Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 1997

Vol. 474 No. 5

Financial Resolutions, 1997. - Tribunal of Inquiry into Alleged Payments by Dunnes Stores: Motions.

The Taoiseach

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann,

Bearing in mind serious public concern about alleged payments made and benefits conferred by, or on behalf of, Dunnes Holding Company, other associated companies or entities and/or Mr. Ben Dunne and/or companies or trusts controlled directly or indirectly by members of the Dunne Family between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1996, to persons who were Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas during that period or relatives or connected persons as defined in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, to political parties, or to other public representatives or other public servants,

And noting the Interim Report of the Independent Person appointed pursuant to an Agreement dated the 9th day of December, 1996, made between the Government and Dunnes Holding Company,

Resolves that it is expedient that a Tribunal be established, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, as adapted by or under subsequent enactments, and the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1979, to enquire urgently into, and report to the Clerk of the Dáil and make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit, in relation to the following definite matters of urgent public importance:

(a) all payments in cash or in kind directly or indirectly whether authorised or unauthorised within or without the State which were made to or received by

(i) persons who were between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1996, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas,

(ii) their relatives or connected persons as defined in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995,

(iii) political parties,

from Dunnes Holding Company and/or any associated enterprises as defined in the Schedule hereto and/or Mr. Ben Dunne or any person on his behalf or any companies, trusts or other entities controlled directly or indirectly by Mr. Ben Dunne between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1996, and the considerations, motives and circumstances therefore;

(b) Such further matters as Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann might by further Resolution consider appropriate to refer to the Tribunal because they require further investigation, relating to other payments made to 'Relevant Persons or Entities' within the meaning of the Agreement dated the 9th day of December, 1996, made between the Government and Dunnes Holding Company, following receipt by the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann of any further report from the Independent Person appointed pursuant to the said Agreement whereupon such report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas immediately on its receipt.

And that the Tribunal be asked to report, on an interim basis, not later than the tenth day of any oral hearings to the Clerk of the Dáil on the following matters:

the number of parties then represented before the Tribunal;

the progress which has been made in the hearings and the work of the Tribunal;

the likely duration (so far as that may be capable of being estimated at that point in time) of the Tribunal proceedings;

any other matters which the Tribunal believes should be drawn to the attention of the Clerk of the Dáil at that stage (including any matter relating to the terms of reference);

And that the persons selected to conduct the Inquiry should be informed that it is the desire of the House that the Inquiry be completed in as economical a manner as possible, and at the earliest date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it;

And that the Clerk of the Dáil shall on the receipt of any Report from the Tribunal arrange to have it laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas immediately on its receipt.

SCHEDULE

Associated enterprises shall include:

(1) Ben Lettery Limited, Green Arch Corporation, Dunnes Stores Limited (which with Dunnes Holding Company shall be hereafter referred to as 'the Dunne Companies'.)

(2) Any company inside or outside the State of which any of the Dunne Companies were during the relevant period a subsidiary within the meaning of section 155 of the Companies Act, 1963.

(3) Any subsidiary of any of the Dunne Companies within the meaning of section 155 of the Companies Act, 1963, either inside or outside the State.

(4) Any director or shadow director (as defined by section 27 of the Companies Act, 1990, of any of the companies referred to at (2) or (3) above).

(5) Any company or other body or entity inside or outside the State which directly or indirectly within the relevant period was under the control of any of the Dunne Companies or any of the Directors thereof (whether alone or with any other person) or in respect of which the Directors of any of the Dunne Companies were either directors or shadow directors within the meaning of section 27 of the Companies Act, 1990, or any company or other body or entity inside or outside the State whose directors, officers or employees were accustomed to act and did act on the direction or control of any of the Dunne Companies or the Directors or any of them within the relevant period.

(6) Any company, other body or other entity inside or outside the State over whose operations or financial policy any of the Dunne Companies, their directors or any of them exercised a significant influence within the relevant period.

(7) Any trust company inside or outside the State which acted during the relevant period under the direction or control of any of the Dunne Companies or any of their directors or any trust inside or outside the State in respect of which any of the Dunne Companies or any of the Directors or any relatives or connected persons of such Directors either alone or with any other person were beneficiaries within the relevant period.

(8) Any other company, body, trust or other entity inside or outside the State controlled by Mr. Ben Dunne or any of his relatives within the meaning of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, whether alone or with any other person or in respect of which any of the said persons, their or any of their relatives or any persons connected to them or any of them were beneficial owners or beneficiaries."

The Taoiseach

I move:

"That, notwithstanding Standing Order 53 and anything in Standing Orders,

(i) the Resolution of the Dáil of 11th December, 1996, in relation to the consideration by the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Report on Dunnes Stores prepared by Mr. John Gerard Buchanan; and

(ii) the Order of the Dáil of 19th December, 1996, referring such Report to a sub-Committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges;

are hereby rescinded."

Speaking in the debate in this House on 11 December on the motion to set up the Buchanan inquiry, I noted that the common point in the contributions by Deputies from Government and Opposition parties was the view that the political process as a whole and the reputations of those who work in it had been tarnished by allegations regarding payments to politicians and public servants by Dunnes Stores and/or Mr. Ben Dunne.

I said then and I repeat today that I am determined that everything that can possibly be done will be done to remove that tarnish. I am determined it will be done as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible. There is no point in engaging public funds in a legal wild goose chase that leads nowhere because the basis for taking action is insufficient.

The basis for the allegations about payments appears to rest, in the main, on two documents. First, a report dated 12 April 1994 prepared by Price Waterhouse for Dunnes Stores. Second, an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ben Dunne in High Court proceedings. There may, of course, be additional relevant information which is not contained in either document.

When the allegations appeared in the media last November, all of us in this House shared the public concern. Our concern did not relate to the mere fact of the payments. There is nothing improper in political parties and politicians receiving or seeking donations for the funding of the political activity which is essential to the working of democracy. Nor is there anything improper in individuals and companies contributing to politicians and political parties. Without such support, as all of us in this House well know, it would not be possible to sustain the level of activity required to maintain the political system as we know it. In a debate here on 3 December, Deputy Bertie Ahern drew a distinction between contributions raised in a legitimate way to meet legitimate electoral expenses and any suggestion that people were being given money to do things in office for the benefit of those giving the money. I fully agree with that distinction.

The public concerns — which I believe we all share — are twofold. The first is that the payments may have been made either to influence decisions in favour of the donor or as a reward for past decisions which may have benefited the donor. The second is that some of the payments may have been excessive and gone beyond what would be reasonable to support the normal political activity of any individual recipient or even any normal political party.

From the first moment that the allegations were made, the Government moved with speed to allay public concern. We also sought to ensure that any moves made were those most likely to achieve the desired results. What is the desired result? It is to establish and expose the facts and to ensure that, if there is any evidence of impropriety, it will be dealt with in the appropriate way in accordance with the laws of the land. The process in which Judge Buchanan is involved is, as I made very clear in this House on 11 December, "the first and, I believe, the most appropriate initial step to establish the facts".

In his interim report, addressed to the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad on 3 February, Judge Buchanan completed the first stage of this initial step. I know I speak for all in this House and for the public when I convey thanks and appreciation to Judge Buchanan, and to those who are working with him, for a job well done. In a very real sense, he and his assistants have performed a public service and they have done so with efficiency, skill and speed.

The interim report deals with one of the sources of the allegations, namely the Price Waterhouse report. It addresses payments, covered in that report, that were made to Members or ex-Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and to Fine Gael. The interim report also notes the limitations of the Price Waterhouse report which had been commissioned principally for the purpose of investigating certain transactions which had been undertaken by Mr. Ben Dunne without the knowledge or consent of other members of the board of the relevant company. It deals only with the circumstances of very specific transactions, selected by Dunnes Stores — I emphasise "selected by Dunnes Stores"— and the accounting treatment of these transactions in the records of the company. This shows how limited the Price Waterhouse report was at the outset. The interim report notes that: "As Mr. Ben Dunne declined to co-operate with Price Waterhouse, they were unable to find out full details with regard to these matters". Most importantly, the interim report goes on to conclude that: "The details of these transactions are within the knowledge of Mr. Ben Dunne".

The work which Judge Buchanan has done, based on a formal agreement into which I entered, on behalf of the Government, with Dunnes Holding Company on 9 December last has established the facts as they relate to politicians and political parties mentioned in the Price Waterhouse report. I am confident that Judge Buchanan will shortly be in a position to provide a similar report in respect of public servants as defined in the agreement with Dunnes Holding Company. The definition is very broad and includes, for example, local authority employees, employees of semi-State companies and employees of any organisation which is publicly funded.

The Buchanan process is proving to be a highly cost effective means of clearing the ground, and isolating from a mass of irrelevant material, the matters that are relevant and deserve the more serious treatment that only a judicial inquiry can provide. This has been done by Judge Buchanan on an inexpensive, voluntary basis — without getting involved in expensive adversarial procedures associated with compulsory disclosure.

As we move now to the next phase of removing the tarnish from politicians and from the public process, namely, the setting up of a tribunal, I am very conscious of the recent experience of tribunals. The length and expense of the beef tribunal was occasioned principally by the absence of specificity and selectivity in its terms of reference. The beef tribunal was asked to investigate all allegations made in Dáil Éireann over an unspecified period relating to irregularities in the beef industry.

The tribunal had to start by conducting an extended search of the Official Report to ensure that every allegation, large or small, was first identified and then investigated. The tribunal had no choice but to investigate a whole range of small issues, deserving an investigative process that is potentially adversarial and notably expensive, as well as very serious matters that did indeed warrant such serious investigation.

The terms of reference, proposed last December by the Progressive Democrats for a tribunal, would have fallen into precisely this trap — because they included all allegations made in the media over a ten day period. This was an invitation to a virtually limitless fishing expedition.

This formula would involve, just to begin with, the tribunal combing every newspaper, national and local, published in those ten days, about 100 newspapers, as well as obtaining transcripts of every programme on every radio station, national and local, for those ten days, to ensure that every allegation is noted. Without going through such a process, the tribunal could not be satisfied that it had fully complied with its terms of reference. To follow that formula would have led us to repeat the mistakes which ensured the longevity and enormous expense of the beef tribunal.

In contrast, the success of the current hepatitis C tribunal is in no small part due to the fact that the issues and documents had been identified and isolated, in advance, and over a number of years, by the report of the expert group and by the pleadings and discovery in the litigation involving the late Mrs. Bridget McCole.

No such sifting and refinement had taken place in the matter of the payments allegations in respect of Dunnes Stores last December: that gap is in the process of being filled, at least, in part, by the useful work of Judge Buchanan.

I come now to the question as to why the work is being entrusted to a judicial tribunal, and could not have been dealt with by a committee of this House.

The privilege and compellability legislation currently in progress before the Oireachtas will, it is hoped, provide new and strengthened powers for Dáil committees. They will be new powers and will not have been tried or tested.

The advantage of a tribunal under the 1921 Act is that its powers are well established, and have withstood a number of tests in the courts, not least arising from litigation in connection with the beef tribunal. The process does not involve novelty: it is both tried and tested.

The possibility of legal challenge to any procedure of inquiry cannot be ruled out, but the prospects of successfully resisting any such challenge, are much greater with a tried and tested procedure of inquiry, than with one which is novel, however welcome. Furthermore, it is preferable that where one of the categories or persons being inquired into is a politician, the investigator should come from outside the political sphere.

Mr. M. McDowell

It took the Taoiseach long enough to realise that.

The Taoiseach

As mentioned earlier, information relating to payments made by Dunnes Stores or Mr. Ben Dunne to politicians, political parties and possibly public servants is not confined to the Price Waterhouse report.

We also know of the repeated media allegations involving a very large payment to a political figure. On 3 December last, The Irish Times contained a report on its front page that a “prominent Fianna Fail figure is believed to have received more than £1 million from Dunnes Stores in the early 1990s. The money was paid by several cheques with different bank accounts in London on a number of dates”.

On 12 December The Irish Times further reported that details of these payments were understood to be contained in an affidavit drawn up by Mr. Ben Dunne as part of a legal battle. The newspaper story said that this document “provides his version of where payments from the company were routed. It is understood that he alleges that the ultimate beneficiary of the money was a Fianna Fail politician”.

I know that, as I said here before, the main Opposition party feels, because of an allegation about an unnamed Fianna Fáil figure, that it has been unfairly put in a position where it is considered suspect. This is not satisfactory or fair, either to the party concerned or to the individual or individuals whose names have been bandied about. It is not right. It is important that the matter is brought into the open and that all those to whom no guilt can be attached are allowed to clear their names.

There was an allegation in another newspaper that up to a dozen politicians received more than £5 million. The newspaper went on to state that members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and Labour had all received payments and that, additionally, a current Senator and a top-ranking party official were among the beneficiaries.

The terms of reference proposed by the tribunal are designed to establish the amount of payments made to politicians, political parties and, depending on Judge Buchanan's continuing work and a subsequent resolution of this House, public servants.

They are also intended, most importantly, to enable the tribunal to inquire, in respect of payments, into "the considerations, motives and circumstances therefor". As I said earlier, it is not the fact of the payments that is important, it is the suggestion that the payments may have been made improperly or corruptly to influence politicians and public servants in the conduct of their business. That is what needs to be established.

Ireland has enjoyed a good reputation, in international terms, for the probity of its political system. We have a proud tradition of integrity and honesty in the conduct of our political and public affairs, since the foundation of the State. It is a tradition which has served the national interest well. Each and every one of our citizens must be confident that he or she will be treated equally and fairly under the law. Each and every enterprise involved in the success story which is the Irish economy must know they will never be disadvantaged because of someone else's corrupt behaviour. There must be a level playing field.

There are well established legislative and procedural measures, principally contained in the Prevention of Corruption Acts, for dealing with allegations of impropriety on the part of any person paid out of public funds. These are enforceable, as part of the normal criminal law, with all the requirements of due process inherent in the law.

Nothing in the terms of reference of the tribunal will cut across or interfere with the activities of the legal authorities. These authorities, particularly the tax or revenue authorities, are well equipped with the skill, powers, resources and independence to investigate any matter that needs to be investigated. They are obliged to conduct such investigations in a competent and fair way under the law. The Revenue Commissioners are the appropriate authorities for dealing with tax matters and with alleged infringements of the tax laws. They do not need any prompting from me or anyone else in Government or elsewhere to carry out their duties.

The terms of reference proposed for the tribunal have been carefully crafted and are, on the basis of the information currently available, the appropriate ones. I would particularly like to highlight the request to the persons selected to conduct the inquiry to note the desire of the House that the inquiry be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it.

I also hope — I believe this hope is shared by the main Opposition parties — the tribunal will, as far as practicable, respect the confidentiality of personal and commercial information which is not relevant to the purposes of the inquiry. No one can guarantee that the inquiry, on which we are now embarking, will provide the perfect solution or will necessarily provide conclusive answers to every question. It is an expensive process and it can be time consuming, but it is the most effective one available.

We are dealing with fundamental matters of great public importance. To meet them, we initiated a sensible, independent, sifting process directed by Mr. Justice Buchanan. We are now moving to the next phase by bringing into play the most powerful, well tested weapon in the investigative armoury of the State, namely the independent judicial sworn inquiry, to ensure that these matters of importance and of public concern are given the fullest and fairest possible consideration.

Mr. B. Ahern

Ever since the large payments to the former Fine Gael Minister, Deputy Michael Lowry, became public at the end of November and suggestions were made that there might be similar payments to others, I have made it clear that only a tribunal of inquiry would be in a position to get to the bottom of these matters and that the quicker we established one the better in order to ensure full trust is restored in the political system.

I am glad we have at last got what we asked for two months ago but I am concerned that the Taoiseach is prepared to waste further months. His intervention this morning led me to conclude that he has no great sense of urgency about the matter. As Leader of the House his duty is to lift the cloud of suspicion which hangs over us all but I fear he is happy to let it linger.

The Taoiseach

No.

Mr. B. Ahern

If we are moving into an election it is vital that the public is assured we are not all tainted by the admissions of one Member of the House and that elections are not fought on the basis of unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo.

The Taoiseach is being naive in stating we should not try to influence the tribunal which is being established to serve the needs of the House and the public. As Members we may, of course, direct the tribunal in a very open and transparent way by drafting its terms of reference. We should ask it to focus on certain issues as a matter of urgency, to report as quickly as possible and, where necessary, to provide interim reports as soon as particular issues are resolved or clarified. This is the reason I argued with the Taoiseach this morning about the ten day period and how it will be operated. I will say no more about that matter now but the Taoiseach should take into account my points, which I know he understands.

It is with this in mind and in a spirit of co-operation and helpfulness that I suggest the following changes to the terms of reference which will give the tribunal more focus and enable it to concentrate immediately on the priorities. I propose, therefore, that we include in the terms of reference the need for the tribunal to proceed urgently to oral hearings on issues already in the public domain as follows: (i) the relationship between Deputy Michael Lowry and Ben Dunne, the financial and political implications of this relationship and how or whether this relationship may have affected his decisions as a Minister of the Government; (ii) the existence and substance, if any, of an alleged affidavit in which it is alleged that a former Fianna Fáil Minister received £1.1 million; (iii) payments to other parties who are not included in the Buchanan report but who may have publicly acknowledged receiving sums from Ben Dunne. This would make the terms of reference very clear to the chairman and the tribunal members who would know the matters on which they must quickly report to the House. It is beyond me why this cannot be done.

The Government must give the tribunal a focus rather than encourage it to start engaging in a potentially endless trawl. The tribunal should report back to the Ceann Comhairle, not the Taoiseach. I accept the amendment worked out this morning under which it will report back to the Clerk of the Dáil. When it is established the tribunal should not be conducted or influenced in any partisan manner, as a Minister of State seemed to allege in the corridors of the House last night.

The Taoiseach

That allegation was also made this morning by Deputy O'Rourke who clearly was referring to a particular Minister of State. Will the Deputy identify the Minister of State?

Mr. B. Ahern

I also welcome——

The Taoiseach

I do not wish to be disruptive but this morning Deputy O'Rourke specifically said something which identified a particular Minister of State as being the subject matter of this allegation. I understand from the Minister of State in question that he had no conversations of the kind mentioned. Will Deputy Ahern, who is making a similar allegation, identify the person?

Mr. B. Ahern

It is up to the Taoiseach to check that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is up to the Taoiseach to do that.

Mr. Durkan

Cheap allegations.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy should speak up or withdraw the remark.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Ahern, without interruption, please.

Mr. B. Ahern

The Taoiseach is responsible for the Government. If sources from all parties, including the Taoiseach's, reported last night on what a member of the Government allegedly said then they could not all be wrong.

The Taoiseach

That is a classic example of innuendo.

Mr. Dempsey

The Taoiseach would know all about that.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy has an allegation to make then he should make it. I am not aware of any conversations of the kind referred to by the Deputy or specifically associated by Deputy O'Rourke with a particular Minister of State.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Taoiseach was not here.

The Taoiseach

I would be grateful to Deputies Ahern and O'Rourke if they would either substantiate or withdraw their allegations.

Mr. B. Ahern

Is the Taoiseach saying he did not say it?

The Taoiseach

I do not know if it is a "he".

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Taoiseach said he knew.

Mr. Cowen

The Taoiseach said he spoke to him.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy has an allegation to make——

Mr. Cowen

The Taoiseach said he spoke to the Minister of State——

The Taoiseach

I did not speak to anybody.

Mr. Cowen

——and he had denied it.

The Taoiseach

I said I am unaware of any allegation of the kind made by the Deputies in question here.

Mr. Cowen

The Taoiseach said the Minister of State denied it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, Deputy.

The Taoiseach

I ask the Deputies to name the person whom they are alleging made these comments or else withdraw the suggestion.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Taoiseach said "he" denied it.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputies should name the person.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bertie Ahern is in possession and there must be no further interruptions from either side of the House.

The Taoiseach

The person identified by Deputy O'Rourke is the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, who has indicated he did not have any conversations of the kind referred to by her.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Excuse me, I did not refer to a conversation.

The Taoiseach

I am asking Deputy Ahern if he will be specific as to the allegation he is making and the person against whom he is making it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no provision for such interruptions at this time. Perhaps the matter can be dealt with in a different way.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I did not refer to a conversation. The Taoiseach is mistaken.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy referred specifically to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy should name the person or withdraw the remark.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy in possession without further interruption from either side of the House.

Mr. B. Ahern

I welcome the somewhat tardy establishment of a tribunal and the appointment of the chairman, Mr. Justice McCracken, who has an expertise in commercial law and in unravelling complex accounts and a reputation for getting to the bottom of these in a short space of time. I have every confidence that the tribunal will be conducted in an impartial and expeditious way in so far as it is allowed to do so and receives the full co-operation of all who are called before it.

No one wants a long drawn out repetition of the beef tribunal. I appeal, therefore, to Dunnes Stores, Mr. Ben Dunne and any politician or representative of a political party called to give evidence to co-operate fully with the tribunal. Dunnes Stores have made a large fortune from citizens of this State in return for the real service and quality they have provided. I am sure they will want to approach this matter in a civic spirit and will not hold back relevant information.

It was obvious from the beginning that a committee of the House would be inadequate for the purpose and would be given neither the necessary powers nor protections. The compellability of witnesses Bill, which was necessary to enable the committee to function, is bristling with exemptions and let-out clauses for all concerned. The draft Bill, which vastly extends the scope of Cabinet confidentiality, muzzles public servants and suppresses documents with a hint of criticism in them, is outrageous and scandalous legislation from a Government that pretends to stand for openness, transparency and accountability. We are dealing with a Government with a closed, authoritarian cast of mind that wants to let in the light as little as possible. Aspects of the Refugee Bill is another case in point and, not surprisingly, that Bill has gone back to the drawing board. It was evident that if the Government was serious about getting quickly to the bottom of the Dunnes Stores affair it would have no alternative but to establish a tribunal of inquiry.

We appreciate the work done by Judge Buchanan, operating under considerable handicaps. His first report has thrown up little we did not know already and in many respects we know, thanks to various voluntary statements by people, a good deal not covered in his report. There are no new startling revelations and on the evidence so far the Lowry affair appears to be in a class of its own. Perhaps the second report of Judge Buchanan will contain more information not in the public domain about public officials, which is potentially a serious matter. We do not know whether there is any substance in suggestions that some public officials were in receipt of payments from Dunnes, but with limited investigative powers it is not clear if he will be able to get to the bottom of all or indeed any payments in this class. The less comprehensive information in his first report that is publicly available means that either report will not be regarded as conclusive or comprehensive. We need, therefore, an absolute assurance that the tribunal will not be limited to what Judge Buchanan has been in a position to find.

The Lowry affair is, to date, potentially the biggest political scandal of a financial kind in the history of the State. There are no precedents for a private company alleging that nearly £400,000 was paid, largely under the counter, to a leading politician who is a close confidant of the Taoiseach, a Fine Gael chief fund-raiser and a Government Minister in charge of a large part of the multi-billion pounds semi-State sector. The former Minister's statement showed a level of personal financial dependency and obligation which is entirely inappropriate in a Cabinet Minister, regardless of whether any abuse occurred.

We must be satisfied that no improper influence was exercised on any decisions taken by Deputy Lowry while a Minister. There are persistent doubts relating to the award of the East contract which will not be allayed by the information in a Sunday newspaper that Deputy Lowry is holding a mobile phone registered in the name of a beneficiary of the Esat contract. Following our experience with the former Minister's accusation of cosy cartels, when he was involved in the cosiest cartel of all, nothing he says can be taken at face value.

We further have an instance of a Minister who informed the Taoiseach some time after his appointment that he availed of the tax amnesty which had been castigated in the most abusive terms by his party leader when the Bill passed through the Dáil. We have a Minister whose tax affairs, despite availing of the amnesty, were not in order. Since Deputy Lowry personally spread allegations about offshore accounts held by others, is it not legitimate for us to ask whether in availing of the amnesty Deputy Lowry brought back large sums of money held in offshore accounts for his own benefit and that of others? It is a matter for Fine Gael whether it chooses to select and endorse as a Dáil candidate someone who appears on the face of it to have defrauded the tax system on a grand scale. It says something about the genuineness of Fine Gael's supposed commitment to high political standards, the party that used to pride itself on being the party of honesty and integrity, that it is even prepared to contemplate such a move.

Any political party may contain at any time a member, perhaps a very prominent member, who had engaged in unethical behaviour either before or during his or her period as an office holder. While it may be embarrassing for the political party concerned, what matters most is how it reacts to the knowledge when it becomes available. While every facility in natural justice must be afforded such a person in a sphere where wild and totally unfounded allegations can be thrown around, and none of us wants to see lynch law, equally no protection should be given to wrongdoing when no adequate defence or explanation is forthcoming.

I note from an article by Mr. Sam Smyth, who first recorded the Lowry affair, in the Sunday Tribune of 29 December 1996 the source of his other stories which this tribunal will have to investigate. I quote from the article: “Again, it was Michael Lowry, on 29 November, who first told reporters of the £1.1m allegedly given by Dunnes Stores to a former senior Fianna Fáil Minister and `sources close to Mr. Lowry' were spreading the word before newspaper reports linked a deceased accountant to the former FF Minister to the £1.1m via a bank account in the Cayman Islands”. Variations, some involving bank accounts in Britain, were also mentioned. I believe some investigative reporters followed the trails of this issue, which can be taken into account in the inquiry.

It will be for the tribunal to establish whether there is a foundation to these serious allegations or if they were, from start to finish, black counter-propaganda against a respected former Member of this House to deflect some of the heat from Deputy Lowry, the type of operation for which the national handlers were infamous in the past.

The vast majority of Dunnes payments went to Deputy Lowry and members of the Fine Gael Party. Between the two the total figure is almost £600,000 which far exceeds anything that either the Labour Party received for its presidential campaign or individual members of Fianna Fáil for election purposes.

I have made clear my attitude from the beginning. I want the tribunal established without fear or favour to any past or present Member of this House or any former member of this or any previous Governments. I repeat with one addition what I said here on 3 December because I consider it vitally important. Politics and participation in public life is a career of public service. It is not an avenue of enrichment or lifestyle enhancement from private donors, even where they only want to help people perform in a particular manner. My party and my Front Bench are determined that financial scrupulousness will be strictly observed by all our elected members without fear or favour. Anyone who abuses their position or knowingly flouts the rules will go and will face the law of the land. The political fabric of our democracy is precious. The public are entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, their officials and, above all, their Ministers. They need to know that they are not under financial obligations to anybody other than public lending institutions, except to the extent that they are publicly declared. New strict standards must apply. We must draw a line under bad habits that may have developed over the past 30 years and return to the ethos and public spirit that prevailed in this House under the founders of the State, Eamon de Valera and W.T. Cosgrave.

I agree with the Taoiseach that it would be unfair if commercial matters that might not be relevant to this tribunal were investigated in a substantial way. Dunnes Stores is a successful commercial company requiring protection against the problems it may face in the commercial domain. That must be taken into account.

I hope the tribunal avails of the work completed by Judge Buchanan, and other work in the public domain, to move quickly on this issue. It will be obvious from the Dáil Official Report that that is the intention of this House. If the chairman moves quickly, the tribunal will be successful, whatever the results. If the tribunal experiences the problems faced by Judge Buchanan this matter could go on for months. I wish the chairman success in his work which I hope he will carry out as speedily as is possible and practical.

Miss Harney

I also believe commercially sensitive information in regard to Dunnes Stores should not be the subject of investigation before this tribunal.

The Taoiseach

Unless it is relevant to the terms of reference.

Miss Harney

I was about to say that. Notwithstanding my unhappiness with the terms of reference, which I expressed this morning, it is not the intention of the Progressive Democrats to oppose the establishment of the tribunal because we have been calling for one for more than two months and the Taoiseach is determined to proceed solely with the Government's terms of reference. It is regrettable the concerns of the Opposition were not taken into account.

I do not propose to engage in the politics of "I told you so" because it would not get us very far. However, it is difficult not to be cynical because this morning the Taoiseach tried to convince us the abandonment of the political tribunal in favour of a judicial one was part of a process. Denis Coughlan summed it up well in The Irish Times when he stated that the new buoyancy in the Government as a result of last weekend's opinion poll prompted the establishment of the tribunal. Given the Government's record, I do not begrudge it some buoyancy and celebration, but if a 15 per cent gap between the three Government parties and the Opposition parties gives it cause for celebration, it does not realise the type of lame duck it is.

Since this issue came into the public domain on 29 November last, 70 days ago today, the Government's handling of the matter has been dismal. A number of hours after the newspaper headlines hit the street the Taoiseach told us he had only had a cursory glance at the article. He did not even know if an explanation was warranted — he was sure the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, would provide an explanation. He sought to distinguish between a person's responsibilities while a Minister and before becoming a Minister. Of course, more is expected from office holders, but as the Taoiseach knew Deputy Lowry availed of the tax amnesty, that was a strange comment for him to make. Alarm bells must have been ringing in his head. While the Taoiseach may have felt let down — as all of us would in similar circumstances — there are times when political leaders must make cruel decisions to prove their leadership and in the interests of honesty, openness and transparency. We must demand the standards we talk about from those we ask to serve with us and we must be uncompromising in that regard. We all know of people who stood by their friends during difficult times only to have those friends bring them and everybody else down with them and damage the name of politics and public life in the process. Lessons should be learned from that.

We welcome the Government's decision to establish the tribunal. It is regrettable, however, that it has taken 70 days for it to arrive at that decision. While the Taoiseach was open-minded when he spoke in the debate in December and did not dismiss the option of a tribunal, some of his colleagues were not open-minded. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, spoke about the Progressive Democrats being opportunistic and hypocritical. He said the tribunal would be cumbersome and lead to prolonged hearings with large legal bills and the prospect of journalists ending up in jail, but no guarantee of satisfaction or complete answers.

Mr. Cowen

After burning the book.

Miss Harney

I am sure members of the NUJ were touched by the Minister's concern to keep them out of jail. As he is not in the House today, he must be suffering from indigestion as a result of what he said. He made a strong case on 11 December about why the tribunal was unnecessary and would not work. He claimed the process on which the Government was embarking would work in a matter of days. The Government Chief Whip also said the tribunal would be expensive, was unnecessary and would not get us anywhere. He claimed the Government was pursuing the only option that would get at the truth.

Mr. D. Ahern

He has a short memory.

Mr. Durkan

He has a good memory.

Miss Harney

I am sure he also has a little tummy rumble today. What was hypocrisy and opportunism two months is now Government policy. We are witnessing crisis management again. The courts service was promised — it has not yet been established — only after a crisis in the Department of Justice. We were told it would be established in a week. We were seeking a tribunal into the hepatitis C scandal for almost two years. Information that had been withheld for 20 years was published in a matter of weeks. Great credit is due, in particular, to the former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Finlay, for the manner in which he conducted hearings in that tribunal. He has gone about his work in a speedy and efficient manner. I hope this tribunal is modelled on it.

I told the Taoiseach this morning that keeping the Buchanan process in place is crazy and unnecessary. It is akin to having the Miriam Hederman-O'Brien committee inquire while the tribunal of inquiry into the hepatitis C scandal is taking place. While Judge Buchanan has worked hard, he does not have the necessary investigative powers to talk to bank managers about the beneficial owners of bank accounts. The letter sent to Deputy Michael Smith indicates the inadequacy of his powers in that regard. He stated in the report that, in respect of some names in the Price Waterhouse report, there are up to 700 similar names in the telephone directory. He did not have the wherewithal to even begin to establish if the persons concerned were in public life. The Government is trying to save face by not standing down the Buchanan procedure.

This matter is about illicit payments to public persons. It is not about legitimate payments. Every party and politician receives corporate donations or donations from friends at election time and nobody questions the right of people to seek or receive them. I have not been critical of such contributions. In my experience bluechip companies tend to donate money to all parties on a pro-rata basis. It is unusual that since its foundation this party has not received a corporate donation from Dunnes Stores because all companies tend to give money to every party on a pro-rata basis. Notwithstanding the fact that it is unusual, there is nothing wrong with the amounts of money donated. They were given for legitimate reasons and I would not question the integrity of the Taoiseach or others who have been named as having received election contributions.

The tribunal must establish if Members or former Members of this House or people in public office received irregular or illicit payments. We must get at the truth because all of us who serve in public life have been tainted by this matter. We are all at the starting blocks together because the tribunal will inquire into everyone on the same basis. It will not single out Deputy Lowry, the genesis of the inquiry and we will have to wait until the tribunal has reported before getting an ethical go-ahead to continue to serve in public life. That is unfair to the majority of Members who enjoy the contribution they can make to public life and are proud to serve the people.

It is regrettable a time limit has not been set for the tribunal to make its findings, but that would probably be unrealistic. I hope it has reported before the next general election and that it will not sit when the election takes place. There is glee on the Government benches because it believes its story was told when Deputy Lowry revealed his story on 19 December and that others might be embarrassed during the tribunal. However, the Deputy Lowry story is not over. His speech on 19 December made matters much worse. I hope they will all be resolved and that the report of the tribunal will be presented and debated in the House well in advance of the general election. It is the least we owe to those who are prepared to stand for public office.

Will the State seek representation before the tribunal? Will the public interest be separately served before it, as it was usefully served before the hepatitis C tribunal? It was not separately served before the beef tribunal.

During 1996, Dunnes Stores sought changes in the tax laws which would have benefited the company by between £50 million and £100 million. The company did not get its way, but it had a member of the Cabinet in its pocket. Deputy Lowry told the House on 19 December that he did not run a separate business. It would appear that he was a wholly owned subsidiary of the company. Was any declaration to this effect made at the time?

I recently asked the Taoiseach about the position taken by office holders on the tax amnesty. It was a responsible question because some of those who serve in office today were members of the Cabinet that made a decision on the amnesty. We are entitled to know if they bestowed a benefit on themselves or their families. If members of local authorities have holdings in functional areas of the authorities, or if they hold property which becomes the subject of a planning or rezoning application, they are required by law to disclose their interest. Equally, if somebody participates in the decision on an amnesty which will bestow a benefit on themselves or their families it should be disclosed. The public has the right to know, yet I was told I was not entitled to ask such questions because they were purely a matter for the Taoiseach.

I do not question the Taoiseach's integrity, but he came to office promising that a hallmark of his Government would be openness, transparency and accountability. That is how he considered we should judge him. It is not unreasonable in such circumstances to seek information of the kind to which I have referred.

We judge the Government by the standards it sets for itself. With regard to expressions such as the "high moral ground", no party in this House is perfect and none is composed of persons who are perfect. We seek the application of the standards that ordinary people expect for themselves and for those who serve them. We want the truth to come out and nothing to be concealed.

I asked the Taoiseach this morning if the tribunal would be entitled to inquire into Revenue matters that affect Deputy Lowry and I was led to believe it would. However, he now tells the House that these are entirely a matter for the Revenue Commissioners, who will act without the prompting of the Government. The Revenue Commissioners are obliged by law to conduct their investigations in private. Whatever they discover must be kept a secret. It is unfair that, in the context of what is known as the Lowry affair, this should be the case. It is the job of the tribunal to deal with this matter and it is why I raised the issue this morning. Deputy Lowry is the only serving Member of the Oireachtas mentioned in the Buchanan report, in which the Taoiseach appeared to have such great faith. He is the person who caused this inquiry to be established. If it were not for the story of 29 November last we would not have this inquiry.

The Taoiseach said that if an inquiry was established along the lines suggested by my party it would lead to a fishing expedition because we wanted allegations in the newspapers to be investigated. However, there were only two or three allegations, not hundreds. The Government has engaged in a U-turn. Instead of admitting this, it is trying to pretend this is part of the process. However, given it has embarked on a route which I have believed for some time is the only way for the truth to emerge, I welcome its decision and I hope the tribunal will go about its work in the same way as the hepatitis C tribunal. If so, it will do a great service to everybody who serves and has served in public life in Ireland. I wish Mr. Justice McCracken, who is an excellent choice, the best of luck with the tribunal. I look forward to receiving his interim and final reports very soon.

The Taoiseach

I will answer the questions raised by the Deputy in due course.

Question put and agreed to.