Order of Business.

The Taoiseach

It is proposed to take No. 19, Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance (resumed); No. 7c on the supplementary Order Paper, a technical motion concerning the tribunal of inquiry into alleged payments by Dunnes Stores and No. 7b on the supplementary Order Paper, the motion concerning the tribunal of inquiry into the alleged payments by Dunnes Stores. Nos. 7c and 7b shall be taken at 1.15 p.m. and the Order shall resume thereafter.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 7c and 7b shall be moved and debated together and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 2.15 p.m. by one question. Speeches shall be confined to the Taoiseach and to the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil party and the Progressive Democrats party; and shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case.

An Ceann Comhairle

Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 7b and 7c satisfactory and agreed?

Mr. B. Ahern

I thank the Government Whip for his early morning telephone calls and co-operation on those matters. There are still a number of matters to be concluded on this issue. Fianna Fáil is anxious to make sure we can reach agreement on these matters before they are debated today. We have received short notice on them, which I understand.

I want to make three points. First, I thank the Government for changing the position whereby the Taoiseach was to receive all reports. It is more appropriate that the Clerk of the Dáil receives them if the tribunal is to be independent. As it is a political inquiry, it is better that he receives the reports. The second issue relates to the timing of the report. I am not satisfied that it will be published ten days after oral presentations, based on what happened to Judge Buchanan's investigations. It could take several weeks before oral presentations begin. Perhaps that is the intention; if it is not, I cannot see why it cannot be removed.

Third, whoever else may be involved in this inquiry it started based on matters concerning former Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry. It seems incredible that we are setting up a tribunal to investigate these matters, yet the person who triggered the investigation is not mentioned in the terms of reference. That seems an extraordinary oversight, or perhaps it is not. Will the Taoiseach deal with these matters, if not now, during the morning so that we can unite on this inquiry in the House?

The Taoiseach

The Government is happy to agree that the Clerk of the Dáil should receive the report. The original terms of reference simply provided that the Taoiseach would receive the report and immediately publish it.

Mr. Creed

Unlike the beef tribunal.

The Taoiseach

There would be no question of the Taoiseach having the opportunity to issue his own statement about the report, as happened in the case of a previous tribunal report. This was for immediate dissemination.

Mr. Dempsey

It does not say that.

The Taoiseach

In order to assuage the concerns which were expressed, the Government is happy that the Clerk of the Dáil rather than anyone else should be the recipient and publisher of the report. It does not make any difference.

As far as the second point is concerned, the formula for the interim report following the hearings is the same one adopted in respect of the hepatitis C tribunal. The reporting mechanism has worked well in that case and the Government does not see any need to change it but, needless to say, the Opposition can make its case on that matter in the debate.

As to the third matter, a number of names have been mentioned as recipients of money. They have not been named publicly but have been referred to and suggested in many conversations. One name was mentioned in a publication. Given that Deputy Lowry has acknowledged the position, made a public statement and co-operated with the Buchanan report — as is acknowledged in the report — there is no need to single out any one name. It is important that the terms of reference of the inquiry should be neutral and should refer to all.

Mr. Dempsey

"My very good friend".

Mr. Cowen

"My friend for life".

The Taoiseach

It is clear that the terms of reference cover all recipients of funds, including any funds which may have been received by Deputy Lowry. It would be invidious to pick out one name given that many other names have been mentioned both publicly and privately.

Miss Harney

I welcome the fact that the Government is establishing a tribunal of inquiry because it is time the air was cleared on this matter. We are all under investigation in this tribunal even though the genesis of this inquiry is what is known as "the Michael Lowry affair". There are issues surrounding his tenure of office and other matters which Deputy Lowry referred to on 19 December which should be dealt with by the tribunal.

The manner in which the Government is proceeding is akin to having Dr. Miriam Hederman-O'Brien's committee sit at the same time as the hepatitis C tribunal, and we know how crazy that would have been. It is proposed that Mr. Justice Buchanan's investigation will stay in place, even though he has no powers, and if he misses a public servant, the tribunal cannot inquire into him. If he misses a public servant or a politician——

Mr. Dukes

Not true.

Miss Harney

Public servants are not covered in the terms of reference. It is only if Mr. Justice Buchanan, having gone through the list, identifies a public servant that he or she can be dealt with by the tribunal.

Mr. Dukes

Nonsense.

Mr. M. McDowell

It is true.

Miss Harney

It would be as if the hepatitis C tribunal could only look into the Hederman-O'Brien inquiry. If that was all it could do the truth would never have come out. I ask the Government to include specific reference to Deputy Lowry and the issues surrounding his statement to this House on 19 December, to include public officials in the terms of reference and to stand down the Buchanan inquiry. I do not believe we need two inquiries running at the same time.

Mr. Dukes

Deputy Harney needs a new lawyer.

The Taoiseach

The terms of reference include any payments made to Deputy Lowry at any time, including the ones acknowledged and contained in the report——

Mr. M. McDowell

——but not tax matters.

The Taoiseach

The considerations, motives and circumstances for such payments are also encompassed and, in so far as any claim is made that the payments were normal income which was taxable, that matter is encompassed by "considerations, motives and circumstances" for the payments. That is a comprehensive definition of any motive, whether income, the creation of income which is taxable, a payment as a gift which is taxable in a different way or a political donation, which is in a different category again. Any and all of those categories of payment are encompassed in the terms of reference. The attempt to single out one name, when everyone in this House knows that many others have been mentioned, seems to me to spring from a political motivation——

Mr. J. Walsh

A friend forever.

The Taoiseach

——rather than from a concern about the terms of reference. It is clear that those terms do encompass any payments made to Deputy Lowry and an attempt to single out his name from the others mentioned——

Mr. Dempsey

He is the only Minister mentioned.

The Taoiseach

——is simply designed to create a bias in the terms of reference in respect of one individual. I believe that is not the appropriate way to handle any tribunal which is supposed to be neutral in its operations and comprehensive in its examinations.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.

The Taoiseach

Furthermore, Deputy Harney seems to be under the misapprehension that the tribunal will be constrained from inquiring beyond the contents of the second instalment of the Buchanan report, which will deal with relevant persons or entities who are in a position of public trust, other than politicians. That is simply not true. The positions in paragraph (b) of the terms of reference clearly indicate that a resolution of this House will decide on the matters which are to be investigated by the tribunal in respect of relevant persons other than politicians and their families. We can frame that resolution as comprehensively as we wish — to go beyond the Buchanan report, to be confined to certain matters within the report, or in whatever way we wish to frame that further order of reference for the tribunal.

Mr. M. McDowell

Why not do it now?

The Taoiseach

We will do it in light of the knowledge we will then have on the basis of the Buchanan report.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Taoiseach has handed us the first Buchanan report——

The Taoiseach

It is clear to me that the problems with regard to the cost of tribunals in the past — there have been some notably expensive tribunals of which all Members are cognisant——

Mr. Dempsey

What price the truth now?

The Taoiseach

The problems with regard to cost arose because of the absence of specificity in regard to the matters to be investigated. A general trawl on the part of the tribunal was invited——

Mr. Cowen

That never worried the Taoiseach before.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

This is nauseating.

The Taoiseach

——and that led to cost and to a lot of irrelevant matters being the subject of expensive legal investigation, whereas if more focused terms of reference had been chosen, that unnecessary problem would not have arisen.

Mr. Cowen

"Keep it tight," says Dermot, "don't let it wander everywhere, John."

The Taoiseach

I believe, and I think the House will agree, that the second part of the Buchanan report will provide us with the means of ensuring that the further inquiry which we may require the tribunal to undertake in regard to persons other than politicians will be properly focused on the problems we wish to see brought to light and will not invite the tribunal to engage in an expensive, extensive and never-ending examination of matters which are not properly defined in the first place.

Mr. Dempsey

The Taoiseach has already done that.

The Taoiseach

I believe the Deputy probably will, on reflection, understand that matter.

Mr. M. McDowell

No.

The Taoiseach

I see no gain whatever in suspending the remaining work of the Buchanan inquiry. Judge Buchanan is half way through the examination of a report. He has picked out one category——

Mr. M. McDowell

Unsuccessfully.

The Taoiseach

——and will now look at the second category. It would be an extremely uneconomic use of time and expertise to bring in a second entity to examine work which Judge Buchanan is already half way through. It is my understanding that his inquiry will be completed in no more than a month and probably less.

Mr. M. McDowell

Two damp squibs for the price of one.

Mr. Dukes

Sounds like the PD front bench.

The Taoiseach

We will therefore be able to consider any further terms of reference quite promptly.

Mr. B. Ahern

As I said at the outset, these matters can best be sorted out between the Whips if they can reach agreement and they have made a certain amount of progress. I am glad the Taoiseach acknowledged the inquiry should be an independent one. The wording, that any tribunal be asked to report on an interim basis not later than the tenth day of any oral hearings to the Taoiseach and that any matters which the tribunal believes should be drawn to the attention of the Taoiseach at that stage, including any matters relating to the terms of reference, was very political. I am glad the Taoiseach has changed his view on that.

Mr. Cowen

He is not to be trusted with this issue. Dermot knows too much about it.

Mr. B. Ahern

The Taoiseach stated that the Buchanan inquiry was on the same basis as the hepatitis C tribunal. Whether it was right or wrong, the Taoiseach initiated the Buchanan inquiry and it involved a great deal of work. Surely what Judge Buchanan found out, that this is extremely complicated and will be very time consuming, should not be ignored. It is not like the hepatitis C tribunal where people had to explain themselves. In this case we do not know who will give evidence, what cross-referencing will have to be done and how hundreds of items are to be tracked down. How, therefore, can the Taoiseach use the basis of a tribunal that is entirely different — we know that from Judge Buchanan's work? I ask the Taoiseach to consider, in the next few hours, the provision that the tribunal should report in ten days. If the chairman of the tribunal were to start calling evidence on the first day, that might be different, but how can he do so before he does the administrative work, and surely, given what Judge Buchanan has said, the administrative work will take a long time? The logical conclusion is that the ten day rule in respect of oral hearings is unreasonable because the initial work could take weeks or months. I ask the Taoiseach to find an alternative.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Ahern is making a very good case against Deputy Harney's suggestion that we should not continue the Buchanan process to its conclusion. It is clear from what Deputy Ahern says that he acknowledges there is administrative work to be done in terms of assembling information, and an adversarial tribunal with counsel representing everybody is not the best way of doing that preliminary administrative work. It would be better, as I think Deputy Ahern agrees, if Judge Buchanan were allowed to complete his task so that that administrative work will be done in the most economic way possible so that the tribunal will be able to concentrate on the matters it needs to investigate. It should be noted that, logically, what Deputy Ahern is saying points in the opposite direction to what Deputy Harney has suggested.

Mr. B. Ahern

Will the Taoiseach answer my question?

The Taoiseach

I will, of course. I allowed him to make his interventions in the way he wished; he should afford me the same courtesy. I will say what I wish to say, as the Deputy will in his turn.

As to the second part of the matter, what we are talking about is a report from the tribunal on the number of parties to be represented at the tribunal, the best estimate of the likely duration of the tribunal and any other matters the tribunal wishes to draw to the attention of the Clerk of the Dáil. Given the number of parties likely to be represented at the tribunal, that are likely to want to be considered for representation at the tribunal, the tenth day of oral hearings, which, on the assumption that the tribunal sits five days a week, is approximately two weeks into the period of oral hearings, is not a very long delay. Furthermore, it is the case that if the tribunal wishes to make an earlier report on these matters, it can do so, because the tribunal is simply asked to report not later than the tenth day of oral hearings. If we put our confidence in the tribunal and in the distinguished judge who is being asked to undertake it, it is important that we should allow him at least the leeway of up to ten days of oral hearings to decide when he is in a position to make this report. We do not want a situation where he has to make a report after five days, if the Deputy had his way, and because he says he cannot actually make a final report we have to change the terms of reference to allow him to make a later report. That would be a waste of his time and a waste of parliamentary time. The ten day period is a prudent period to allow him. If he wished to report earlier, he can do so. That is my considered view on that matter. I listened both in the House and in the consultations I had with the Opposition earlier today to their point of view on these matters and this is my considered response.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us not attempt now to discuss the substance of a motion that has yet to come before the House and which, I understand, will be part of deliberations between the Whips in the meantime. All we are discussing this morning is setting out the procedural arrangements for taking this motion. The details should be left until later. I want the Deputy to abide by that in his interventions.

Mr. B. Ahern

I agree with that. In his efforts to emphasise differences between what I said and what Deputy Harney said, the Taoiseach has, perhaps, answered my question.

The Taoiseach

They are major differences.

Mr. B. Ahern

Am I to take it then that the work already done by Judge Buchanan, which relates largely to political donations, can be taken into account by the chairman of the tribunal? On that basis will oral evidence on that aspect start immediately? That seems the logical conclusion of what the Taoiseach said. If that is the case, I have no difficulty with the ten days. If the Taoiseach did not say that, I am back to my original point. Judge Buchanan did nine or ten weeks' work, some of which was done over Christmas, and I thank him for his work but, effectively, he got nowhere. If the new tribunal is to go over the same work there will not be a report to this House until some time in April. One Member on the Government side gloated last night about that timing. He may or may not be right; that is for him to judge. The Taoiseach knows what I am referring to. It has been reported to the Government Whip and others.

Mrs. O'Rourke

He was going to bring down the institutions of the State as well.

Mr. Dukes

I think he will get there before the Deputy.

Mr. B. Ahern

This is an important point. If Judge Buchanan's work can be taken into account by the chairman he can move straight to oral hearings on the political aspects. Is that correct? If it is not correct, we will not have a report to this House until at least the end of April. Will the Taoiseach clarify that position, if not now, before we agree the terms of reference? It seems a reasonable request to make. My legal advice is that the way it is written is very poor and not in the interests of the tribunal.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are discussing the procedural aspects of the matter, not the substance.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy is arguing for one formulation of the terms of reference, which have not yet been circulated, and I am arguing for the existing terms of reference. Therefore, we are getting to the substance of the matter. I would like to be as helpful as I can to the Deputy. It will be a decision for the tribunal itself, but it will be able to take the existing Buchanan report and use that as material on which to start work straight away and, when it receives the second instalment, to take that into account. The issue of when oral hearings start will be a matter for the tribunal, not for this House. If we set up an independent tribunal, it is important that it be independent both as to what it does and as to what it finds, but also as to its method of operation. I cannot answer the question as to when oral hearings will start, and the Deputy should not ask me because if I attempted to answer, I would trespass on the independence of the tribunal. That will be a matter for the tribunal and Mr. Justice McCracken. Deputy Ahern knows that perfectly well. Obviously there will be arrangements to be made in regard to the establishment of the tribunal, where the hearings will take place, physical arrangements, staffing arrangements. All of that will take some time anyway. That does not mean, however, that considerable preparatory work will not be done in parallel with it. I cannot, for all those reasons which are matters for which the tribunal will have to take primary responsibility——

Mr. Cowen

It will.

Dr. Woods

That is nonsense.

The Taoiseach

——give the sort of assurances which the Deputy wants.

Dr. Woods

The Taoiseach is trying to drag it out.

Mr. Dukes

Perhaps we can borrow the tent which the Deputy had in Libya.

Miss Harney

The reason we are establishing a tribunal is that the Buchanan inquiry was a failure.

Mr. Dukes

Sound bite stuff.

Miss Harney

If Buchanan I was a failure clearly Buchanan II will also be a failure, not because the judge is not doing an extraordinary amount of work but because he has no investigative powers. As he said in the report. Some of the names occur 500 or 700 times in the telephone directory. He could not establish to whom the payments were made and he could not talk to bank managers. Will the Taoiseach give an assurance that all the matters dealt with in Deputy Lowry's statement to the House on 19 December in relation to his tenure of office as a Minister and revenue matters will be dealt with by the tribunal of inquiry?

Why will the Government not now stand down the Buchanan inquiry? It is a complete waste of time. The public will not understand why two inquiries are taking place at the same time, and they have every reason not to. Will the Government include public officials in the terms of reference because if the Buchanan inquiry misses a public official the tribunal will not be able to inquire into those matters?

The Taoiseach

I do not believe that the Buchanan report deserves to be characterised as a failure, as the Deputy has done.

Mr. M. McDowell

It is a damp squib.

The Taoiseach

The important point is that Judge Buchanan undertook his inquiry on the basis of a voluntary agreement for furnishing certain information.

Mr. M. McDowell

It is a failure.

The Taoiseach

If he had not proceeded in the way he did that information would not have been given voluntarily.

Mr. B. Ahern

What information?

Mr. Dempsey

There is less information now than there was.

The Taoiseach

The fact that it was given voluntarily means that the further activity of the tribunal can now be focused on the issues which require further investigation and we will not have to collect information in an adversarial way. That would take time, because it was being done in an adversarial way in the form of a tribunal, when it could be done — as it was done — much more easily, cheaply and quickly on the voluntary basis of the Buchanan study.

Mr. Dempsey

The Taoiseach is not codding anybody.

The Taoiseach

We have saved considerable time as well as money by proceeding initially to collect what information was available voluntarily so that the compulsory powers can now be focused only on those areas where compulsion is necessary.

Mr. Dempsey

The £100,000 given to Fine Gael is not mentioned.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

The Taoiseach

The information which is now in the public domain would not be there if we had proceeded with the tribunal approach initially. The reason we have as much information as there is in the public domain is that we were initially able to proceed voluntarily; we are now proceeding with the compulsory aspects only in respect of those matters where compulsion in regard to disclosure is necessary. The case being made by the Deputy that the Buchanan report was a failure is actually the reverse of the facts. It represents a prudent way of collecting voluntary information which now provides the basis for the use of compulsory powers in respect of the remaining information which needs to be obtained.

As far as the second part of the Deputy's question is concerned——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach should be heard.

Mr. Cowen

What about the £100,000 given to Fine Gael?

The Taoiseach

I do not wish to raise my voice as a result of interruptions from the other side of the House.

As far as the second part of Deputy's Harney's question is concerned, the terms of reference are quite clear. They encompass any considerations or alleged considerations, any motives or alleged motives and any circumstances or alleged circumstances that might be advanced for any payments made to Deputy Lowry. They are quite comprehensive in their scope. It will be a matter for the judge to decide in the tribunal on the matters which require further elucidation in that regard.

Mr. Cowen

That is right.

The Taoiseach

That is the appropriate way to deal with the matter. The terms of reference should not include, as they did before, all allegations made in the Dáil or all statements made in the media because a crowd of lawyers would be required to go through every Dáil debate and newspaper report at huge expense, with each of them arguing about each report and what should be included. They could say, for example, that the Nenagh Guardian should be read but that there was no need to read the Tipperary Star; that the Western People should be read but that there was no need to read the Mayo News and that there were allegations in an American newspaper.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Both Tipperary newspapers should be read.

The Taoiseach

It would lead to a huge number of lawyers, all employed at public expense, wandering over the newsprint and Dáil debates of the last 20 years to find the appropriate matter into which an investigation should be made.

Mr. B. Ahern

Just amend the terms of reference and stop codding us.

The Taoiseach

Rather, we have settled on a situation where we are focusing directly on payments made to politicians and the considerations, motives and circumstances for those payments. That is comprehensive and includes everybody.

Mr. Dempsey

Bluster.

The Taoiseach

It includes people who have disclosed voluntarily their position and those who have not, if there are such people. Everybody is being treated equally, which is how it ought to be. The approach which the Deputy is taking, in common with that of Deputy Ahern, is one which has singled out one Deputy and not treated him in the same way as all others.

Mr. Dempsey

The Deputy is the only one mentioned in the report.

Mr. Cowen

Mo chara dhílis.

Mr. J. Walsh

Friends forever.

The Taoiseach

We all should be treated equally as far as the investigation is concerned. The terms of reference should proceed on the present basis.

An Ceann Comhairle

All we have been asked to do this morning is to agree the procedural aspects of the matter. I respectfully submit to you that the detail on the motion should be left to the Whips to decide and come back to us later. I will put the question shortly as we have dwelled on the matter for long enough in regard to the procedure. The substance has yet to come and the Whips and various Members and leaders will have an input.

Mr. B. Ahern

Two days ago the Taoiseach said we would hear from the Government about the terms of reference that day. Yesterday, a Cheann Comhairle, you kindly allowed me to raise the matter with the Tánaiste who said we would know them after a Cabinet meeting yesterday afternoon. I was informed at about 6 p.m. yesterday that we would have the terms of reference shortly. Thanks to the work of the Government Whip who contacted me a number of times last night I got the terms of reference at about 11.30 p.m. We spent until about 2 a.m. dealing with this matter with the legal advice we could get as an Opposition party.

We intended to meet here at 8 a.m. today but we had to sit outside until about 8.30 a.m. We had a very limited amount of time to deal with the matter. I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, if we are raising issues but I asked the Taoiseach a simple enough question about half an hour ago which I will again ask. Can what is already in the Buchanan report be given to the tribunal?

The Taoiseach

I have already answered "Yes".

Mr. B. Ahern

I listened to the Taoiseach for about nine minutes but I am not too sure what he was talking about.

The Taoiseach

I am repeating the answer I already gave the Deputy.

Mr. B. Ahern

Unfortunately, I have watched too many tribunals being set up. The Taoiseach is right in saying that some of them were expensive and some people——

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy watched one Fianna Fáil Taoiseach setting up a tribunal with terms of reference which were deliberately designed——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear Deputy Ahern.

Mr. B. Ahern

I know they are costly and I also know we have not yet received the full bills from certain people. We are still waiting for accounts relating to the last tribunal but that is another story. Will the Taoiseach at least put that on the record so that the new chairman will take into account the wishes of the House?

If Judge Buchanan's work is, as the Taoiseach says, very useful and beneficial there is no need for the new tribunal to redo it. If that is the case and the Taoiseach and the House stand over his work in this matter, then oral hearings should commence immediately. Is that the Taoiseach's understanding? If that is not his understanding— which I will accept — what is his answer to Deputy Harney's question? Why are we continuing with that tribunal if we do not believe it is good enough and we are not accepting the second stage?

An Ceann Comhairle

That should be adequate.

Mr. B. Ahern

If Judge Buchanan's work is not adequate and it all has to be done again it is meaningless to say there will be an interim report within ten days. It is meaningless to say ten days of oral hearings because that will be at least two months away. That is too long. I ask the Taoiseach to accept that point because that is my strong legal advice. It is meaningless to talk about ten days.

The Taoiseach

I did not say to the Deputy two days ago that I would definitely have the terms of reference of the tribunal that day. In fact I did not mention the question of a tribunal two days ago, I simply said the matter would be dealt with quickly, which it has been. The Deputy should not represent me as having said something to him two days ago that I did not say. He is showing a false recollection in this regard.

Mr. B. Ahern

The newspapers knew it before we did.

The Taoiseach

I am not in a position to say when the tribunal will start oral hearings. That is a matter for the tribunal. Any attempt by me or by this House to tell the tribunal it must start oral hearings on a particular day——

Mr. Cowen

The Government is setting it up.

The Taoiseach

——would involve interfering with the independence of the tribunal.

Mr. Cowen

That is nonsense.

The Taoiseach

Deputies on all sides have been pressing for an independent tribunal.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Government set up the terms of reference.

The Taoiseach

They are now getting an independent tribunal and they should be willing to accept the independence of the tribunal in regard to when it decides to start oral hearings. The attempts by Deputy Ahern to draw me into doing the tribunal's work in terms of saying when it will start its hearings is contradictory to the stance adopted by the Deputy who did not even want me to be the postman who would receive the report. He wanted me involved in one thing and not involved in another. He wants me to say when the oral herings will start but he does not want me to receive the report. I am not in a position to say when the oral hearings will start, that is a matter for the tribunal. The tribunal is independent and it would be entirely improper for me to say when the oral hearings should start.

Mr. Cowen

Nonsense.

The Taoiseach

It is entirely improper of Deputy Ahern to attempt to influence or browbeat in any way the tribunal in this matter. The tribunal will be independent. It will decide when it will start oral hearings, when it is ready and when the witnesses are ready.

Mr. Cowen

When everything is ready, the Government is ready.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cowen should desist from interrupting.

The Taoiseach

That is as it should be. The attempt by Deputy Ahern to have the tribunal constrained in regard to the independence of oral hearings casts some doubt in my mind on the motives of Deputy Ahern in this matter.

Miss Harney

It is almost a waste of time speaking because clearly the Taoiseach has made up his mind on this matter and for whatever reason he does not want to have an appropriate tribunal with terms of reference that are adequate. The Taoiseach's great Buchanan I report only identified 50 per cent of the money which Fine Gael received. How can the Taoiseach tell us that a report that could only identify 50 per cent of what he himself admitted he received was adequate and a success? The only Deputy referred to in the Buchanan report is Deputy Michael Lowry. Were it not for the article in the Irish Independent of 29 November 1996 we would not be establishing a tribunal today. I do not understand why we must have another resolution of this House, after Buchanan II, before public officials are included in the terms of reference. That is unnecessary and the Taoiseach should consider that matter. It is wrong and is unfair. If some public official slips through the Buchanan net the tribunal will not be able to inquire into that particular person.

An Ceann Comhairle

There has been much repetition.

The Taoiseach

My purpose and that of the Government is to ensure we have terms of reference that are entirely adequate and comprehensive and will ensure that everybody who needs to be brought before the tribunal is brought before the tribunal and that all necessary information, under the maximum powers available, will be brought into the public domain. That is our objective and I believe we have achieved it. The Deputy asks about the position of public officials other than politicians. If the Deputy reads the terms of reference which were supplied to her party through Deputy Liz O'Donnell she will see there is provision for other public officials to be included in paragraph (b). That is adequately covered.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is a separate resolution.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy seeks to portray the Buchanan report as inadequate because it does not include all payments made by Dunnes Stores to everybody who may have been a political recipient. The Buchanan report was confined solely to the Price Waterhouse report.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is the problem.

The Taoiseach

The Price Waterhouse report was confined solely to selected payments by Dunnes Stores for the purposes of a court case.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is the point we are making.

The Taoiseach

The terms of reference of the tribunal on the other hand will encompass all payments whether made under the rubric of the Price Waterhouse report or under any other rubric by Dunnes Stores and by any of their companies which are listed comprehensively in the annex to the tribunal's terms of reference, not just those that happen to be included in a Price Waterhouse that was commissioned by Dunnes for a particular purpose, unrelated to our present purpose. Therefore the suggestion that the Buchanan report was inadequate because it was confined to something which was known to be a confined matter——

Mr. M. McDowell

The Taoiseach did not say that when he was establishing it.

The Taoiseach

——and not the comprehensive matter that is now being covered by the tribunal is unfair to Judge Buchanan and I believe Deputy Harney should not have made that suggestion. These terms of reference are comprehensive. They will not be confined to the Price Waterhouse report, they will cover all payments, whether included or not in the Price Waterhouse report, the motives and circumstances for any such payments and any matter germane thereto.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 6 Feb 1997

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 1997