Before coming to the remainder of the Order of Business I propose to deal with a number of notices under Standing Order 31 dealing with two different topics. I propose to deal with these two topics separately and will call on Deputies in the order in which they submitted their notices to my office. In regard to the first topic, I received notice from Deputies John Bruton, Proinsias de Rossa and Brendan Howlin. I call on Deputy Bruton to state the matter of which he has given notice.
Request to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 31.
In accordance with Standing Order 31, as a consequence of the recent publication of a letter between Mr. Michael Bailey and Mr. James Gogarty and subsequent Sunday newspaper reports making allegations concerning the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Ray Burke, I seek that Dáil Éireann agree to suspend this sitting in order to facilitate an emergency debate on the need for a broadening of the terms of reference of the Moriarty Tribunal to encompass a preliminary judicial examination of all matters pertinent to the payment of £30,000 to Deputy Ray Burke by Mr. James Gogarty of JMSE Construction Ltd., facilitated by Mr. Michael Bailey of Bovale Developments.
In accordance with Standing Order 31, I request the adjournment of the Dáil to discuss the following specific matter of public interest: the need for the Government to review the position of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Ray Burke, in the light of the announcement by the Taoiseach on Sunday that there is to be a tribunal of inquiry to look into certain planning and related matters in north Dublin, and, in view of the fact that the Minister is likely to be a central figure in the tribunal, the need for the Government to make arrangements to designate the functions of the Minister to another member of the Government pending the outcome of the tribunal.
In view of the importance of this matter, and the absence of any consultation to date on the question of a further inquiry into this matter, as well as the rumour that there will only be one hour to debate this matter,——
The Deputy may only state what is on the notice.
——I hope the Chair agrees to the request for a debate on this matter.
I move that Dáil Éireann be adjourned under Standing Order 31 to allow for a debate on the inclusion in the terms of reference of the Moriarty Tribunal of the £30,000 payment to Deputy Ray Burke referred to in his statement to the Dáil on September 10 last and on a planning decision taken in relation to 726 acres in north Dublin which is now subject to investigation by the Minister for the Environment.
Having considered the matters fully, I do not consider them to be contemplated by Standing Order 31. Therefore, I cannot grant leave to move the motions.
On a point of order, I seek the Chair's guidance. Standing Order 31 asks for leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the Dáil on a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration. If the Ceann Comhairle thinks there is a more urgent matter for consideration here today, I will eat my hat. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to take into account the advice given by the late Deputy Kemmy to the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy John Bruton, when he said that "if you do not respect yourself, you cannot expect other people to respect you". This is the first opportunity we have had to debate this matter following the revelations over the weekend and if we are seen, once again, to bury this problem the public will begin to view this establishment as totally and utterly irrelevant.
I asked the Taoiseach, through the Whips Office, for Government time to debate this matter today. Obviously time is not being granted as I did not receive any further communication on the matter. The only step open to the Opposition is to invoke Standing Order 31 and the Ceann Comhairle, as an impartial Member of this House, should consider our position and our efforts to have this matter debated.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, no Member of this House wants any other Member's reputation to be taken away without that Member having the opportunity to defend himself or herself. We have been criticised for going easy on the previous occasion this matter was debated because we did not kick up a row. I will not kick up a row about any Member of this House unless I have evidence to do so. In view of the ongoing revelations, I think it only fair that an independent tribunal of inquiry should investigate this matter at a preliminary stage of proceedings and if there is no foundation for further investigation we can forget about it. If there is further evidence we should investigate the matter.
(Interruptions.)
It is my responsibility to apply the Standing Orders laid down by this House. These matters do not come under Standing Order 31. There were opportunities to have these matters raised through ordinary notice for today or to table them for Private Members' time today. The Members concerned did not take this course of action.
I want to make a point in support of the statement of the Fine Gael Chief Whip.
All Members of the House are anxious to restore public confidence in the political system. The Taoiseach made a statement in the public media on Sunday in relation to the establishment of a tribunal. The terms of reference of the proposed tribunal have not been circulated to any Member of this House to date but there is, I understand, a promise to circulate them between five and six o'clock this evening. There is a request for a one hour debate tomorrow on the terms of reference which we have not yet seen. It is my experience that the terms of reference for all previous tribunals were subject to debate with all parties in the House. That has not been the intent or the practice in this case. Deputies on this side of the House are left in an invidious position in trying to focus on the restoration of confidence in public office. We genuinely want to have this matter dealt with.
Two weeks ago we sought to have this matter included in the preliminary siftings of the Moriarty tribunal. I believe that is still the correct way to proceed in this matter. There is probably, at this stage, a majority of Members who would support the inclusion of this matter in the Moriarty tribunal. That would be very much in the interest of politics and in the interests of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in order that he could proceed, without distraction, with the very important national work he has responsibility for. That is not going to happen. The view beginning to emerge is that the establishment of another tribunal is some kind of smokescreen; that will do the service of politics no good at all.
Is it in order to debate this issue when it has been scheduled for tomorrow?
Deputy Brennan should resume his seat. He is not in the Chair.
It is not.
We seem to be debating it now.
I have explained that it is my duty to apply the Standing Orders which have been agreed by this House and that is exactly what I am doing. I would also point out that there were opportunities in the past few days to raise this matter and they were not availed of. This matter did not arise suddenly.
This is the first time the House has met since Sunday.
On a point of Order, Standing Orders clearly state that Private Members' motions must be advised to the Ceann Comhairle four days before a sitting. These recent revelations appeared in Sunday's newspapers. How can the Ceann Comhairle expect us to change Private Members' time between Sunday and today? That would be contrary to the very Standing Orders which the Ceann Comhairle is citing.
That course of action could have been taken.
Deputy Barrett's party did not do much to change the rules when it was in Government.
Colombo, the private detective, has spoken.
I do not wish to challenge the Ceann Comhairle's rulings. I had tabled a parliamentary question to the Taoiseach in relation to this matter today. The Ceann Comhairle has made his decision, and I accept that, on the basis that there is an anticipated debate. The Taoiseach should at least take this opportunity to assure the House that adequate time will be provided to debate the terms of reference of the proposed new tribunal. This is a complicated matter. The Taoiseach has breached his own precedent by refusing to consult the Opposition on the terms of reference of the proposed tribunal. It is absolutely bewildering as to why a separate tribunal is necessary when, only two weeks ago, this House divided on a motion proposed by my party which would have included this matter at the preliminary stages of the Moriarty tribunal. The Taoiseach should give us an undertaking that the rumour that one hour will be provided tomorrow to discuss a matter as complicated as this is untrue; he should assure the House that adequate time will be provided tomorrow and, if necessary, the following day whereby we could have a Committee Stage style debate to deal with this matter. We have already set up an expensive mechanism to investigate the affairs of two politicians of yesterday but there seems to be an extraordinary reluctance on the Government's part to investigate the affairs of a politician of today.
I am entirely out of order because Standing Order 31 states that one can state a matter but cannot debate it.
That is not the only reason the Taoiseach is out of order.
Standing Order 31 has been strictly adhered to in the past. However, I welcome the opportunity to comment on this issue. The debate will hopefully take place tomorrow, subject to a meeting of the Whips shortly.
How can we have a meeting when we have not seen the terms of reference of the proposed tribunal?
The Taoiseach should be heard on this matter.
At this morning's Cabinet meeting we all but finalised the terms of reference which will be available to Members, Whips and party leaders shortly following the recent precedent I laid down. It must then be decided what time is necessary to debate this issue.
I was aware, some months ago, of matters relating to planning issues in North County Dublin which concerned a member of my then front bench. I spoke to that person at the time and checked the details with him. I opened lines of communication and in so far as I could, I independently investigated the matter. I was quite satisfied with that. When the issue came into the public domain it was stated that the Member concerned should make a statement. The Member made as fully comprehensive a statement as he thought necessary. There was also a suggestion, one with which I agreed, that he should make a statement before this House. Unlike the situation which pertained regarding Deputy Lowry last Christmas, it was suggested that the Member should participate in a question and answer session in the House according to the normal precedent of 20 minutes. Opposition Members requested an hour and I suggested to Minister Burke that it should be so. During the course of that debate, it was implied that Minister Burke's answers were not sufficiently good and that further investigation should be carried out. I disagreed with that and still do.
In the cases of Deputy Lowry and Mr. Haughey, the McCracken tribunal found them to be guilty of some wrongdoing and it is important that the McCracken report, which is now being passed on to the Moriarty tribunal, should deal comprehensively with those issues in relation to bank accounts and other related matters. The Minister, Deputy Burke, is being blamed, without any substance, in regard to another issue. It is obvious that at least one of the individuals concerned has a huge number of files — the word "huge" was quoted to me by others — which will be drip fed into the public domain. It has been suggested to me that those files may not be concerned with lands but with other issues. I have been asked to allow this matter come under the terms of the Moriarty tribunal, which would be totally unfair to the individual, and I have been advised it is not possible to amend the terms of reference of a tribunal once it has been set up. It is possible to establish another tribunal with the same judge chairing both, but that would lengthen both tribunals. I am advised that it may be next summer before the matters being dealt with by the Moriarty tribunal are finalised. That is not satisfactory but I cannot do anything about it. To allow that tribunal investigate other issues would not be satisfactory.
The Government has made the decision to set up a new tribunal which will deal comprehensively with planning matters and issues related to the Minister, Deputy Burke, in that regard. The Government is not stonewalling those issues but I will not allow one issue concerning £30,000 to come under the terms of reference of an appropriate tribunal only to find that the day after it has been established, another piece of paper becomes available which must be investigated.
In addition to setting up an inquiry to deal with all relevant matters concerning Bovale, JMSE, Mr. Gogarty, Mr. Bailey and any other persons associated with the 756 acres of land, the terms of reference will cover any other issue regarding any other planning matter in north Dublin that is brought to light in the sifting process, as referred to by Deputy Barrett. They will then be dealt with as the tribunal progresses. This and any other relevant issue will be dealt with in the fullness of time. I do not propose to set up a tribunal to investigate every planning case over the past 25 years; that would sit for years. Issues that arise from the tribunal will be investigated.
I appreciate that the House is trying to deal with this matter and I also appreciate the co-operation I have received from the other party leaders and the Whips in that regard. I ask them to examine these terms of reference, which are neither long nor complex, and if they have any suggestions to make I will try to take them on board. I hope the House will deal with this matter in the manner I suggest. I am anxious to deal with it as speedily as possible and I ask the Members for their co-operation. Perhaps the Whips can meet following this debate and hopefully we can then move forward.
I listened carefully to what the Taoiseach had to say, and I do not regard what he said as meeting the needs of the situation.
So much for the fine words.
The Taoiseach is wrong when he states it is not possible to amend the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal to include the other payment to politicians, the £30,000 paid to the Minister, Deputy Burke. It is envisaged in the terms of reference that a report can be presented here, one result of which might be an amendment to the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal. The Taoiseach is simply wrong in saying that he cannot accept the Opposition's request that the Moriarty tribunal investigate this payment to a politician.
We are actually going further.
The suggestion by the Taoiseach that we should have some other inquiry into various planning matters in north County Dublin is simply a smokescreen. I challenged the Taoiseach personally, when I met him in his office, to produce evidence of payments to any other politician.
The Deputy is a hypocrite.
There is no evidence in the public domain of payments to any other politician, yet the Taoiseach wants to have some sort of wandering inquiry that will go on for months——
It will not.
What is the Deputy afraid of?
——while Deputy Burke continues as Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Deputy is on a witch-hunt.
The type of inquiry the Government is proposing is simply a delaying tactic. If the Taoiseach wanted to deal with the circumstances of this £30,000 payment, he would refer the matter to the Moriarty tribunal where it would be dealt with quickly.
I wish to make two points that are important. Fianna Fáil was in control of Dublin County Council in 1989. The letter from Mr. Bailey stated that he wanted a material contravention of the plan. That was something to be delivered within two years i.e. within the period Fianna Fáil was still in control of Dublin County Council. That letter was sent to Mr. Gogarty three days before Mr. Gogarty went to see the Minister, Deputy Burke, and handed over the money. That coincidence of events and the short-term envisaged in the letter, in so far as the material contravention had to take place within a two year period which happened to coincide with the continued life of the Fianna Fáil majority in Dublin County Council, needs to be independently investigated.
The Taoiseach's proposal for a broad ranging inquiry which will investigate everything that happened in north County Dublin is an attempt to avoid the issue. I do not have any problem with a separate inquiry into this matter but the particular donation of £30,000 to Deputy Burke should be specifically investigated in the light of the letter that has been published.
Deputies Spring and De Rossa rose.
We cannot have a debate on this issue at this time. We must have some order.
We have just had a debate.
I have allowed some latitude in the matter. I will allow the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Labour Party to make a brief comment.
I want to make two points. Unfortunately, once a debate such as this is allowed to commence, it can cause a difficulty, but I totally object to the way Deputy Bruton conveniently misrepresented everything I said. If the Deputy is interested in dealing with this matter, as his party Whip said, he should wait to see the terms of reference. The issue of the £30,000, and the related Bailey-JMSE land, can be dealt with but the Deputy and I know, without allegation, that people are saying there may be six or seven other issues to be addressed. I do not intend to get somebody to inquire into those but if information comes to light in the sifting process, it will be addressed. Issues will not be dealt with unless they are raised.
It is our belief that this entire matter can be dealt within three months. The legal advice given to me, which is the same legal advice the Deputy would have received, is that if a tribunal is set up its terms of reference cannot be amended. Even if it were possible to change the terms of reference, I believe that would be wrong. It is far better to set up a separate tribunal which will deal with the issue of the 756 acres and then move on to the other issues. That is the decision of the Government. We are having this debate without seeing the terms of reference. If people are serious, they might deal with that issue.
The Taoiseach is a great man.
Sorry, Deputy Bruton, I am calling Deputy Spring for a final comment.
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Chair is on his feet. The Deputy should resume his seat.
The Taoiseach is a great man for talking prophetically about six or seven other issues. I challenge the Taoiseach to say what are the six or seven other issues.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach told me there were five or more Deputies who had got donations but when I challenged him he would not produce the names. I challenge him now to say what are the six or seven other issues that the Taoiseach said ought to be investigated. The Taoiseach said that these were circulating in the House but I would like to know who they are. One should not use rumours as an excuse not to investigate facts.
We are dealing with rumours in relation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burke.
We are dealing with the fact that he got £30,000.
Order, please.
That is not a rumour. The Taoiseach is trying to use the excuse of other rumours to avoid investigating known facts.
The tribunal will deal with the matter.
On a point of order——
If Members do not obey the Chair I will have no option but to suspend the sitting. I will allow the Minister of State raise a point of order.
I understand it is not in order to debate a section 31 motion. If I am correct then why are we having a debate?
I am trying to bring the matter to a conclusion. I will allow Deputy Spring to make a few brief comments.
I intervene to express my concern about the course of action suggested by the Taoiseach. Some weeks ago the Taoiseach sought co-operation from the Opposition parties and it was readily forthcoming. At the same time the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, took a position which was turned on its head at midday last Sunday. The situation has now changed dramatically. The Chairman of the Progressive Democrats Party, a partner in Government, is calling for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to step aside. The Taoiseach is ill advised if he is convinced he cannot put the matters now under discussion into the existing tribunal as there is a mechanism for so doing with the agreement of the chairman. This should be done as quickly as possible.
I have no information other than the fact that a £30,000 cheque was given to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, there is a letter and meetings took place. If there are other matters then the Taoiseach owes it to the House to put them on the record and deal with them now. Otherwise the innuendo, smears and destruction of politics will continue. There is a way of dealing with the matter. We have agreed on the setting up of a tribunal and this matter should be put into it as quickly as possible.
Put the matters on the record now.
I want to bring this matter to a conclusion but I will hear Deputy De Rossa.
(Dublin West): I wish——
We cannot have a debate on this matter now. I have allowed too much latitude and will not allow any more. I call Deputy De Rossa, after which the Taoiseach may reply if he so wishes.
(Dublin West): May I——
The Deputy will have an opportunity to discuss the matter when the terms of reference of the tribunal are brought before the House.
(Dublin West): We do not know when that will be.
That will be arranged by the Whips.
The Taoiseach clearly realises he made a mistake——
I do not.
——some weeks ago when he rejected the amendment from Democratic Left which proposed that the donation to the Minister, Deputy Burke, should be included in the Moriarty tribunal.
It is a separate matter.
It is clearly wrong of him to say he does not have the power or right to change the terms of reference or to include that matter in the Moriarty tribunal as he clearly has the right to do so. He should now agree to do this.
In order to bring this matter to a conclusion today he needs to give an undertaking that it will be debated all day tomorrow. A Government decision has been made to put the terms of reference before the House and we need a full day to debate and consider them. This House must be enabled to decide what course of action should be taken to ensure that politicians can hold their heads high. The kind of shilly-shallying we have had for the past few months on this matter has to stop, otherwise we will all go down the tubes.
Does the Taoiseach wish to make a final comment?
(Dublin West): A Cheann Comhairle——
We cannot have any further debate on the matter. I have called the Taoiseach to make a final statement. The Deputy will have an opportunity to make his point at a later stage but we cannot have a debate now.
(Dublin West): I have as much right as the people on my left——
The Taoiseach has the floor and he is not giving way.
It is a matter for the Whips to agree the time which will be provided to debate the terms of reference. On the Moriarty tribunal, I want to make it clear that even if I had not been advised that it would be inappropriate to change the terms of reference I would not do so as it would lengthen the tribunal. The tribunal relates to people who have already been found guilty of some wrongdoing and it is not appropriate to change the terms of reference. That is the Government's view and the Deputies opposite should forget about their argument.
As regards innuendo, I wish to say to Deputy Bruton that I have no information and am sick and tired of hearing about this, that and the other story.
The Taoiseach should name the people.
The Deputy should keep his cool.
I invite the Taoiseach to name them.
The Taoiseach is in possession.
Unlike the Deputies opposite we are dealing with the facts.
We are dealing with the facts.
A Deputy:
That will be the day.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
I have been asked a question and I wish to answer it. I have no evidence which shows that anyone else is guilty of anything but I have heard plenty of hearsay. In the first instance the tribunal should deal with the issues relating to the 756 acres.
What issues?
The letter——
He was looking for a material contravention and the Taoiseach knows as well as I do that it had nothing to do with rezoning.
The Deputy seems to be arguing against everything.
The letter refers to two years. I will read the letter to the Taoiseach if he wishes.
The Taoiseach without interruption, please.
The issues relating to this matter will be dealt with. If any other relevant issues arise they will be looked at. However, if there are no other relevant issues and no one else puts in any submissions or raises anything other than vexatious claims then that will be the end of the matter. We will then be able to restore some order and sanity.
The new tribunal will deal in the first instance with the issues which centre around this site and which clearly relate to the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, in a major part.
Will that be explicitly included?
It will be included. As he is the politician mentioned it will definitely be included.
Will it be explicitly referred to?
It does not have to be included explicitly. I am saying it here. Does the Deputy want his name put in lights?
No.
I am stating clearly that he will be involved.
Last night on a television programme I happened to improperly see a draft in front of the Taoiseach's colleague beside him and there was no reference good, bad or indifferent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That is the entire point. The only actual information concerns the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach is seeking to throw the net as wide as possible and to catch whoever he can.
No.
That is fair enough but there ought to be explicit mention of the case of the Minister for Foreign Affairs without being judgmental in any way.
Why?
It is typical of the Deputy to look at other people's documents.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach is in possession and I ask other Deputies to resume their seats.
The Whips will meet to discuss this matter and if Deputies need to discuss it further they can do so. That is the way we will proceed.
That concludes the debate on this matter.
The Taoiseach has done this House——
I am proceeding to the next item.
On a point of order——
I call Deputy Currie.
I will raise the matter on the Order of Business.
I request leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter of public interest which requires urgent consideration, namely a report, the details of which I have supplied, that the European Union has issued a directive to this country to allow foreign and private lotteries to operate here; that this directive is due to come into force today, 30 September; that it will enable casinos and gaming machines to operate here and the action the Government has taken, or intends to take, to protect our society from the undesirable social consequences which would arise from such a development.
Having considered the matter fully I do not consider it to be contemplated by Standing Order 31. I cannot, therefore, grant leave to move the motion.