morning, just as he misled the tribunal on day 76——
On a point of order, that is an absolutely outrageous slur.
——when, under oath, in reply to a question from counsel——
Deputy Ahearn will hear the Chair. She may not ignore the Chair. The Chair is upstanding. The Deputy will resume her seat.
I wish to correct another outrageous slur on my integrity. I did not mislead this House and if the Deputy is worthy of membership of this House, she will withdraw that remark.
I take it it is a political charge in that the Deputy did not say the Minister deliberately——
He was asked did he at any time contact the then Taoiseach in connection with this development plan. The Minister replied——
A Cheann Comhairle, I ask that the Deputy withdraw that appalling remark.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
In fairness to every Member of this House, I am entitled to that.
I think the Minister should leave that to the Chair. I presume the Deputy is not asserting that a Minister deliberately did this. That would not be in order.
May I develop my point?
She is posing the questions.
Is she withdrawing the remark?
I will accept no dictation from any side of this House.
The Deputy had a good innings. I listened to his contribution.
Deputy Ahearn will not impugn any Member of this House or be deliberately disruptive.
The question——
I am sorry, Deputy Ahearn, I take it you have withdrawn any assertion of a deliberate act on the part of the Minister?
May I develop my point and I will make my conclusions later?
No, you must withdraw unreservedly the suggestion that the Minister deliberately——
Very well, a Cheann Comhairle.
Thank you, Deputy.
The Minister, Deputy Walsh, was asked by counsel how many jobs he had created to date and if the Taoiseach had absolutely nothing to do with this project. Minister Walsh replied that he had nothing to do with it.
Good, bad or indifferent.
This is the assertion that Deputy Doyle made in the House yesterday in stating that Minister Walsh's evidence was factually incorrect. Like Deputy Doyle I invite closer scrutiny on the evidence of the Minister given under oath during the tribunal hearing.
On a point of order——
Bullyboy tactics.
He failed to explain the difference between his evidence and that of the then Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey. We were assured by the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Labour Party that all questions raised in the House during the debate would be answered. I look forward to the Minister explaining the irreconcilible difference——
On a point of order, do we have to listen to this——
The Deputy is about to conclude. She has less than one minute. Let us have a little forbearance.
With respect to your office, the Deputy is not allowed to defame me.
No, and I would not allow any Member to do so. If the Deputy defamed the Minister and the Minister denies the allegation——
The Deputy withdrew the remark she made.
——it is standard practice in the House that the Minister's word is accepted. I do not know how a democratic assembly of this kind can operate unless we accept each other's word.
I withdrew the word "deliberate".
The Minister denies the allegation and the Deputy must accept that. We must accept each other's word. There is no other way to proceed.
I do not understand. When Members of my party tried to raise a point of order during——
Unless a Deputy causes disorder there is no need for the Chair to intervene.
——the Minister's contribution, he bulldozed his way by ignoring questions raised on this side of the House yet I can be interrupted during the five minutes in which to make my contribution. That is grossly unfair.
The Chair does not interrupt but intervenes to maintain order. I now call the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Defence and Finance to reply to the debate.
I caused no disorder.
As fellow parliamentarians in the same constituency I respect that.
I never caused disorder.
For the past 30 hours we have endured the most tedious slow motion replay the House ever sat through, not a replay of truth or the chairman's considered and expert judgment but a replay of allegations and questions as if they had not been answered or dealt with before.
The Government said it would welcome questions.
What was the debate for?
All the questions were answered. I propose to deal with the allegations, questions and implications for our democratic and judicial process.
In the House this week, instead of dealing with the report, Deputy Bruton made a new set of allegations about export credit insurance. What puzzles me is why he did not make these allegations before or during the tribunal. He woke up to their potential for the first time this week and did not check the facts. He accused the Taoiseach of not adhering to Cabinet decisions and, in doing so, misquoted the Cabinet decision of 8 September 1987 to make his point. His argument was based on a major misquotation. As a result, I can only assume at best that he was incompetent because if that is not the case he must have been trying to deliberately mislead the House.
Deputy O'Malley's pet allegation is that the Taoiseach rejected official advice. He has never made any secret of the fact that he rejected advice when he felt the situation called for it. Ministers reject the advice of their civil servants all the time. It comes with the territory.
All the time?
Deputy O'Malley knows that and did so himself. Deputy Bruton once asked Deputy O'Malley why he disagreed with the advice given to him by his civil servants. Deputy O'Malley replied — this is on record——
It has been quoted before.
It is no harm to repeat it. He said: "it is very unhealthy if a Minister is only expected to rubber stamp whatever his Department comes up with and this is not my way of operating". To listen to Deputies now——
Is a copy of the Minister's speech available?
The Deputy may not interrupt. Please resume your seat.
I do not wish to interrupt but I rise to inquire if there is a copy of the Minister's speech.
I am using notes but I will be delighted to forward a copy of this speech to the Deputy. To listen to Deputies now, one would imagine no one had ever taken a decision against advice before. The crime is that it was Deputy Reynolds who took that course of action.
With £100 million at stake.
Let us be clear that in working towards this week's ceasefire Deputy Reynolds selected from all the good advice his officials gave him. If the Opposition was logical it would query the ceasefire because in achieving it he rejected official advice.
What official advice did he reject?
The Minister must be allowed to continue.
The Minister is impugning civil servants. He should specify which officials' advice he rejected.
The Deputy may not ignore the Chair. The Minister is entitled to make his speech in his own way without an intrusion of this kind.
On a point of order, it has been the practice of the Chair, and a good one, to protect people outside the House from vilification. The Minister said the Taoiseach rejected official advice.
Resume your seat. I will not be lectured by the Deputy as to how I discharge my duties in this House.
Which officials? Is the Minister to be allowed cast a slur on all officials?
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and not interrupt further.
The Deputy should listen to what I am saying and not jump up and down like a jack in the box.
This is not question time.
Whose advice did the Taoiseach reject?
The Minister may not be interrogated.
In the nonsense department Deputy Rabbitte has a whole counter to himself.
Under the counter I have all to myself.
Mr. Justice Hamilton rejected 11 of his allegations out of hand.
That is not true.
The Deputy must restrain himself. He had a good innings in the House when making his contribution and must accord the same courtesy to the Minister.
He has had a good innings in more than the House.
I did not mislead the House.
The Minister is not doing too badly.
Opening his speech, Deputy Rabbitte listed a number of questions he wanted answered. Where has he been for the last three years? He asked why the Taoiseach ignored expert advice in reintroducing export credit insurance cover? If he had been at the tribunal he would know the Taoiseach answered that. The Deputy also asked why the Taoiseach put more than £100 million of taxpayers' money at risk for an illusory benefit to the economy? The Taoiseach dealt with that, too, at the tribunal. The Deputy asked also why the Taoiseach did not know or make a reasonable effort to find out that the product he was insuring with taxpayers' money came from either intervention or outside the State? That was dealt with by the Taoiseach in the House and at the tribunal. Deputy Rabbitte asked also why the Taoiseach did not tell the House how he knew that Mr. Goodman would apply for cover of £134.5 million. This matter, too, was dealt with at the tribunal.
This is all untrue.
Another allegation was that the Taoiseach misled the House when introducing the insurance Bill to raise the limit on 21 June, an allegation made by Deputy O'Malley which he failed to pursue at the tribunal although his counsel was invited several times to pursue it. He withdrew it. There is a litany of questions and allegations all of which——
Go through the rest of them.
The Deputy must desist.
This is a Fianna Fáil tribunal.
I find it difficult to listen.
If the Deputy finds it difficult to listen to the Minister there are many exits from the Chamber.
When so many of the Deputy's allegations and questions are easily proven to be without foundation there is no point in addressing his latest batch which is a repetition of what he has spewed out over the past two or three years.
I want to nail the repeated suggestion that there are unanswered questions. There are no unanswered questions.
Answer them now.
There are seven volumes containing the Taoiseach's evidence. He was examined and cross-examined and answered question after question. In addition there is half a ton of tribunal documentation in which questions are answered. Detailed answers to questions were given yesterday, today and the day before — more answers than most people felt they needed and perhaps some they did not want to hear because they would prefer to continue their insinuations and innuendo.
During the past few weeks some of my constituents have made it clear to me that they have heard more about the beef tribunal than they ever wanted to hear.
Really.
They said they were bored and irritated at the length of time it took and the amount of money it cost.
They must be members of Fine Gael.
We move in the right circles.
They assumed——
They do not turn up at the Minister's clinics anymore.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
Deputy Bruton knows all about my clinic in Trim——
The few times I have gone there people have been looking for the Minister all over Trim. They ask where he is. They can see his car but they cannot see him.
On the third Saturday of each month there is a clinic attended by three people——
(Interruptions.)
If the Member in possession is not allowed to make his speech without continuous interruptions I have a remedy.
He is casting a slur on the judgment of my constituents, some of who are foolish enough to give him their votes.
I will terminate the proceedings and proceed to the vote. I am not prepared to preside over a rowdy House.
He is trying to make out that the people of Meath are foolish.
The people of Meath are no fools, they returned me at the last election with the highest number of votes in the constituency.
Even Deputy Hugh Byrne would not say that.
Nobody can take that from the Minister but he is not showing much respect for them now.
They raised the matter with me because they assumed I would be interested in it; they raised it more for my benefit than theirs. They could not figure out the purpose of this debate and some of them could not even remember why the tribunal had originally been set up.
I refuse to believe that the IQ of the people in Meath is that low.
Deputy Rabbitte must restrain himself. He has had his say.
The last point is worth addressing. The beef tribunal was not set up because of fraud or tax evasion in the beef industry or to investigate Eirfreeze and other companies. Rather it was set up because numerous Opposition Deputies——
And some Deputies on the other side of the House.
——said that all of the things which were allegedly happening were as a result of the supposed cosy relationship between the Goodman organisation and Fianna Fáil. That was the core reason the tribunal was set up.
Does the Minister believe that Larry Goodman was not close to Fianna Fáil?
I will come back to that point at a later stage. The serious allegations made so freely under the protection of parliamentary privilege suggested that Larry Goodman had Fianna Fáil in his pocket and that Ministers were intervening in areas more properly pertaining to individual authorities, interfering with Revenue Commissioners, customs officials etc. and making decisions in favour of some exporters not because this would benefit the economy but because they had a close relationship with them.
Was all this told to the Tánaiste?
The tribunal was not set up because of wrongdoings but because, according to the allegations, there was an inappropriate closeness between Larry Goodman and Fianna Fáil.
And Paschal Phelan.
Order, please.
Since the publication of the report much history has been rewritten. We have witnessed prime examples of this during the past three days. For example, Deputy Rabbitte has cast himself as a hero for highlighting an operation which defrauded the Revenue Commissioners of £10 million. However, he is only a hero if his claims are taken at face value, which in Deputy Rabbitte's case is always very dangerous.
A Deputy
Absolutely.
The tribunal confirmed the fraud to which he referred, but it must never be forgotten that he prefaced his remarks by saying that all of this was happening because of the closeness between Larry Goodman and Fianna Fáil. If he had raised his suspicions, with evidence, directly with the Revenue Commissioners they would have uncovered the fraud without the expense of a tribunal.
They did not uncover it during the previous ten years.
The Deputy did not produce the evidence. He stated — this is important because he is trying to distance himself from it——
I am not trying to distance myself from it.
He alleged that the Revenue Commissioners had turned a blind eye to what was going on because they were told to.
Why did they not uncover the fraud during the previous ten years?
The Deputy is repeating the allegation?
That is the allegation the Deputy made.
The important point is that £12 million was recouped for the Exchequer.
Deputy Rabbitte should resume his seat.
That allegation is not true, was never true and has been proven not to be true; it had no basis. Deputy Rabbitte, the man who made the allegations, is now chopping the top and bottom——
I am not chopping anything.
——off the original allegation and saying, "if you look at the little bit in the middle I was right".
It says much about the Minister if he is calling £10 million the little bit in the middle.
It was not the middle bit which was used to try to destroy reputations but the top and bottom bits.
All of this was about the top bit.
The Democratic Left package, preface, summary and marketing, was damaging and destructive.
It was better than the marketing done by the leader of the Minister's party on 29 July.
Deputy Rabbitte, please desist.
We must not allow anyone to walk away from the kind of character assassination they engaged in during the past two years now that the allegations have proven to be without foundation.
The problem is that this debate has given many Members an opportunity to restate old and frayed accusations and emphasise points which look like they support the position they took in the past. That is a waste of time. Given the length of the tribunal and the money it has absorbed, we owe it to the public to do more than merely reheat old conflicts.
The beef tribunal and the controversy which led to it have demonstrated the deep flaws in the kind of politics and level of public discourse to which we have grown accustomed in recent years. We have had the politics of reaction and reflex outrage.
A Deputy
And disgrace.
We have had politics involving the abuse of parliamentary privilege——
Absolutely.
By Fianna Fáil Ministers at every opportunity.
——and politics based on personal attack. The main personality who has been under attack and continues to be under attack——
That is a terrible slur on the Tánaiste.
——is the Taoiseach.
The Minister is making the case for the prosecution.
The Opposition has combed the report to find ways to contradict the Taoiseach's statement that he was vindicated by it.
At least we did not go to A & L Goodbody to quote it for us, as the Minister's head office did.
My thesaurus says that a person can be described as vindicated, acquitted, exonerated or cleared.
Or free.
When the independent chairman of the beef tribunal, Mr. Justice Hamilton, says that there is no evidence that the Taoiseach's decisions were based on improper motives, either political or personal, that is exoneration, it is vindication. When Mr. Justice Hamilton says there is no evidence to suggest that the Taoiseach was close to Mr. Goodman at the time or that Mr. Goodman had any political associations with him or his party that is acquittal, it is vindication.
Is the word "vindication" the new Fianna Fáil mantra?
(Interruptions.)
The Minister without interruption, please.
Members of the Opposition are redefining language and our laws when they say that being found not guilty does not mean you are vindicated. According to the Opposition, it means not having enough evidence to find one guilty.
That is correct.
Some of the people who adopted this line could be excused for their ignorance: It broke out afresh yesterday when Deputy Doyle stated that the tribunal report could be summed up by saying that the man who stole the horse was found not guilty.
Something like that.
Deputy Avril Doyle's attitude is in keeping with the long tradition of her party dating back to its foundation which, in turn, dates back to the lynch law and the wild west: we will hang them after we have found them, after we have given them a fair trial.
(Interruptions.)
However, Deputy Michael McDowell——
(Interruptions.)
Please, Deputies, order.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister should rewrite that, no free beef for the——
(Interruptions.)
This is grossly disorderly.
I am glad that Deputy Doyle is in such fine voice. Perhaps she should take an opportunity after the vote to explain where she got the lambs yesterday when speaking.
There is an excuse for some Members who pursued this line but I do not excuse Deputy Michael McDowell. He ought to know better the principles applicable to courts and tribunals: one is either cleared or not cleared; there is no in between. For example, how would Deputy Michael McDowell feel if his client was acquitted and the following day Noel Dempsey said publicly that although he was found not guilty we all know that he really was guilty? What would happen?
Tell that to the Tánaiste.
I know that if I said that I would very speedily find myself in court for contempt, defamation and malicious falsehood. Yet, under parliamentary privilege, that is precisely what the Progressive Democrats and others are doing——
Including the Labour Party.
——rejecting a verdict, coming up with their own. The reason for all this is that the verdict gives the Progressive Democrats no reason for outrage. All sides of this House know that the Progressive Democrats need outrage, they are addicted to it, without an outrage fix once a week — a prime example of it yesterday was demonstrated by Deputy Michael McDowell — they have major problems. Their current problem is that the tribunal gave them no scope for outrage. Therefore, the party that spewed out unjustified, staged, outrage all over this House and over the media for the past several years, must devise new terms to justify themselves.
"Innocent" does not mean innocent any more; it just means that they could not find the evidence to find one guilty. At one level it is mildly amusing but at one level only; at another level it is grimly serious. I want to challenge it very angrily; it is improper to say that someone who is found innocent is really not innocent——
He was not found innocent.
We have had a hugely costly, incredibly detailed and invasive tribunal, with more top questioning by top legal brains than we are ever likely to see again in such concentration for many years to come.
——and no questioning allowed in here.
It is disgraceful to suggest that the chairman of that tribunal does not mean what he says it means——
What is the verdict of the Labour Party?
This reinterpretation is wildly out of touch with reality——
Guilty but in Government.
Here we have Dáil Deputies——
Guilty but in office.
You will be innocent for a very long time, so, you will be a long time innocent.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is entitled to speak without interruption.
Dáil Deputies, some with legal qualifications, are dismissing the verdict of a vastly experienced, authoritative and independent legal figure.
——the Tánaiste.
It is a dangerous day for democracy when public representatives, particularly those with legal backgrounds, are willing to damage public faith in our judicial processes just to score a political point.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
On a point of order——
In the past two years we have seen——
Deputy John Bruton on a point of order.
Will the Chair rule that the tribunal was an instrument of Parliament, not a judicial process, and that the judgments to be made about its findings are political not criminal?
If Deputy John Bruton keeps trying I am sure he will get one point of order correctly.
In the past two years we have seen political point-scoring that was so promiscuous——
Promiscuous?
——so reckless, that it damaged the public perception of our judicial system, even though they were the point scorers who wanted the establishment of the tribunal of inquiry in the first place.
Did the Taoiseach issue a statement like that once?
I suggest that the Deputy look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary. I have one here for him.
Will the Minister of State produce the dictionary definition of a Republic next?
There is more than one meaning to it although I know the meaning the Deputy is taking out of it. However, everything does not begin and end with sex. The democratic process was damaged by precipitating a general election the electorate did not want. It set out to destroy individuals of integrity——
Annihilate.
——by pretending that they were dealing with issues only. It damaged each and every one of us in this House, in all parties, by bringing our profession into disrepute.
I have already touched on the damage done to the judicial process. Now I want to examine the damage to our democratic process. Since the publication of this report two things have happened. The people on that side of the House have almost worn out their eyes and highlighter pens seeking anything, anything at all, that could remotely be construed critical of the Taoiseach.
There was plenty there; read the Tánaiste's speech.
They have read those 904 pages not once or twice but three times, individually and collectively, up and down, inside out, and have read them with the same motivation they have had all day.
The Taoiseach read it in 15 minutes.
——to find something, anything at all that could damage Fianna Fáil or its Leader.
(Interruptions.)
The sad thing is that too many people will feel disquiet, not by the judgment which exonerates these good people but by accusations.
Who are the good people?
Goodman.
Those accusations are like nuclear waste. That is Deputy Finucane's problem; probably he would not recognise a good person if he saw one.
The main point is that the Minister has a good job and wants to keep it; that is about the sum of it.
They had a half life that goes on and on and on.
That is what the people in meat say as well; they dealt with you at the polls.
That half life damages the democratic process because people end up disbelieving all public representatives and with their suspicions about politicians half-confirmed. Therefore, they perceive all politicians as venal, corrupt, inept, incompetent and untrustworthy. That is bad for every single Member in this House. It is bad also for society because, if one cannot trust the people elected to represent one's interest, one must turn to other — undemocratic means — to achieve it. That is why I believe this indiscriminately paraded high-mindedness of the past three years has brought us into public odium. There has been a lessening of respect for and trust in the democratic process, in the people who have chosen to be public representatives. I strongly object to it; I angrily reject it.
High-mindedness.
On behalf of people on all sides of this House, whom I admire in politics, I reject it.
I entered politics with a sense of practical, often local, objectives to be achieved, as did many others in this House——
Bunny Carr has a lot to answer for.
I entered politics with a great sense of the value of that career, that it encompassed values such as patriotism and splendid aims like peace. Above all, I knew what I stood for when entering politics.
That was not Mr. Haughey's view on the reason the Minister got into politics.
What was the Deputy doing before entering into politics?
If anything in politics at any stage contradicted what I stood for, I would stand up and say so. I have done precisely that as have other people in this House. I have risked future preferment and present comforts because politics is an issue of practical idealism and ethical professionalism.
A Deputy
The Minister is attacking the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey.
The smart snide denigration of politicians——
On a point of order, on the Order of Business this morning the Taoiseach confirmed that the Minister responding would reply to any questions raised——
I am sorry, Deputy, you are being grossly disorderly. Please resume your seat. A number of Deputies raised points which are not points of order. For the benefit of Deputies, particularly Deputy Rabbitte, a point of order must relate to procedure, order in the House or Standing Orders.
This is procedure.
A procedural point is that the Taoiseach said questions would be answered, instead we are getting a sermon from the Minister of State about his honesty.
The Chair does not have control over the Minister's speech.
If Deputies Bruton and Kenny were in the House at the start of my speech they would have heard me answer their questions.
On a point of order——
The smart snide denigration of politicians by politicians over the past three years——
On a point of order, in view of the long standing practice whereby ministerial speeches are distributed, will the Minister of State arrange for the supply of sick bags with his script?
That is not a matter for the Chair.
Deputy Flanagan is welcome to the House. If he was here at 3 p.m. he was obviously asleep. The smart snide denigration of politicians by politicians during the past three years is despicable.
Stop the drivel and give us some facts.
We now have a culture of insults led by the Progressive Democrats.
Is this not the man who led the campaign against the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, in Fianna Fáil? What does he purport to lecture the rest of us about? Nobody made any——
Resume your seat, Deputy. The Deputy is being disorderly again.
This mutual attack simply does not happen in other professions.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, was looking for honesty, like George Colley.
The Deputy is being disorderly. The Minister is entitled to proceed without interruption.
That was another very useful contribution from Deputy Carey. We seem to be the only profession in which the members attack and bring down the whole profession.
(Interruptions.)
Lawyers do not normally attack each other in public, doctors do not make speeches impugning the honesty, motives and personal morality of other doctors.
Does the Minister of State want to turn politics into a restrictive practice?
No, it is only politicians who do it without seeming to realise they damage all of us, including themselves, when they bring politicians into disrepute. It is significant that some of the most damaging statements have come from part time politicians who, perhaps, do not have the commitment to the profession they should have.
A Deputy
Deputy McDowell.
I have no problem whatsoever with vigorous opposition but there is a distinction between vigorous opposition and this type of habitual outrage based on a racist assumption that if one is a member of Fianna Fáil, by definition one lacks the standards of decency that distinguish other parties.
I like Fianna Fáil, but I do not think it should be in Government.
We do not want the Deputy.
I know the Deputy inquired at one stage.
Order, please.
The assumption is made that because one is in Fianna Fáil one is guilty and it is all right to make accusations without any evidence.
Stop filibustering.
People on the Opposition side of the House talk about issues but they play out the politics of personalities. Whenever personal attacks are made on an individual the phrase used is: if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Heat is bearable if it is legitimate but a great deal of heat generated around individual politicians, particularly the Taoiseach, in the last two years was not legitimate. One does not need a blow torch to make a piece of toast or an 80 gallon boiler to poach an egg. Many blow torches and boilers have been used inappropriately inside and outside this House recently in an effort to destroy a good man.
A Deputy
There are few hot air balloons around.
There speaks a pastmaster. I wonder whether the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey is listening to this drivel.
It is not good enough to say "he is a politician" as if this means he has no entitlement to feelings or respect. We should not rate a politician highly because he has no feelings, is insensitive or cannot be affected by external comment.
I wonder if the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey is listening to this?
The Minister without interruption.
Do we want stainless steel robots running the country? The accusations against the Taoiseach outside and inside this House reached the Taoiseach and he made no secret of that. A person, no matter how strong or upright cannot be unaffected by constant attacks no matter how groundless they may be, as in this case.
A Deputy
I hope the Minister of State sends a copy of that speech to Mr. Haughey.
The Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, put his feelings about the beef tribunal to one side and got on with the business of governing.
——and embraced Dick Spring.
Above all he never lost, during those two years of constant baying at his heels by an Opposition devoted to easy accusation——
A Deputy
Stop talking about Charles Haughey.
——a deep yearning, a hunger for peace on this island.
The Minister of State had better start again as the Taoiseach is coming in.
He has done more than any previous political leader to achieve it. The past two days were a triumph for a man who once described himself as obsessed by peace, a triumph for humanity and all people on this island. It was a triumph for a man constantly at the receiving end of cheap sneers and unjustified allegations.
Poor Charles J. Haughey.
We must hope that the politics of personality and of smart, one line quotable quotes is at an end and that the climate of insult in the House will change allowing us to return to substantive debate genuinely based on issues and ideals. It would make a pleasant change.
That is up to the Government.
Let us hear the Minister.
While I am on the subject of bringing this House and our profession into disrepute I must touch on the issue of parliamentary privilege. I am glad Deputy Doyle is still here.
I am sorry Deputy Spring is not here.
Parliamentary privilege is exactly what the words imply — a tremendous privilege bestowed on Deputies enabling us to say what we must, free from any threat of civil action. It is a privilege predicated on the assumption that it will be used responsibly. Each and every one of us should use parliamentary privilege carefully and responsibly. The evidence suggests that some Members of this House have lost that sense of responsibility. The abuse of parliamentary privilege in the past two years has carried immediate costs. It has cost taxpayers more money than we will ever be able to count in legal, direct and indirect costs. There has also been a great cost to Ireland's image abroad, to democracy and to the concept of justice. However, there were some gains. There was a constant feed of headlines, editorials and articles, which could and did reinforce the image of a few Members of this House. We, as politicians, paid very dearly to make them feel good about their coverage.
About whom is the Minister talking?
The Tánaiste.
They turned the entire democratic process on its side for that purpose.
The Minister must be talking about the Tánaiste.
He is talking about Deputy Bruton's image.
They skewed the truth, redefined words for that purpose and they are still doing it in the House. Ultimately, what the beef tribunal was about was accusations of favouritism by Fianna Fáil towards Goodman. The bottom line in Mr. Justice Hamilton's report is that there was not any favouritism, blatant or otherwise.
It was straightforward favouritism.
Yet within days of the report being published one of the main accusers stated on national radio that——
(Carlow-Kilkenny): That he was vindicated.
Perhaps they should have used a different word, a word such as "discrimination", which has been changed again in the past day or so. It is similar to telling somebody accused of murder or pillage that he is not a great fellow. That type of carry-on is too ludicrous for words. This is the man who has more or less taken out a franchise on decency, honesty and consistency and he is casually backing away from a word which summed up the last two years as if it was a matter of conversational choice, a matter of style, rather than what it really was.
What is the Minister of State talking about?
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, repeatedly made the point that this debate should have been about the lessons learned from the beef tribunal. Instead, Opposition Deputies availed of the opportunity merely to highlight accusations which were not substantiated. They did not try to learn lessons or make suggestions.
That is not true.
One of the issues raised by the tribunal report and referred to by many speakers during the debate was the need for Dáil reform. Most of the remarks made were based on the chairman's contention that, had questions been answered more fully in the House, it might not have been necessary to set up the beef tribunal. That might be so, but we would still have been forced to set up the tribunal because of the character assassinations and the games Opposition Deputies were playing at that time, baying for political blood. That is why the tribunal was set up.
It is worth noting that the learned judge made remarks about the system that pertained in the period 1987-89. To listen to some Deputies in the House debating the findings of the tribunal, one would imagine that they were unaware of the fact that major reforms have taken place in the intervening period. As the Minister of State who initiated and introduced the most fundamental Dáil reform package since the foundation of the State. I welcome the attention focused on that topic during the debate. I am very disappointed, however, that Deputies opposite, who have done so much to ensure the success of those reforms, fail to acknowledge that the position has changed dramatically over the past seven years.
Not as far as Question Time is concerned.
I am also disappointed that Deputies opposite fall into the trap of slavishly repeating catch phrases used in the media by people whose only interest is to denigrate our profession.
Shame on the Minister of State.
And shame on them. I have no hesitation in saying that had the reforms put in place over the past two years been in place during the period 1987-89 it definitely would not have been necessary to set up the beef tribunal.
That is not true.
Where would the Minister be only for the media?
In particular, our committee system would have assisted greatly.
Committees cannot compel witnesses to attend.
Had the relevant committees been in place at that time, they would have given Deputies a greater opportunity to question Ministers.
Nonsense.
I am surprised at the number of Deputies opposite who do not realise that. Are they attending those committees at all? The Estimates debates in committees have afforded——
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, would not answer questions on social welfare matters.
(Interruptions.)
The Member in possession is entitled to the courtesy of being heard.
The Estimates debates in committee have afforded Deputies the opportunity to question Ministers in great detail——
But not to get answers.
That is reform.
——not only about policies being pursued by their Departments but also about decisions made by them.
The Minister. Deputy Woods, failed to answer questions.
For the benefit of those Members and others who comment on the activities of the House and who have failed to note the enormous changes that have taken place over the past two years, I will refer briefly to the reforms of greatest relevance to the tribunal. I have already mentioned the committee system which gives Members an opportunity to make Ministers more accountable to the House.
They cannot compel witnesses to attend.
As indicated previously by the Taoiseach and me, this system will be strengthened by the compellability and privilege Bill which I hope will be introduced in the autumn session.
Will it apply retrospectively?
The sub judice rule was abolished by this Government, a fundamental change in the workings of this House. It was designed to give Members the power to speak on matters of urgent public concern even where court proceedings had been initiated. That reform was profound in that it prevented the use of the infamous gagging writs and allowed Members of the House to speak on matters of urgent public importance. It was this Government who introduced the register of members interests by way of motion, a register which will be put on a statutory basis, with the co-operation of the Opposition, in the Ethics in Government Bill. Debates have been revamped to allow Members more time to raise matters of topical interest to which Ministers must respond.
This is all beside the point.
Question Time has been revamped to allow more time for questions and a special slot for questions to the Taoiseach was introduced. In addition, 23 amendments have been made to Standing Orders to improve Dáil practices.
What about an answer time?
Many other changes have taken place but I do not have time today to go into them in detail.
Will the Minister of State answer a few questions?
All of those charges have had a profound effect on the way we operate. In addition, within the next few weeks I will be submitting further proposals for Dáil reform to this House and the Opposition Whips and I expect to receive the same co-operation as before. I intend to examine areas which have been brought to my attention, including Question Time and the Order of Business, of which Deputies opposite have succeeded in making a shambles.
What?
I have no problem in submitting proposals to the Opposition and they can expect them within the next week.
The Minister of State tried to abolish the Order of Business two years ago.
Please, Deputy Flanagan.
The phrase "no problem" is a well known cliche of the Minister's party.
The Minister without interruption, please.
I wish to raise a point of order.
I call Deputy Doyle.
One of the reforms introduced allows a speaker to yield if a question is asked from across the House. Will the Minister yield to take a question?
Deputy, I am endeavouring to be helpful. That was mentioned earlier and it was suggested that matter was provied for under Standing Orders. It is not a matter in Standing Orders but there is a precedent for it. It can be allowed in accordance with the wishes of the Minister in possession and I will put the question to the Minister.
The Minister is the great reformer.
Please, Deputy Finucane.
I consider Deputies Opposite have had more than enough time, including an hour——
That is the word of the great reformer.
I ask the Minister to yield for one question.
Deputy Doyle, please resume your seat. The Chair has accommodated the Deputy. I call on the Minister to continue without further interruption.
That says it all.
We have had——
A total of 226 days.
——a total of 231 days of a tribunal. The Deputy must have missed the five most important days, four when the Taoiseach was present and one other.
They were the only days I missed.
That is why his allegations did not stand up and why he has a distorted view of it.
Deputy Rabbitte will have to increase his claim.
We have had a 904 page report, 30 hours of debate, miles of celluloid and tonnes of newsprint devoted to speculation and comment.
And no questions answered.
All the questions have been raised and they have been answered in this House——
No, they have not. I have a question that has not been answered and the Minister would not allow me to put it. What is he afraid of?
——or in the report.
Deputy Doyle did not yield.
I would have been delighted to yield if I had been allowed the time allotted.
What is the Deputy talking about?
The Taoiseach should transfer the Minister to a diplomatic position.
Please, Deputy Doyle. There is a great level of disorderliness. I am sorely tempted to have an early vote.
Listen to the great reformer. He may have something intelligent to say before he finishes.
Deputy Harte, the transfer fee would be too high.
The £35 million question is, was it worth it? Personally, I believe it was worth it because it was an in-depth and thorough examination of our system of public administration, probably the most thorough since the foundation of the State. The tribunal showed us the workings of the system warts and all. It showed us what mistakes were made. It is clear that the tribunal did not find any trace of corruption or wrongdoing.
Does the Minister contend that the tribunal did not find any wrongdoing?
The purpose of the tribunal was to discover if corruption had taken place.
(Interruptions.)
I, and Fianna Fáil supporters throughout the country, are very satisfied with the outcome of the tribunal.
Is tax evasion not a crime?
Since the foundation of the party in 1926, Deputies opposite have tried to create the impression that my party was less than honest, that it could not be trusted, was corrupt and any other word they might like to use. The tribunal was set up because of political charges of favouritism and corruption. Not one of those charges was sustained after that most exhaustive inquiry.
The Minister should ask the Tánaiste about that.
The Minister must not have read the tribunal report.
Deputy Sheehan, if the record of every other party in this House was examined as thoroughly as ours, would it stand up to such scrutiny or would——
(Interruptions.)
We ask the questions and we answer the questions.
——I put the question to Deputy Harte——
The Minister is now putting the questions.
The Deputy should answer the question. If his party had not created the wrongdoings——
——it disappear as did the record of the Fine Gael Party in relation to political donations in the period between 1982 and 1987?
I am sure the Labour Party regret not being in Opposition now.
(Interruptions.)
Has Deputy Harte not broken up the printing press yet?
Order, please.
Would Deputies opposite like to answer that question? There is no answer to it.
Fine Gael does not have a record.
Would Deputy Carey like to answer that question.
The Minister should ask the Minister for Finance about political donations.
Answer the question. Deputy Carey. What about the Fine Gael record?
I will tell the Minister about political donations——
Members of the Government are the only Members who have wholeheartedly welcomed the report and who have accepted and agreed to the implementation of its recommendations as soon as possible.
What about the Tánaiste?
We are not going to rewrite the report and neither should the Opposition. They should learn from it.
Neither should the Taoiseach rewrite the report.
While this debate has been taking place the character of the man, which the people who called for this tribunal set out to destroy, has been noted. We have seen those people attacking the man who single-mindedly pursued peace in our time and is delivering it milestone after milestone.
What about the Tánaiste?
(Interruptions.)
There cannot be any more slurs on his personal integrity, on the way in which he made his decisions or his conception of the national interest. He did not depart either personally or politically from the standards to be observed by political representatives. When history comes to judge the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, he will be remembered not only as the peacemaker——
Where have the Northern politicans gone? Has John Hume been relegated?
Is Deputy Harte telling me where the records are? The Taoiseach will also be remembered for the soundness of his judgment and the standards he set in political life. That is the way history will judge the Taoiseach.
What about the man who was in Martha's Vineyard yesterday?
I am pleased to commend this motion to the House.
I never knew Deputy Sheehan was partial to the vino people.
That concludes the debate. I am now required to bring the proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with an Order of the Dáil on 1 September.
Amendment put.
I think it might be opportune to put it on the record of the House that the Tánaiste did not exercise his vote.
A Deputy
That is lower than your norm.
Such interventions when the Chair is dealing with a Vote are unsatisfactory.
He was not paired. He did not ask to be paired.
Motion put and declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 October 1994.