Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jan 1998

Vol. 486 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Ansbacher Accounts: Motion.

Mr. J. Bruton:

I move:

That Dáil Éireann

recalling the serious public concern which arose from the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) published on 25 August 1997, which established that irregular payments were made to, and benefits conferred on, certain persons who were Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas between 1 January, 1986 and 31 December, 1996,

noting that the tribunal established that money was held on deposit in certain Irish banks by offshore banks in memorandum accounts (the Ansbacher accounts) for the benefit of Irish residents including Mr. Charles Haughey (the history of which deposits is set out in chapter 6 of the report of the tribunal),

noting further that the Dunnes payments tribunal was unable by reason of its terms of reference to investigate the source of the Ansbacher accounts, other than in respect of sums paid by certain persons referred to in the said terms of reference,

having regard to additional and serious public concern arising from the circumstances in which up to thirty-eight million pounds were held in the Ansbacher accounts outside the supervision of both the Revenue Commissioners and the Central Bank,

resolves that it is expedient that the tribunal of inquiry established by the Taoiseach pursuant to a resolution passed by the House on 11 September, 1997, should inquire 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 additional definite matter of urgent public importance:

the circumstances, considerations and motives relating to the creation, beneficial ownership and management of the Ansbacher accounts, for the purposes of investigating and reporting as to whether there has been any evasion of tax, contravention of exchange controls or other illegal activity associated with those accounts and making whatever recommendations it considers appropriate to prevent such a mechanism being used to avoid the payment of tax or to contravene exchange controls.

and further resolves that the tribunal be requested to conduct these further inquiries in accordance with the procedures set out in the said resolution of 11 September 1997, and in particular examine in public hearings, if it so decides, any account holders or beneficial owners of Ansbacher accounts, where there is evidence that there may have been evasion of tax, contravention of exchange controls or other illegal activity associated with these accounts.

I propose to share my time equally with Deputies Quinn, De Rossa and Sargent.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Fine Gael is moving this motion, with our colleagues in the Labour Party, Democratic Left and the Green Party because we want to see all irregularities in the operation and use of the Ansbacher accounts fully and publicly investigated. We believe the best place to do this is through the Moriarty tribunal. If this investigation demonstrates irregularities that may have been used by other banks, these should also be identified by the tribunal and thoroughly investigated by the appropriate authorities.

The purpose of our motion is simple. We want the Moriarty tribunal to investigate the Ansbacher accounts to discover any tax evasion by any users of these accounts and to conduct a public inquiry into the tax evasion by such identified individuals. This motion is designed to require the tribunal to investigate all the accounts initially as part of its private examination and then to conduct a public inquiry into those accounts where prima facie evidence of tax evasion or exchange control breaches exists. This motion is not confined to investigating procedures alone. It also allows for investigation of individuals.

Fine Gael believes this approach is a fair one. Tax law abiding citizens should not have a public inquiry into their affairs just because other people to whom they have no connection happened to use the same banking facility for an improper purpose. Fine Gael believes that to do otherwise would be to run the risk of undermining Ireland's financial services industry. This was the approach we took on various amendments which came before the Dáil last September and it is fully reflected in today's agreed motion. Our balanced and reasonable approach will tackle malpractice in these areas while protecting the interests of people involved in entirely legitimate transactions who have complied fully with all aspects of the law. The approach we propose may well result in all Ansbacher depositors being named, but only after due process has been completed.

Many Irish companies have bank accounts abroad. The vast majority of these accounts are quite legitimate. Indeed, the website of one of our national newspapers carries an advertisement for offshore bank accounts today.

As globalisation of world business grows, Ireland is in the lucky position of having several Irish companies who are now major players in world business. A witch hunt against all Irish owned bank accounts abroad, without any prima facie evidence to suggest they might be set up to avoid the Central Bank or Revenue Commissioners, could do fatal damage to our economic progress as fairness and due process would go out the window and be replaced by prurient zealotry.

In seeking to supplement the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal at this stage, Fine Gael has received legal advice that supports our view that this can indeed be done. Section 1 of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 contains the following phrase:

Where it has been resolved . it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter described in the Resolution as of urgent public importance, and in pursuance of the Resolution a tribunal is appointed . the instrument by which the tribunal is appointed or any instrument supplemental thereto may provide that this Act shall apply, and in such case the tribunal shall have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court.

It is therefore our view that the legislature, by this reference in the 1921 Act as to how the terms of reference might be contained in a "supplemental instrument", clearly envisaged that a tribunal remit could be supplemented. The legislation clearly envisaged the possibility of the Oireachtas supplementing the terms of reference of a tribunal as we propose it should do in the case of the Moriarty tribunal. Our case for the motion is further supported because the tribunal, although established and active, has not gone into any public hearings.

The House will be aware that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney has appointed an officer of her Department under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990 to investigate possible wrongdoing involving the Ansbacher deposits. I am concerned that the Government, by its amendment to this motion, is giving the misleading impression that the Tánaiste's inquiry will have the same ultimate effect as the motion we have tabled. That is not the case.

No matter what it contains, the Tánaiste, under section 19, will not be able to publish the results of the inquiry. Even if it is discovered that the Ansbacher accounts were used by individuals or companies to evade tax, the Tánaiste, under section 19, will not be able to disclose detailed information as to the identity of those individuals or companies. She will not be able to disclose the content of the report in any respect. The Tánaiste, under section 19, will only be able to hand the report over in confidence to bodies such as the Revenue Commissioners and the Central Bank or set up another inspection process under a different section which could, after a long period, possibly involve publication. It would be very wrong for anyone to suggest that just because the Tánaiste's report might contain names, that somehow those names will get out and that will suffice. If those names were to get out that would be a clear breach of section 19. Section 19, under which the Tánaiste is currently acting, obliges absolute confidentiality. The names of the people who have been involved in illegality, if discovered as a result of the Tánaiste's inquiry under section 19, cannot be released. There can be no public accountability by those individuals on foot of the inquiry initiated under section 19 by the Tánaiste. In contrast, the motion in my name and the names of Deputies Quinn, De Rossa and Sargent will allow for public accountability by individuals involved in tax evasion if those individuals are individuals in respect of whom prima facie evidence of tax evasion exists. If such evidence does not exist, their names will not be published. That is a fair approach and it is a much better approach than the Tánaiste's which simply involves getting a confidential report which may not be published in any circumstances.

I hope the House will agree the motion is the best and fairest way to proceed in addressing the serious public concern which arose following publication of the McCracken report and the more recent revelations over last weekend of the possible further use of offshore investment schemes by Irish companies or citizens to evade tax in an organised way.

We are not proposing this motion in a confrontational, aggressive or finger pointing way. We believe the motion is a measured and responsible approach to ensure the truth on matters of grave national concern is put before the people. We have seen an erosion of public confidence in those who serve in public life. The misguided opposition of the Government to our motion will unfortunately do nothing to diminish that lack of confidence. I do not impugn the motives of the Government in its approach. I am not suggesting there is any improper motivation in the approach it is taking in this matter although I deeply regret it. The Government would be well advised to heed what we are saying. The Opposition motion is the best way to proceed. It is the best way to protect the reputation of all involved in politics and ensure the Government is not subject to, probably, unfair criticism of its motivation. It has been ill advised in the suggestion made by spokespersons that the terms of reference could not be altered. It is manifest that the terms of reference can be altered — the Tribunals of Inquiry Act envisages an alteration in the terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal refer to the possibility of the tribunal seeking an alteration in its terms of reference. If the tribunal can seek an alteration, the Dáil can grant it and, therefore, the Dáil can make such a change.

The Government has been badly advised. I suggest it should reconsider the matter in the next two days, in its own interest, in the national interest and in the interest of politics, and accept this reasonable motion from the Opposition parties, which we have discussed in a full and thorough way. We have reached a compromise. All the concerns in the Government's mind were also concerns in the minds of many of us on the Opposition benches. We have put forward a balanced proposal and I hope the Government will accept it.

Mr. Quinn:

Last September the Labour Party sought to have the Ansbacher accounts included in the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal. We did so because we believe there is prima facie evidence that the moneys held in those accounts are there for the purpose of evading tax. Our society and social partnership in particular are held together on the basis that all pay their fair share. When there is evidence to suggest some are not complying with that basic obligation, such information should be made available to the rest of the public as a matter of right.

The Government has displayed scant regard for the spirit of social partnership. Partnership, by definition, means everybody sharing an equal burden in society. In the past six months we have seen more than sufficient evidence that the Government fails to understand this basic requirement of citizenship. In September it voted down our attempts to have the accounts under discussion come within the terms of the Moriarty tribunal. Recent newspaper reports have indicated that the Revenue Commissioners are in possession of information indicating that many of our wealthier citizens are paying little or no tax. In the past week information has come to light that one of the country's four major banks may have colluded with its customers to use offshore accounts to avoid tax liabilities. Accusations have been made that a Member of this House played an active part in that process. Those accusations have met with a deafening silence despite calls by Members that the issue be cleared up.

Admittedly, these issues are not all of this Government's making, but it is answerable for the lack of action to deal with them. Its decision not to allow the Moriarty tribunal to fully investigate the Ansbacher accounts has undermined confidence among the public in the Government's policing of tax evasion. The Government has done nothing since September to help restore confidence. Its policy seems to be one of absolute obfuscation. Neither does it appear the Government is united on the issue. Soon after voting down the inclusion of these accounts in the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal, the Tánaiste initiated her own investigation. Newspaper reports seem to indicate that some progress is being made by the investigator appointed by her, but the question remains, if something is worth investigating now, why was that not the case in September?

I welcome the Tánaiste's investigation and I hope it bears fruit, but we have no guarantee that the report of that investigation will be published. It is a poor second to the examination of these accounts by the tribunal. Central to this whole issue is the restoration of public confidence in our policing procedures. The limitation of the process initiated by the Tánaiste is that it lacks this key element. As Deputy Bruton indicated, her findings can be made public only during court procedures initiated by the DPP. If the DPP decides not to initiate a prosecution, for whatever legal reason, there is no accountability.

The Government is, of course, seeking to hide behind legal advice to prevent a proper investigation of these accounts. I dispute that the terms of reference of the tribunal cannot be amended, and I support Deputy Bruton's analysis in that regard. I believe — I have taken legal advice on this — that the governing legislation, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, seems specifically to recognise the possibility of amending resolutions. The terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal also provide for that possibility. The 1921 Act refers to ‘the instrument by which the tribunal is appointed or any instrument supplemental thereto'. The only reason a supplemental instrument would be required would be to amend, by addition, variation or repeal, the terms of the original instrument. The Minister is clearly wrongly advised, if the advice he has received is that the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal cannot be amended.

I fail to understand why the Government is adopting the present position. By its action it gives the impression it has something to hide from a full and proper investigation of these accounts. Perhaps that is the case, but the Government should clarify that point. Its failure to accept this motion will add to that suspicion.

The Government contends that the primary focus of the tribunal is to investigate ‘allegations of irregular payments made to and benefits conferred on certain persons in public life'. That is the case, and by its actions the Government has sought to ensure it can go no further, but in so doing it has created a situation which now forms the basis of the legal challenge to the tribunal's work. I reject the challenge to the tribunal initiated by Mr. Charles Haughey. This House has a right to investigate whether political benefits accrued to donors to the former Taoiseach and, if it so chooses, to do that in isolation. It is a right in principle which must be defended vigorously by this House. To suggest, as the Government seeks to do, that this is a reason other related illegal activity should not be investigated by the tribunal is ludicrous.

In regard to that case, I would like to disassociate myself from the manner in which the Government has chosen to remove the Clerks of both Houses of the Oireachtas from the action. The claim is, apparently, to be made on their behalf by the Attorney General that resolutions of the Houses are immune from judicial review. This line of defence has been initiated without consultation with Members of either House. The resolution is not the property of the Government but of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and any change in the position should, at least out of courtesy, have been made following consultation with representatives of the parties. While I do not believe that the resolutions passed by the Houses in this instance are invalid, as a matter of principle, resolutions of the Houses must be capable of challenge. Since Acts can be struck down, why does the same not apply to resolutions? It is tantamount to claiming for Dáil Éireann the same pompous and archaic privileges enjoyed by the High Court of Parliament sitting in the Palace of Westminster.

The choice before this House is a clear one. The Opposition parties have come together to indicate our total opposition to the course being inexplicably pursued by the Government. No doubt the Government has approached the Independents who support it and have claimed it must win the vote on this motion. It is a sad indictment of the Government that it is actively seeking to implicate others in this calumny. I call on every Member of this House to exercise his or her independent judgment and to do what is right. The Government will not fall because of a vote in support of this motion.

Political commentators have rightly identified social partnership as central to our recent economic success. Social partnership is rooted in two concepts. One is the acceptance by workers of limited pay increases in return for reductions in tax paid by them. The Government has already introduced a budget which flies in the face of the spirit of that agreement, a budget which is specifically designed to benefit the well off, but social partnership is also based on equity. A key component is that all individuals pay their fair share of tax. Tonight's motion gives each Member of the House the opportunity to publicly reaffirm his or her commitment to those values. It will reflect no honour on the House if we fail to do so.

Mr. Rabbitte:

Whatever the motivation, the decision to exclude from the remit of the Moriarty tribunal private individuals who were holders of the Ansbacher accounts was wrong. Democratic Left sought, by way of an amendment, to extend the remit of the Moriarty tribunal, but unfortunately the Government chose to vote down a similar amendment from the Labour Party. Effectively, the decision we made that evening conferred retrospective approval of tax evasion. We do not know that all private holders of Ansbacher deposits were doing so for illegal purposes, but the preliminary private stage of the tribunal process would have established that, without risk to the standing of any individual whose sole purpose was sanctioned legitimate commercial transactions. It was misleading to put forward the reasons offered by the Minister for Finance on behalf of the Government for not pursuing these private account holders and simply untrue to put abroad the canard that the Revenue Commissioners could use their powers to investigate the tax status of those account holders. Without knowing the identity of the beneficial owners of those accounts, the Revenue Commissioners were precluded from conducting an effective investigation. Whatever the motivation of the private account holders — it is difficult to put an innocent construction on it — they all went to extreme lengths to conceal their identities and that remains the position despite Government utterances to the contrary.

I expect the use of the Tánaiste's powers under the Companies Act will be more productive, but she is precluded from making public the findings. I believe I was the last person in the House to use section 19 of the Companies Act in the case of the Clonmannon investigation. I was precluded by law from publishing the report of the officer concerned. I used it subsequently to seek a liquidation of Clonmannon in the courts. I got the liquidation, but the information in the report was not made public. I ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to state tonight if advice has been taken on whether the Tánaiste is free to make a copy of her official's report, when she receives it, available to the tribunal of inquiry. If she is precluded from doing so, the value of tonight's motion is all the more evident. Even if she is so permitted — I want the Minister to deal with that point — it is still inescapable that further inquiry into the implications of her findings will be necessary.

I will repeat a number of questions I raised previously. Was the late Mr. Traynor the only accountant offering his expertise to wealthy clients and was Guinness Mahon the only bank involved in facilitating such clients? The latest offshore controversy involving National Irish Bank seems to give a clear answer. I have recently got to know Deputy Cooper-Flynn and I acknowledge that my native county has acquired a formidable advocate. In my little knowledge of her I do not believe anybody could accuse her of reticence. I hope she will take the opportunity of this debate to inform us of the motivation behind the mechanism being marketed by National Irish Bank.

It appears the rich and wealthy are not satisfied with the various boltholes available to them to avoid tax and resort to these dodgy schemes to optimise their returns and evade tax. Meanwhile hundreds of tax compliant citizens marched on the streets of our cities and towns protesting at the unfair share of the tax burden they have had to bear. We now know the answers.

The identities and tax status of the beneficial owners of the Ansbacher deposits are not the only issues that require examination if there is to be equality before the law. We need to give the Moriarty tribunal every encouragement and support to establish the benefactors of Mr. Haughey, other than Mr. Dunne. This is not for the purpose of assuaging some prurient curiosity to reveal who funded the conspicuous lifestyle of a person now retired from public life. Rather it is to establish if the munificence of Mr. Haughey's benefactors was entirely disinterested, or if favours were granted in return. This is an awesome undertaking because it is not, as some commentators seem to believe, simply a matter of raking over old contracts. Rather it requires an examination of at least certain Government and legislative decisions that may have conferred significant advantages on persons who were also benefactors.

The House should assist the tribunal where possible in focusing on areas that might be productive, given what we already know. In this regard, has consideration been given to an examination of decisions surrounding the manner in which the bloodstock industry has evolved in the past 30 years? Was the former Taoiseach a bloodstock producer? What transactions transpired between him and two individuals in particular, Mr. Lawrence Goodman and Mr. John Magnier? Is there a record of those transactions? Both men or their enterprises have benefited to the tune of millions of pounds from decisions made by Governments in which Mr. Haughey was a key, if not the key, player. In the case of Mr. Goodman's enterprise, enormous benefits were conferred by the monopolisation of the export credit insurance scheme and access to section 84 loans. Mr. Magnier was also enabled to establish a monopoly and benefit from hugely advantageous tax breaks. On 10 September last I suggested that both gentlemen should be invited to make a statement setting out whether they could be of assistance to the tribunal.

Since I raised the bloodstock producer entanglements in the House on 11 September, I note an article published in the Sunday Times of 25 January where it is claimed that Mr. Magnier “has made regular financial contributions to Fianna Fail over the past 20 years” and that his “£100m fortune has been built on tax breaks introduced by Haughey as Finance Minister 28 years ago”. Mr. Magnier's dominant position is directly attributable to the extraordinarily generous tax regime introduced by Mr. Haughey. The Sunday Times story records that “there is no suggestion of impropriety on the part of Magnier” and that must be the case until the nature of the connection is fully inquired into.

It is no longer argued that there would be a flight of capital from this country if the scope of the tribunal had been broadened. By way of illustration, I will quote from recent articles in the Herald Tribune and the Financial Times. The Herald Tribune of 8 October 1997 states:

A Dresdner Bank AG management board member, Hans-Guenther Adenauer, said Tuesday he would resign after prosecutors raided his home in a widening investigation into whether Germany's largest banks helped clients evade taxes by concealing assets abroad.

There is no tiptoeing around the tulips in Germany or flight of international capital. An article in the Financial Times of 4 November 1997 states:

.president of Kredietbank SA Luxembourgeoise, was held in a Brussels jail after his detention in connection with an investigation into an alleged tax dodge involving billions of francs.

Therefore, that argument does not stand up and I trust the Minister will not purvey it tonight.

I also have had legal advice to the effect that it is possible to amend the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal. The public demands to be reassured that it is not open to wealthy and powerful individuals to buy shares in the Government and dictate decisions, irrespective of the common good. It demands to be reassured that there is not one law for the rich and another for the rest. It demands to be reassured that our democracy cannot be purchased no matter how impetuously generous the supermarket owner or dominant the beef baron, how many Japanese trucks are imported, how many stallions are at stud or how many accounts are held in exotic offshore islands. That is what is at issue tonight. In setting up a tribunal constrained only to inquire into the affairs of two former office holders we may have fooled ourselves. This motion is proof positive that we have not fooled the public. We and the pro-Government Independent Deputies in particular have an opportunity to make amends tonight.

Mr. Sargent:

The Green Party welcomes the co-sponsoring of this motion and it is grateful to Fine Gael for making its Private Members' time available for this important debate. The Green Party is especially pleased that the spirit and content of this agreed motion is close to the amendments suggested by Deputy Gormley and me when the Dáil convened to debate this issue in special session last September. Then, as now, the Government failed to grasp the degree of public concern about this issue.

It is not simply that a number of public representatives have been compromised by the receipt of payments or that politics and the concept of public service has become badly tarnished as a result. It is also that the public believes validly that there are those who see themselves as a privileged elite for whom the normal rules and regulations which govern our society are to be ignored or, at best, treated with scorn and indifference. "Taxes are for the little people" characterised the attitude of a famous American tax evader who was convicted and imprisoned. However, in Ireland those who feel and act in a similar way continue to go unidentified and their contempt is unrecorded.

The focus of today's motion is to deal with the discovered accounts at Ansbacher Bank. I was recently asked, half seriously, whether Ansbacher was the German word for back-hander. If it were, it would give the most plausible explanation as to the purpose of these accounts, especially if the Government persists in its opposition to the collective views of the four parties tabling this motion. Far from the prying eyes of the State this money was allowed to accumulate so that it could not be used by the Government to provide essential social services, which even in this era of the tiger economy are not what they should be. I do not need to enumerate the long list of areas which need finance.

This is a modest motion. From what we know from the McCracken report the Ansbacher accounts represent but the tip of an ugly iceberg. The previous tribunal revealed the astounding information that about £8 billion is banked abroad and offshore by Irish citizens. This is a figure which equates to about half the Government's annual budget. Some of this banking is facilitated by our banking regulations. We hope that National Irish Bank will clarify the motivation behind its operations which were reported last Sunday.

Much is done to spite the State. We learn daily how the practice of offshore banking is prevalent among many of our citizens and is facilitated by many Irish financial institutions. On one level there is a need to examine the banking laws and to remove any loopholes. However, we also need to deal with people who consider themselves above legal niceties.

The recently established tribunal of inquiry should have the power to discover these facts. There is a fear that its ability to begin its deliberations fully is compromised by the terms of reference agreed to date by the House. The Government's arguments about bringing about the necessary changes in the terms of reference of the tribunal are weak and deserve to be brushed aside. Stating that terms of reference once agreed cannot be changed, as if it were a sacrosanct legal principle, is a nonsense. We need only look at the way the office of the independent counsel in the US operates to see how terms of reference must be adaptable if the object is the full and rigorous pursuit of truth and justice.

Weaker still is the Government's contention that the new tribunal has necessary powers implied in its current terms of reference. If we have learned anything from previous tribunals, such as the beef tribunal and the original payments to politicians tribunal, it is that unless terms of reference are explicitly stated those charged with reporting the outcome of such tribunals will not stray beyond their stated terms of reference, even if they come into the possession of damaging and important information. It was this constraint that made Mr. Justice McCracken refer the issue of the Ansbacher accounts for consideration by another tribunal.

The Government also points to the reports commissioned at the behest of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Green Party commends her for commissioning such reports but it should be pointed out that such reports will be compiled under legislative constraints and need not be published. Thanks to the "skipgate" saga we know some of the extent of the Progressive Democrats funding and the extent to which their decision making has been compromised while in Government. This should be an incentive for the Tánaiste to ensure that the affairs of all political parties are similarly brought into the open. However, I suspect her partners in Government may not be as willing to be as transparent in their dealings.

The Tánaiste needs to consider the extent to which the philosophy of her party, which has created an impression that tax is theft and that tax collection is at times somehow immoral, has contributed to the evasion culture, a culture which needs independent and thorough investigation to restore public confidence in our political and financial systems.

It is difficult to understand why the Government is being less than open on this issue. It might be that it would be embarrassed by the revelation of names or that it might anticipate political damage from such revelations or that donated moneys might have to be returned if such donations were subsequently proven to have been given by people shown to have been evading tax. Whatever the Government's motives, there is a need for its constituent parties, particularly Fianna Fáil, to realise that the belief that their party interests coincide with the national interest is not now nor has it ever been a political truth.

It may be that the House needs to further amend the terms of reference. The secrets that have been uncovered need careful examination and if the onion unpeels to reveal new surprising layers, so to speak, the tribunal needs to be empowered fully to discover the significance of any new information. The Government proposes a permanent commission to examine ethics in public life. The Green Party believes that such a commission is needed and would be welcomed. We do not believe that it would reduce the need for this tribunal or any subsequent tribunal. What is at stake is to try to unravel the all too close relationship between our political system and those who carry vested financial interests. The damage done to the political system through these allegations and controversies has meant that they cannot be resolved solely through the political system itself. I appeal to the Government to allow Mr. Justice Moriarty to do his job to the most effective degree by allowing the tribunal to have stronger terms of reference as proposed in this motion.

I appeal to the Independent Members who have supported the Government to date to support this motion and respond in a way the people expect. Let us provide a working example of how the House can work collectively, rejecting the Government versus Opposition model, at least this once, in the national interest, and begin the slow climb to a level of respectability in public life to which the people are entitled.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy):

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann

—noting the terms of reference of the tribunal of Inquiry established pursuant to the Resolutions passed by Daáil Éireann on 11 September, 1997, and by Seanad Éireann on 18 September, 1997;

—noting that the primary focus of the tribunal is on allegations of irregular payments made to and benefits conferred on certain persons in public life;

—noting that the tribunal has already commenced its work and the Attorney General's legal advice that once a tribunal has commenced its work on existing terms of reference that those terms cannot then be changed;

—noting information coming to light as a result of the actions by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the Companies Act, 1990;

—noting the substantial powers of the Revenue Commissioners, the request by the Minister for Finance to the Revenue Commissioners and his Department to carry out a review of the existing powers in the light of the findings of the Dunnes payments tribunal, and the Government's commitment to provide additional powers where these are shown to be desirable and likely to be effective;

—noting the investigation by the Central Bank of the issues raised by the Dunnes payments tribunal report in relation to exchange control;

—noting that the response of the Central Bank was referred by the Minister for Finance to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration and any action considered necessary, and to the Revenue Commissioners for investigation and any necessary action under the Customs and the Taxes Acts;

—noting that paragraph (p) of the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal requires the tribunal to make such recommendations as it considers expedient ‘for the protection of the State's tax base from fraud or evasion in the establishment and maintenance of offshore accounts, and to recommend whether any changes in the tax law should be made to achieve this end',

—supports the continuing actions of the Government in pursuing all avenues to investigate these matters in order to protect the revenues of the State and to make the fullest information available to the public.

The McCracken tribunal reported on 25 August 1997. The Moriarty tribunal was established by a resolution of this House adopted on 11 September and adopted by the Seanad on 18 September. In the interval, careful consideration was given to formulating the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal and those terms of reference were debated fully in this House before being approved.

The terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal were presumably discussed by the Fine Gael Front Bench and parliamentary party before Fine Gael decided to endorse them. Indeed, not only did Fine Gael vote to establish the Moriarty tribunal on the basis of its present terms of reference but it opposed any suggestion that those terms of reference might be extended or altered.

Mr. J. Bruton:

That is not true, as the record of the House will show. We voted for an amendment to the terms of reference which was opposed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. We were not happy with the terms of reference and I am surprised that the Minister's researchers have not checked the Dáil record and have allowed him to make a false statement in his script, which he did not write himself.

Mr. McCreevy:

I attended the debate from 3 p.m. to its conclusion. I am explaining the position taken by the Fine Gael Party spokesperson.

Mr. J. Bruton:

A motion in our name sought to include the Ansbacher accounts. It was voted against by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. McCreevy:

What has changed in the interim? Can it be that Fine Gael's novel concept of creating a coalition in Opposition has led to it being as emasculated on the other side of the House as when it was in Government? Has Deputy Quinn mastered the knack of leading the Labour Party so quickly that he is able to lead Fine Gael by its nose while in Opposition? Is Deputy Bruton unaware that, in Opposition, he can enjoy the luxury of occasionally being seen to promote a Fine Gael policy and that he need no longer play the role of political "Navanman" to Deputy Rabbitte's Svengali of the left.

Mr. Rabbitte:

Did that come from the Director of Press Cuttings?

Mr. McCreevy:

The motion before the House betrays an alarming ignorance of the law governing tribunals of inquiry. The legislation governing such tribunals makes it clear that a tribunal of inquiry can be established when the Houses of the Oireachtas are satisfied that there are definite matters of urgent public importance which necessitate establishing a tribunal to investigate them and report back to both Houses. The Moriarty tribunal was established to investigate the definite matters of urgent public importance specified in the resolution passed by both Houses. The terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal expressly provide that the tribunal may, by means of an interim report, draw to the attention of the Clerk of the Dáil any matter it considers appropriate, including any matter relating to its terms of reference.

The motion seeks to revise those terms of reference without any such report or request from the tribunal. We are now being asked to change the terms of reference in what would be a very ill advised attempt to influence the outcome of proceedings currently before the courts. If this motion were passed, it would mean that what the Houses of the Oireachtas consider, or do not consider, to be definite matters of urgent public importance would be shown to be influenced, if not determined, by a litigant dissatisfied by a resolution of the Oireachtas. Far from copperfastening the Moriarty tribunal, such a course would almost certainly expose the tribunal to further legal challenge and delay. Furthermore, a decision to establish a tribunal of inquiry or to vary the terms of reference of an already established tribunal is not a decision to be taken lightly.

What is the supposed definite matter of urgent public importance which would justify passing this motion?

Mr. Howlin:

The existence of the Ansbacher accounts.

Mr. McCreevy:

That Irish citizens held accounts in Ansbacher is known. It is known to the authorities who would have a legitimate interest in ascertaining the full details and background of those accounts. Steps have already been taken by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to obtain such details of those accounts and account holders as can be ascertained from any source amenable to the jurisdiction of her Department. It may be that the Revenue Commissioners and the Central Bank, with the assistance of other State agencies, are or will be in a position to get to the bottom of such aspects of these accounts as are relevant in the context of the duties of those agencies. If they are, then it is impossible to say that having those matters investigated by a tribunal of inquiry is a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Rabbitte:

The Minister does not know.

Mr. McCreevy:

To say otherwise is to confuse the concept of public importance with that of public and press interest. If passed, the motion would create an astonishing precedent, whereby establishing a tribunal of inquiry would become a port of first call, a reaction of initial resort in any situation involving allegations or suspicions of significant tax evasion or breach of exchange control. And why stop there? If a tribunal of inquiry can be used for these purposes, why not in the context of any other headline grabbing allegation of impropriety in whatever walk of life?

Mr. Rabbitte:

This came from Mr. Justice McCracken.

Mr. McCreevy:

In short, and as is prescribed by law, tribunals of inquiry should be established to investigate definite matters of urgent public importance and I fail to see how Fine Gael can credibly argue that an exercise which Deputy Noonan said would comprise merely a "prurient trawl" can be so classified.

The reality is that the Opposition is willing to debase the entire tribunal process in an attempt to gain short-term political advantage. The Government is ensuring that the Ansbacher accounts are fully investigated by the appropriate authorities. We will propose the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry in any circumstances that justify it. However, we will not surrender the right of the Oireachtas to determine when it is appropriate to establish a tribunal of inquiry in a vain attempt to appease any litigant or to influence any court proceedings.

For the reasons I will outline in detail I believe it is essential that the Moriarty tribunal, having commenced its work, should be left to complete its task as speedily as possible without any further interruption or delay. The paragraph of the terms of reference for the tribunal, approved by Dáil Éireann on 11 September 1997, of relevance to the Ansbacher accounts are (a), (b) and (i). Whereas it is for the tribunal to interpret its terms of reference, it can be expected that these paragraphs will require the tribunal to determine the identity of the depositors in the Ansbacher accounts, whether any of the depositors arranged for payments to be made to the following three categories of persons: Mr. Charles Haughey, any persons who hold or have held ministerial office or any persons who hold or have held public office and whether any such categories of persons conferred any benefit in return on such deposit holders.

The identity of any deposit holder discovered by the tribunal to have made payments out of the Ansbacher accounts to any of the three categories of persons outlined above will become publicly known. Consequently, under the terms of the tribunal of inquiry any deposit holders who made such payments will be publicly identified, the amount of any payment to any of the three categories of persons outlined above will also be known and evidence of any benefit conferred will be made public.

To amend the terms of reference as suggested by the Members opposite runs the risk of compromising the operation of the tribunal and its effectiveness in getting to the bottom of the matters of grave concern it has been asked to investigate for the following reasons. There is a strong legal view that once a tribunal has commenced its work on existing terms of reference those terms of reference cannot be changed.

Mr. Rabbitte:

They can be changed legally.

Mr. McCreevy:

At the very least, any change would be imprudent. Persons or institutions who have already co-operated with the tribunal on the basis of existing terms of reference may find their position prejudiced under any proposed new terms of reference. The "shifting of the goalpost" by amending the terms of reference may result in individuals or institutions who have bona fide, on the basis of the existing terms of reference, provided information to the tribunal requesting that no use be made of that information. It would also be open to Mr. Haughey in the existing proceedings to argue that the process of altering the terms of reference was flawed or illegal, thereby jeopardising the State's defence of these proceedings.

If the terms of reference were to be amended by the inclusion of a requirement to investigate whether individual deposit holders were guilty of tax evasion in circumstances where the tribunal may wish to seek information from the Cayman Islands, the work of the tribunal could be seriously compromised for the following reasons.

The McCracken tribunal was required to go to the Cayman Islands to acquire information as to the identity of the deposit holders in the Ansbacher accounts. When the terms of reference were drafted it was believed the Moriarty tribunal would have to do likewise. This may still be the case. In view of the well recognised principle in international law, as adopted in our domestic courts, that the courts of one state will not enforce or aid in the enforcement of another state's revenue laws, any inquiry in the Cayman Islands with that stated purpose would have been refused, thus jeopardising the primary focus of this tribunal relating to propriety in public life.

It appears the view is being taken by some that the reference to a "supplemental instrument" in section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, permits the Oireachtas to vary a tribunal's remit. The advice available to the Government is that the words concerned are to be interpreted as meaning an instrument which stipulates that certain provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry Acts should apply but not as meaning an instrument i.e. the order which dictates the terms of reference under which the tribunal is appointed.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Will the Minister explain that again? Does he understand that?

Mr. McCreevy:

The clear advice to the Government is that once a resolution has passed both Houses of the Oireachtas and an order is made appointing the tribunal under specific terms of reference, the power to amend an order does not exist in the legislation.

Some importance is being attached to the fifth paragraph of (iv) of the terms of reference which permits the tribunal to report on an interim basis on, among other things:

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);

Mr. Howlin:

They can recommend change.

Mr. McCreevy:

My advice is that paragraph (iv) is merely a reporting mechanism to the Clerk of the Dáil. The terms of reference do not permit the Dáil to amend the terms of reference. The provision merely allows the tribunal to report to the Clerk of the Dáil on an interim basis any matters relating to the terms of reference, for example, terms of reference which may not be operable or which lack clarity. Once these matters have been reported to the Dáil, there is no power for the Dáil necessarily to amend the terms of reference upon such report.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Then what is the point of the report?

Mr. McCreevy:

The power to amend the terms of reference must emanate from primary legislation, that is, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979. I am advised the power to amend an order is not contained in the provisions of these Acts.

When speaking on the motion establishing the Moriarty tribunal in September, I said the pursuit of the tax affairs of individuals is a matter solely for the Revenue Commissioners. The Minister for Finance does not get involved in such cases for obvious reasons. We can rely on the Revenue Commissioners to pursue their inquiries in such matters to secure the revenues of the State.

Mr. Rabbitte:

How can they do it if they do not know the identity?

Mr. McCreevy:

Clearly where there is evidence of wrongdoing the Commissioners will act.

Mr. Howlin:

It is outrageous that the Minister ——

Mr. McCreevy:

This is what has been happening in the case of those who were the subject of an earlier inquiry and in the case of recent revelations on the alleged misuse of offshore accounts by certain individuals and institutions.

Mr. Rabbitte:

A Cheann Comhairle, will the Minister yield while I put a question to him?

An Ceann Comhairle:

Yes, if it is for the purpose of clarification.

Mr. Rabbitte:

Is it the case that under the tax code the Revenue Commissioners are precluded from any examination where they do not know the identity of the account holder in question? Why then does he perpetuate the myth that the Revenue Commissioners can deal adequately with this question?

Mr. McCreevy:

The Revenue Commissioners cannot embark on a "prurient trawl" of a bank's accounts with a view to getting a name. It is the job of the Revenue Commissioners alone to determine whether there is tax evasion. That has always been the position as Deputy Bruton, at least, knows.

Mr. Rabbitte:

That is fundamentally misleading.

Mr. McCreevy:

I make clear my complete intolerance of those who engage in tax evasion and of those who assist or abet tax evaders. The Revenue Commissioners have a wide range of powers to combat evasion. They have powers to access bank accounts although only in certain specified circumstances where they have the names of the account holders. Following the publication of the report of the McCracken tribunal, I asked the Revenue Commissioners and my Department to review the existing powers and to come back to me on this if they believed these should be augmented. If additional powers are shown to be desirable and likely to be effective legislative proposals will be brought forward.

Under section 49(2) of the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995, the Central Bank may disclose to the Garda where it has reasonable cause to believe a criminal offence has been committed, any information to enable further investigation of the alleged offence. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, the bank is obliged to report to the Garda a suspicion that any entity it supervises has committed or is committing the offence of money laundering, or certain related offences; money laundering embraces tax evasion.

The powers available to the Revenue Commissioners are not inconsiderable and were last added to significantly in 1992. These new powers included: provision of "third party" returns to the Revenue on an automatic basis, reporting by domestic institutions who act as intermediaries in the opening of foreign bank accounts by Irish residents——

Mr. Rabbitte:

Obviously they are not doing it.

Mr. McCreevy:

——provision of information on dealings by related parties such as suppliers, extended inspection powers in relation to certain tax records and accounts and attachment of amounts owed by third parties to a defaulting taxpayer. These powers were added to in 1993 and in 1995 when reporting arrangements and other duties were imposed on certain company advisers.

If we want further powers for Revenue, decisions on such issues are best taken in the light of all relevant available information. This includes information and recommendations which the Moriarty tribunal may provide. It would also mean taking account of what the authorised officers, appointed by the Tánaiste under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, may discover in their examination of the companies concerned. It would also include material or facts thrown up by more recent events. I am aware of the proficiency, expertise, perseverance and balance shown by the Revenue Commissioners in pursuing their task. I have complimented the them on how well they have improved their performance and delivery of services in the past ten years. I have no doubt any extra powers will be used wisely but as a people we have to decide carefully how far we want to go in giving the State wide-ranging powers of surveillance.

We have also to take account of reality. In an increasingly globalised world with modern communications technology, there is an increasing ease with which operations and activities can be conducted offshore. We cannot ignore this. Even Judge McCracken acknowledged this limitation on the effectiveness of measures in his report last August in relation to the proposed reporting to official agencies of unusual transactions involving politicians and public servants. In his recommendations he stated:

On balance, the Tribunal does not consider it practical, or indeed that it would be particularly effective, to oblige bankers, accountants or other professional advisers to disclose any unusual or large financial transactions involving politicians or public servants. The reality is that if there was such an obligation, it could only be imposed on advisers within the State, and such provisions could be easily avoided by the politician or public servant concerned simply acting through advisers and banks outside the State.

This does not mean we should not seek to apply whatever requirements we can to local institutions and intermediaries. It means these provisions cannot be expected to be fully effective in the absence of clear and binding commitments by international agreement with other countries to exchange information and to allow inquiries to be pursued. This ideal state of affairs is some way off. Even within the European Union there have been difficulties in agreeing to taxation provisions, such as the taxation of savings, where this may give rise to exchange of information. I do not condone this lack of solidarity. I ask that it be recognised as a factor limiting what States can do.

Where there are alleged breaches of the law, these will be thoroughly followed up by the relevant authorities. As regards the issues which have arisen recently in the case of National Irish Bank Limited, the Revenue Commissioners are examining urgently all the tax issues. All necessary action will be taken by them to deal with whatever tax consequences emerge.

The focus of the tribunal is on allegations of corruption in public life. Paragraph (p) of the terms of reference, under the heading "Recommendations", requires the tribunal to make such recommendations as it considers necessary or expedient "for the protection of the State's tax base from fraud or evasion in the establishment and maintenance of offshore accounts, and to recommend whether any changes in the tax law should be made to achieve this end".

Mr. J. Bruton:

Will the Minister yield? Will he explain how it will be possible for the tribunal to fulfil the requirements of that paragraph if it is not asked to investigate whether there was tax evasion through the Ansbacher accounts?

Mr. McCreevy:

The Moriarty tribunal will have to put the questions posed by the Deputy to assess whether the State's tax base can be protected from fraud or evasion in the establishment and maintenance of offshore accounts. It has explicit powers under paragraph (p) to move in that direction.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Will the Minister yield again? If that is the case, where is the problem in accepting the amendment tabled by the Opposition parties?

Mr. McCreevy:

I have set out clearly the reasons the terms of reference should not be changed at this stage and explained what the tribunal is entitled to do under paragraph (p).

Mr. J. Bruton:

It cannot do it without inquiring into the Ansbacher accounts.

Mr. McCreevy:

To make such recommendations the tribunal will have to investigate the phenomenon of offshore accounts, how they work, for what purposes they are established, whether the State's tax base is at risk in the establishment or maintenance of such accounts and, if so, what changes in tax law should be implemented to prevent this. Consequently, the extent to which offshore accounts, including the Ansbacher accounts, facilitate tax evasion will be investigated by the tribunal. What will not be investigated is whether individual deposit holders in the Ansbacher accounts were guilty of tax evasion. Such an inquiry is an issue between the Revenue Commissioners and the individuals concerned.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Will the Minister yield? Will he accept——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

This is not Question Time. The Minister has yielded twice.

Mr. J. Bruton:

As a courtesy to the House, will the Minister yield, in accordance with Standing Orders?

Mr. McCreevy:

I will yield.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Will the Minister agree that all tax evasion is engaged in by individuals and that it is not possible for the tribunal to investigate whether there was tax evasion without investigating whether there was tax evasion by individuals? Will he agree that the motion seeks to ensure there is an investigation of whether there was tax evasion by individuals through the Ansbacher accounts and that the argument he has made is an argument in favour of the motion?

Mr. McCreevy:

It is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners to decide whether Deputy A, B, C or D or individual X, Y or Z is guilty of tax evasion. That has been the law of the land since the foundation of the State. The Revenue Commissioners have the expertise and initiate prosecutions——

Mr. Rabbitte:

The Minister is missing the point.

The Revenue Commissioners cannot initiate prosecutions if they do not have the means.

Mr. J. Bruton:

What is the point in including paragraph (p)?

Mr. McCreevy:

Paragraph (p) covers the points made in the motion which has its genesis in the proposals put forward by Deputy Howlin on behalf of the Labour Party which Deputy Bruton did not support initially.

Mr. Rabbitte:

It was a compromise.

Mr. McCreevy:

Now when they all want to make love and be in bed together everything is all right. Deputy Quinn was right when he said that for good reasons Deputy Bruton was not anxious to proceed along the lines suggested when the tribunal was established. At least the Labour Party is being consistent. Deputy Bruton got very upset when I explained what happened here in September.

Mr. J. Bruton:

What the Minister said was false. It was a malevolent falsehood on the part of the Minister. It is contradicted by the Official Report.

Mr. McCreevy:

I dealt with the amendments on behalf of the Government. The Deputy is not being consistent.

Mr. J. Bruton:

The Minister did not bother to check the Official Report. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Rabbitte:

Stonewall Jackson.

Mr. McCreevy:

Following publication of the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments), the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment appointed, on 9 September l997, two authorised officers under section 19 of the Companies Act, l990 to investigate certain issues which came to light as a result of the work of that tribunal. Following receipt of an interim report from one of those inspectors and on the basis of legal advice, the Tánaiste decided on 8 January to appoint Mr. Gerry Ryan to conduct an inquiry, also under section 19, into the affairs of Irish Intercontinental Bank and Guinness and Mahon (Ireland) Limited. Both banks have agreed to pass over the required books and records to Mr. Ryan.

The Tánaiste or an authorised officer have wide-ranging powers under section 19 of the Companies Act, l990. They may require the production of books and documents of a company or other body corporate carrying on business in the State, if the Tánaiste is of the opinion that there are circumstances suggesting that its affairs are being conducted with intent to defraud or that the body was formed for fraudulent or unlawful purposes. An authorised officer has power under section 19(3) to require the production of books or documents from any person who has possession of them, for example, advisers or consultants. Furthermore, section 23 of the Act permits access in certain instances to documents relating to the banking affairs of a customer.

Section 19 reports may only be published with the prior approval of the entities examined. However, in all cases where wrong-doing is determined, the Tánaiste is permitted to refer the papers to the relevant authorities, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister for Finance, an officer authorised by the Minister for Finance such as the Revenue Commissioners or the Central Bank.

Mr. Rabbitte:

Will the Minister yield? Is the tribunal a competent body for the purposes of the Act? In other words, will Mr. Justice Moriarty receive whatever report is presented to the Tánaiste by the authorised officer?

Mr. McCreevy:

The persons described by section 19 of the Act as competent authorities include the people I have listed. It may be possible to extend that provision to the tribunal but that is a matter on which I will have to seek further legal advice.

Mr. Howlin:

The Minister is all over the place.

Mr. Rabbitte:

It does not include tribunals.

Mr. McCreevy:

There is no explicit reference to tribunals of inquiry in section 19 of the Act, it refers only to competent authorities or authorised officers who report to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Rabbitte:

The Harney report, therefore, cannot be referred to the tribunal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The time available to the Minister is almost exhausted but under Standing Order 47 he is entitled to some injury time.

Mr. McCreevy:

Proceedings in relation to a breach of company law may be brought by either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Tánaiste may only initiate proceedings within a period of three years of the offence being committed.

Where there are alleged breaches of the law, these will be thoroughly followed up by the relevant authorities. In the case of the allegations against National Irish Bank, the matter has been actively pursued by the Central Bank, the Revenue Commissioners and the bank itself since the matter came to their attention. In addition, I wrote to the governor on Monday, 26 January requesting him to advise me of any exchange control implications of reported developments at National Irish Bank. I also requested a separate report on the implications, if any, for all aspects of banking supervision.

In regard to the exchange control issues arising from the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments), the House is aware that on 25 August l997, the day on which the tribunal report was published, my Department wrote to the governor of the Central Bank requesting that a detailed investigation be carried out on the issues raised in the report in relation to exchange controls.

The report of the Central Bank was received by my Department on 17 October 1997, and an addendum was subsequently received on 23 October. I referred these documents to the Tribunal of Inquiry (Payments to Messrs. Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry) on 24 October 1997 and to the DPP on 31 October 1997 for consideration and any action he considers necessary. I also referred the documents to the Revenue Commissioners for investigation and any necessary action under the customs and the taxes Acts.

A copy of the Central Bank's findings was subsequently provided to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on 11 November 1997 to facilitate the authorised officers appointed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990.

I had also written to the Governor of the Central Bank on 31 October 1997 requesting clarification of a number of matters included in its report. Clarifications were received from the Central Bank on 16 January 1998. This additional material has been forwarded for consideration to the DPP, the Revenue Commissioners, the Tribunal of Inquiry (Messrs. Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry) and to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

I indicated to the House on 8 October 1997 that I would have no objection in principle to placing the report of the Central Bank on exchange control issues before the Houses of the Oireachtas if I was advised that such placement would not prejudice any case that might be taken by the DPP. When referring the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 31 October 1997, the DPP was asked for his view as to whether communicating this report to the Houses of the Oireachtas might prejudice consideration and possible prosecution by the DPP. In order to formulate a response, the director sought some further information which was forwarded to him on 9 December 1997 and I understand the director will be in a position to respond to me when he has considered this information together with the clarifications received from the Central Bank on 16 January 1998.

With regard to supervisory issues generally, the House is aware that on 19 November 1997 I placed on the record of the Dáil a letter dated 11 November 1997 from the Governor of the Central Bank reporting to me separately about the supervisory issues arising from the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments). For the benefit of the House I had intended to repeat precisely what the Governor said but as it is already on the record of the House there is no need to do so.

The Governor of the Central Bank confirmed that the board is satisfied with its legal powers; it keeps under review the banks supervisory practices and its approach to supervision and endeavours to ensure that these are in line with international best practice and are subject to continuous modernisation and adaptation to meet the needs of a changing global environment. He also confirmed the board is satisfied that the supervisory procedures and practices are being effectively implemented by the bank.

The House will be aware, however, that the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal include a remit to make whatever broad recommendations it considers necessary or expedient for enhancing the role and performance of the Central Bank as regulator of the banks and of the financial services sector generally. I await the tribunal's report on this matter and will give careful consideration to any recommendation it might make in this regard.

In relation to the Ansbacher deposits, I ask the House to support the continuing actions of the Government in pursuing all avenues to investigate these matters in order to protect the revenues of the State and to make the fullest information available to the public. To amend the terms of reference, as suggested by the Members opposite, runs the risk of compromising the operation of the tribunal and its effectiveness in getting to the bottom of the matter. As already mentioned, these terms of reference will, inter alia, allow the tribunal to contribute valuable advice under paragraph (p) of its remit in recommending any changes in tax law it considers should be made for the protection of the State's tax base from fraud or evasion in the establishment and maintenance of offshore accounts. It is most important at this stage, therefore, to allow the tribunal proceed without further hindrance to complete the tasks already set out in its terms of reference.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I call Deputy Howlin. For the benefit of Deputies, the half hour will be available to the Opposition; 15 minutes tonight and 15 minutes tomorrow.

Mr. Howlin:

I wish to share my time with Deputies Joe Higgins and Ó Caoláin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin:

Obviously the other speakers will not get a chance to contribute in the 15 minutes available tonight.

I listened with some amazement to the contribution of the Minister for Finance because he sought to argue in two directions at the same time. He told us the intention of the Opposition to get behind the Ansbacher accounts will be achieved by a different route, and that it should not be taken because it was the job of the Revenue Commissioners to get behind any alleged tax evasion. The Minister cannot have it both ways.

It is an unusual occurrence when a joint motion is sponsored by all the parties in Opposition and the Independents. It only occurs when there is something of significant importance that animates the public and which is of genuine public concern. The issue that lies behind this motion is public confidence in the administration of taxation affairs. Not to put too fine a point on it, people are cheesed off with the notion that there are individuals in this society who are immune from the tax law. All the fine words in the world, and all the good intentions of the Government and the Tánaiste in her investigation, will not allay those fears unless the straightforward motion and requirement of the House to look behind the Ansbacher accounts, as identified in the McCracken report, are directly addressed. Dancing around the issue, as the Minister for Finance did tonight, will not address that issue.

Let us examine the reason the Minister says this cannot be done. First, he said the legal advice is that the tribunal, once commenced, cannot have its terms of reference changed. There is no legal advice available to anybody else which says that is a fact. Let us see the legal advice. Apparently, up to recent times it was the contention of Government that it was the legal advice of successive Attorneys General. Now it is the legal advice of the current Attorney General.

I will not repeat the clear statutory provision in the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 which refers specifically to a supplemental Instrument. I do not understand the interpretation being put by the Minister on that clear statement in the primary legislation. It is a nonsense to suggest that the terms of reference cannot be changed once the tribunal is established. There is no legal basis for that, it is simply not sustainable.

The second defence put forward by the Minister is that the Tánaiste's investigation under the Companies Act is under way. That was not happening when the Minister last voted down this proposal which I put forward on behalf of the Labour Party on 11 September last. Clearly an investigation under the Companies Act is a much weaker animal than a full investigation under the terms of reference of a tribunal. The Tánaiste's actions are an attempt to give a fig leaf to the Government. They are belated because it was not the intention of the Government to look behind the Ansbacher accounts when the Minister trenchantly argued against it in September of last year. More recently, with the weight of public opinion and the frustration of compliant taxpayers, the Tánaiste has put in place a much weaker mechanism to get at the truth. If it gets at the full truth there is certainly grave disquiet about whether those facts can be put into the public domain.

If people are defrauding the State they are robbing health and social welfare services and those who require housing, of the potential to have a decent standard of life. They should be identified. This is not a prurient trawl, to repeat that abused and much used phrase.

Mr. McCreevy:

That was Deputy Noonan's phrase.

Mr. Howlin:

The Minister used it with relish several times tonight. It is a requirement of compliant taxpayers to know the truth and the basis on which this State and the services we provide and vote for in this House are sustained, and that people are paying in accordance with the Statutes enacted by these Houses.

Another Deputy referred to a taxpayer in the United States, Leona Helmsley, who had an attitude to taxation. There are many who believe that principle holds true here, that taxation laws are not for all but only for those who do not have the wherewithal to evade and avoid tax. The disclosure in the past week of an another offshore banking operation undermines further the confidence in the administration of fair taxation here. It is the responsibility of Government, particularly the Minister for Finance, who evaded it last September and is about to evade it again, to restore confidence in taxation and its administration here. Although in his comments the Minister relied heavily on the ability of the Revenue Commissioners to do their bit to ensure everybody is compliant, there are questions to be asked of the Revenue Commissioners. Most people would be of the view that the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners should be made amenable to a committee of this House. I hope the compellibility of witnesses motion in the name of the Labour Party on today's Order Paper can be quickly passed by this and the other House to allow for explanations to be made by the Revenue Commissioners and those responsible for taxation here because there are questions to be answered in that regard.

I want to use this debate to set the record of my party straight on this matter. One can read, with some frustration, the contents of articles in newspapers. In a Sunday newspaper one sentence of mine was extracted from the Official Report of 11 September and printed to the effect that the Labour Party was not fulsomely behind the full ventilation of the Ansbacher accounts in September. To suggest that is a distortion of the truth. We tabled the amendment at the outset. As reported at column 837 of the Official Report of 11 September 1997 I stated, "I am strongly in agreement with the argument and the clear case put forward by Deputy Noonan". The sentence which appeared in that newspaper was extracted from what I said, as if I was in favour of not going after the Ansbacher accounts. However, I went on to state:

The inadequacy of the focus on the Ansbacher accounts drew the most criticism in public debate. While the focus has been on ethics and standards in politics, it is a matter of concern for every citizen, and particularly every taxpayer, that if wrongdoing is discovered by somebody who happens not to have been a former Minister or Mr. Haughey, then that is not within the scope or ambit of exposure by this tribunal, and that is wrong.

I pushed to a vote the full disclosure of the Ansbacher accounts on that occasion, but unfortunately that proposal was defeated by 77 votes to 22. That is the record of the House and my full contribution over many hours are recorded in the Official Report. That is the record of the Labour Party which is consistent on this issue.

Mr. McCreevy:

I recognise that, Deputy.

Mr. Howlin:

I record it for the benefit of those who did not recognise that in some of the debates between last September and now. The issue is clear and simple. I recognise the Minister's difficulty in trying to stand logic on its head by arguing both ways at once. We either want the full ventilation of the issues identified by Mr. Justice McCracken or we do not. If we want them ventilated, we should not rely on any inadequate mechanism, whether the application of the Companies Act by the Tánaiste or a tautology of disclosure outlined by the Minister for Finance in his speech tonight on any discovery the inspector appointed by the Tánaiste might make that might in certain circumstances — if the wind is blowing right and it is a fair day — get into the public domain. If we are serious about this matter we should go the most direct and obvious route.

In my view and in that of much more learned lawyers we have the legal right to amend the terms of reference to get to the heart of this matter now. If the Minister for Finance is not convinced of the righteousness of that course of action, it falls to the Independents, who sustain this minority Government, to take their courage in their hands now. This motion can be carried. That would not be a mortal blow to the Government, but it would be an important signal from this House on taxation law and to those here who have the Leona Helmsley attitude to taxation. I appeal to every Member when the vote is called tomorrow to decisively say that he or she wants a fair and compliant system of taxation that applies in equal measure to every citizen of this country.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The Ansbacher affair has arisen from the overweening arrogance of those who came to be known as the golden circle in this society, that elite who strode through business and politics for 20 years thinking they were untouchable. Paying taxes and observing exchange controls was for the small people, but they were above that. This developed and continued because they knew they had political patronage at the highest level in Irish politics. It was not only one man but often the system as a whole that gave them that encouragement. It was not one man who put through the Dáil two tax amnesties under which the super rich escaped with massive amounts of tax evasion while ordinary people had to pay their share. To their shame that applied to the majority of Deputies on both occasions.

I fully support this motion and I welcome its tabling by the parties concerned, but those Members did not rise in their seats on 11 September last when I called for an investigation into whether the tax amnesties were related to Ansbacher. That should have been cleared up at that time. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, blustered in his usual way and outlined various reasons for not accepting a full investigation, but the real reason is the Government is terrified to unmask the full list of names because it may contain some of the most prominent and wealthy individuals in our society and some of the main contributors to Fianna Fáil and perhaps to the Progressive Democrats. By refusing to have a full investigation into this matter the Government continues to send signals to big business which continues with some of its evil ways. How else could the following scenario develop? In this town a few weeks before Christmas five bricklayers were taken on at a building site. The subcontractor who was contracted for the brick work told them they would be paid cash in hand and that they could continue to sign on. They said no to that, that they were trade union members and wanted to pay PAYE, their dues and receive their entitlements in due course. No agreement was reached and the following week they were told there was no more work there for them. They were sacked. There is two or three years' work on that site. They resorted to the only effective method of defence, a picket. I sat in the High Court while a judge ignored their testimony given under oath and gave an injunction to that company against them and did not say a word about that criminal act of the black economy. That site is a £38 million development commissioned by Mr. Michael Smurfit. The builders are one of the biggest building contractors here, Cramptons. They are responsible

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy is not allowed to name companies or individuals outside the House who are not here to defend themselves.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I named them——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That was not in order.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West):——because I told the truth. That was also said in court. I am totally in order in standing up for people who are being abused. The Government is standing over this type of activity by blustering and refusing to take on those people. The same contempt was shown by them as was shown by those who use offshore accounts.

The Government is supported by three Independents. Deputy Healy-Rae claims to support the small people in Kerry south, those who live in the towns, the villages and up the boreens. I was there at the weekend. I know the people who live in those towns and villages extremely well and a large majority of them support me in demanding an investigation into this matter. I challenge the Deputy to support us in this to seek the truth.

Deputy Fox claims to represent youth. The youth want to get at the truth. They want this fraud and the people involved exposed. She should support this motion. I challenge the Independents to support this motion and to bring this Government — the Progressive Democrats are apparently in hiding — to heel on this issue. It must not be allowed to get away with a further cover-up of those who have abused decent PAYE taxpayers for so long.

I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputy Ó Caoláin. I understand he will have an opportunity to contribute tomorrow morning.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Ó Caoláin will have five minutes tomorrow morning.

Debate adjourned.