A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as the rules of the House allow will the Taoiseach give way for a brief question?
Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1998
Draft of
BILL
entitled
An Act to amend the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 1998.
BE IT ENACTED by the Oireachtas as follows:
1. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, is hereby amended by the substitution for section 1A (amended by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1998) of the following section:
(1) An instrument to which this section applies (whether made before or after the passing of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1998) shall be amended, pursuant to a Resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, by a Minister of the Government where—
(a) the tribunal consents to the proposed amendment following consultation between the tribunal and the Attorney General on behalf of the Minister, or
(b) the tribunal has requested the amendment.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the tribunal shall not consent to or request an amendment where it is satisfied that such amendment would prejudice the legal rights of any person who has co-operated with or provided information to the tribunal under its terms of reference.
(3) Where an instrument to which this section applies is so amended this Act shall apply.
(4) This section applies, in the case of a tribunal to which this Act is applied under section 1 of this Act, to the instrument by which the tribunal is appointed.
2. (1)-This Act may be cited as the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1998.
(2) The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 1998, and this may be cited together as the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 1998.
We all have a duty to protect the integrity of this House and of our democracy. The Government is just as determined as the Opposition to do that in a fair and balanced manner likely to yield clear results. Accordingly, we are tabling amending legislation to allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to change the terms of reference of a tribunal with the consent of its chairman. This is with a view to seeking the consent of Mr. Justice Flood to amend the terms of reference of his tribunal to establish whether any decisions taken by former Deputy Ray Burke as a Minister were prompted or distorted by payments that he had received. The Attorney General has consulted the two distinguished judges as to whether there would be any obstacle to their terms of reference being amended by the Oireachtas if that should be the wish of the Oireachtas. It is quite normal and proper for the Attorney General to act as a channel of communication in this way, as his predecessor had to do in connection with extending the terms of the hepatitis C tribunal. The sole members of both tribunals have indicated their willingness to undertake further investigative work on behalf of the Oireachtas should that be the wish of the Oireachtas. After careful consideration we have formed the view that further investigations would most appropriately be undertaken by Mr. Justice Flood's tribunal, so that matters relating to Mr. Burke are all dealt with by the one tribunal.
Many arguments, some that are strong and some that have little foundation, have been made about the political donations made to Mr. Burke. It is time to distinguish the wood from the trees.
The first question I am asked is why I appointed Mr. Burke Minister for Foreign Affairs last June. Mr. Burke was an experienced and capable Minister, who had participated in an earlier phase of the talks process and in the work of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. As Leader of the Opposition, I had worked very well with him on Northern Ireland and European matters, where his judgment was very good. He was eminently qualified for the job of Minister for Foreign Affairs. When we came into office, I remind Deputies that there was no renewed IRA ceasefire and the talks had been stalled and going nowhere for over 12 months. Even in the short time that he was Minister he made his mark and, working well with the Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam, we had arrived at a situation by the end of September where both the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin were sitting around the same table with others within weeks of a new IRA ceasefire. His decision to resign shortly afterwards was sincerely regretted by most of the talks participants.
To listen to Deputy Bruton and some outside comment, one could be forgiven for thinking that that type of qualification and competence was irrelevant to a ministerial appointment. That was not my view. In so far as my experience of Mr. Burke as a ministerial colleague was concerned, he was careful and responsible in his approach to decision-making. From that perspective he was eminently suited for his job.
I was aware before appointing him that there was ongoing controversy that sought to connect the acceptance of financial donations by him and decisions on rezoning vast tracts of land in north county Dublin by Dublin County Council. To call a spade a spade, there were people insinuating that Mr. Burke was corrupt. Specific allegations varying in detail were made in relation to developers JMSE and Bovale. I sought to establish whether there was anything in them and made inquiries of my own in relation to this matter over quite a long period prior to the last election with senior people well placed to know. These included the independent inquiry made by Deputy Dermot Ahern, now Minister for Social Welfare, Community and Family Affairs, on my behalf in London which failed to substantiate the claims being made, or indeed to elicit confirmation of any donation by the company itself. The array of allegations concerned differing amounts, £30,000, £40,000 and £80,000, alleged to have been made by differing companies or individuals, JMSE, Bovale or Gogarty. The question was put by Deputy Ahern to Mr. Murphy, who I thought was in the best position to know the answer. On more than one occasion prior to last June, when I questioned Mr. Burke, I was assured by him that there was nothing troubling him or that he could not stand over.
I will freely admit with the benefit of hindsight that I seriously underestimated the degree to which this and other controversies would dog the Minister and eventually make it impossible for him to carry on, notwithstanding the good work that he was doing at Stormont. It is almost forgotten now that the issue which precipitated his final resignation was a newspaper report relating to the issue of a passport under the special investment scheme. Since then the Government has moved to close down the passports for sale scheme, despite the wish of some Members of the Opposition to retain it. However, my view and the view of the Government is that political controversies caused by the doubtful ethics and equity of the whole scheme did more damage to this country's good name than is compensated for by the different investments.
While we have established a planning inquiry which will go into a lot of matters stretching back over many years, I do not know what point the inquiry has reached. From what is in the public domain we are no further forward on this matter than we were when this matter was debated here last September. We are not aware if any actual wrongdoing by Mr. Burke in relation to his acceptance of £30,000 from Gogarty or JMSE has been established, but the Flood Tribunal will presumably make a definitive finding on this, having investigated it to a far greater depth than any of the rest of us could do, when its work is complete.
The size of the single £30,000 donation from JMSE given to Mr. Burke in 1989, once it became public knowledge last September, caused considerable disquiet and unease. He himself acknowledged that in hindsight it was imprudent of him to have accepted so large a sum, as the motives were likely to be misrepresented. When he said this was the largest sum he received, it could have been reasonably assumed that there must have been a number of smaller sums, but not that he had accepted a further donation of an equivalent size.
The argument against acceptance of these kinds of moneys, even if perfectly legal, is one of general principle, with which most if not all of us now agree. It is that a politician should not put himself or herself under that degree of political and financial obligation to anyone, a point already made in the McCracken tribunal report in relation to Deputy Lowry and Mr. Haughey. While large financial donations were and are no doubt intended purely as a gesture of good will and support either for the party concerned or for the democratic system, donors probably entertain an expectation that should the need arise they will at least be guaranteed access to present their case. That said, I have confidence in my colleagues past and present on all sides of the House that they would reject any attempts at bribing them or to establish any overtquid pro quo or inside track contrary to the principles of good administration and I would be very saddened if it were to be found otherwise in any specific instances.
Justified criticisms have been made of the system as it applied until recently that the sums allowed to be given to individuals and parties were unlimited, that they did not have to be declared and that they allowed too cosy a relationship between business and politics, sometimes to the detriment of the more general public interest. That is why in recent years, while being concerned about proper funding of the party system, we have all accepted the need for more stringent rules. All parties, including Fianna Fáil, operated the same system, and I suggest none of them are entitled, without revealing the larger sums that they or their members accepted, to climb up on the high moral ground. All of us, including Fianna Fáil, have found ourselves in politically embarrassing situations or controversies from which lessons have had to be learnt. I personally will resist the temptation to go over past controversies affecting other parties and other party leaders, but let only those whose conduct in relation to seeking party financial donations has been above all criticism continue to cast stones.
It would appear, to put the most charitable interpretation on it, that Mr. Burke was embarrassingly good at political fund-raising and at building up a large personal political war chest. Only a certain portion of what he was able to raise or of what was given to him was remitted, it would appear, to party headquarters. I discovered in late March that in 1989 he was given another election contribution of £30,000 from Rennicks. Like most members of the party, I am surprised and disappointed at the picture which is now emerging. I deeply regret that Mr. Burke was not more open and frank with his colleagues and with this House about the extent of the difficulties he needed to address. It seems to me as a general principle that those who have enjoyed the trust and support of ordinary party members, of the electorate and of this House, and who have achieved high office and positions of great trust over a number of years, owe a full and frank explanation to the country that should not have to be extracted from them by tribunals of inquiry.
There have been attempts, so far unsubstantiated, to link the Rennicks contribution to decisions made by Mr. Burke as Minister. There are demands that Mr. Burke's decisions should be investigated and trawled through to see whether, because of the large sums involved, he was influenced by financial considerations in his political decision-making, whether on IDA grants, MMDS or anything else. There is to date no hard evidence for any of that. Any questions raised by material available so far, on a preliminary trawl of files, will be for the tribunal, assuming that it takes on the task, to investigate. They will establish if there is a cause for serious concern in relation to the distortion of specific decisions. I will not prejudge that process. That is the appropriate forum where every individual concerned has a right to a hearing to vindicate their good name.
The tribunal will have full Government and departmental co-operation in its inquiries. This Government, unlike some of its predecessors, will ensure that the direct sale of any State assets or franchises of any substantial consequence will be the subject of full Government decisions, which may not always have been the case in the past, and this applies of course to the telecommunications sector.
The question has been asked as to why I was not aware earlier of the Rennicks contribution to Ray Burke in 1989. Ray Burke informed the Dáil that he gave £10,000 to party headquarters and £7,000 to his constituency organisation without explicitly specifying the source, leaving it to be assumed that this was principally from moneys which had been donated to him by Gogarty or JMSE. Party headquarters confirmed that it had been paid £10,000, which was all that concerned me at the time. More complete information would have been available in records going back to 1989 held at headquarters, but I regret that it was not brought to my attention until March.
It has been alleged that I should have paid more attention to an anonymous note Deputy Spring is supposed to have given me or informed me of, presumably in the margins of a meeting on 4 September about the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal. I am now satisfied that I was not given any such note and that Rennicks was not mentioned to me, though some concern may have been expressed to me in more general terms on foot of anonymous information. Deputy Quinn seriously misinformed the Dáil on this subject, suggesting that I was given specific details which I was not. I look forward, when he has further checked the matter, to his correcting the record of the House at the first opportunity as his allegation was damaging to me and unfounded. In any event neither the Taoiseach nor any other Member of the House is obliged to pay great attention to or follow up anonymous letters, which have no legal standing and are frequently a vehicle for spreading gossip, rumour and factually incorrect or defamatory statements. The main allegation contained in the note, that Ray Burke asked three company executives for a party donation in return for an IDA grant, is strenuously denied by all concerned, even if the amount of the donation appears to be correct. A journalist who has an interest in these matters reminded me recently that he had spoken to me late at night last October and referred to the note, which he had investigated and found in many important respects to be untrue.
I accepted Deputy Burke's explanation in good faith, as did other Members of the House. If my statement is to be construed as inadvertently misleading the House, then I regret that. When it came to light, as a result of the request of a tribunal, that the documentation supported a different explanation, that information was referred by my party to the Flood tribunal, which had been charged by the Dáil with the follow-up investigation and which inquired specifically about what payments Ray Burke had made to Fianna Fáil.
Discovery is the process by which either party to a civil action may inspect those documents held by the other party which are relevant to the claim. The party making discovery is required to list the relevant documents which they have or had in their possession. It is not a discursive exercise. In this case what was requested from us, apart from payments by James Gogarty, Michael Bailey or any connected person or company, was "all statements of account, correspondence, receipts, deposit slips and any other records or documents of any description whatsoever relating to the payment of any sums of money by Raphael P. Burke to the Fianna Fáil National Organisation since the 1st of January 1989". We complied fully with that order of discovery. Party records only showed a receipt for £10,000 made out to Rennicks, a cash book entry for the same amount and a compliments slip from Rennicks with Ray Burke's name on it. The affidavit was descriptive of the documents we furnished. Further inquiries with Rennicks suggested that the total donation to Ray Burke amounted to £30,000.
Since it has become a matter of some controversy, I wish to place on record an outline of the communications between Mr. Des Richardson, the party's fund-raiser, and representatives of Rennicks as he has given them to me and which he is prepared to give as sworn evidence to a tribunal. When I learned of the £10,000 receipt, in the latter part of March, I instructed Mr. Richardson, as a matter of courtesy, to inform Rennicks that this would form part of our affidavit. On 2 April, the chairman of Rennicks conveyed his thanks to me for that courtesy. The first reaction of the company's representative was to deny that any money had been given by Rennicks and threaten Fianna Fáil with an injunction if the affidavit were proceeded with. By way of circumstantial corroboration I refer to an article by Jody Corcoran in the last weekend'sSunday Independent which stated: “There is a consistency to the Company's initial denial. Last September, Rennicks' wife Maureen, when contacted by the Sunday Independent, denied that the Company had given £30,000 to Burke”.
After his initial contact with Mr. David Byrne, who was acting on behalf of Robin Rennicks, in the next conversation a day later, Mr. Richardson was given a different version, this time involving a £30,000 contribution, but not routed through Ray Burke. At a subsequent meeting a number of days later, the full story emerged that a cheque for £30,000 had been made out to cash and given to Ray Burke. The receipt for £10,000, a copy of which is in the party's records, apparently cannot be traced by Rennicks. In the account I gave to the House last week, I regret that l was mistaken in one particular aspect. It was Mr. Byrne, not Mr. Rennicks, who corrected the original information that he had given us. I wish to correct the record of the House in that respect and apologise to Mr. Byrne for any distress caused in that regard. However, Mr. Richardson is quite adamant that the full information was only conveyed in a subsequent conversation. Having been given more than one version of the situation, and having no independent verification, the party adhered to supplying the documentation it had been requested to provide and the information for which it could vouch.
In response to the request for records of payment by Ray Burke, we brought the Rennicks payment to the attention of the tribunal. This was new information of which the tribunal showed no prior knowledge or confirmation and the Rennicks payment was not the subject of any specific request by it, despite some impression given to the contrary. This gave the tribunal the lead to follow up any further information, which I understand it did. In early April Mr. Richardson was given a copy of the anonymous note, which we subsequently furnished to the tribunal when this controversy arose, as others may have done previously.
Will the Taoiseach give way?
Yes.
Is the note to which the Taoiseach referred the same as that read into the record of the House last week by Deputy Quinn? If so, will the Taoiseach clarify when it was received by himself or his party?
I already supplied the information requested by the Deputy in the earlier part of my contribution.
It is in the Taoiseach's speech.
The Deputy should consult his counsel.
The tribunal, not the Dáil, was the body that had sought the information on a confidential basis and therefore seemed the proper body to receive it. Everyone has an obligation not to undermine the excellent work of the tribunals.
Deputy Burke had resigned from the Government and from the Dáil. Rightly or perhaps wrongly, I considered that any further questions to be answered relating to his conduct and to records in the party's possession were now a matter between the party and the tribunal, until such time as the tribunal made its report. At the end of March, my total attention and priority was given to the bringing of the peace talks to a successful conclusion. I was informed about and approved of the steps taken by party officials to co-operate fully with the request of the tribunal. As stated at the weekend, my meeting with the official concerned lasted approximately two minutes. I accept that perhaps I should have informed the Dáil and indeed consulted our partners in Government.
Unbelievable.
Neither I nor my party approve, even in the absence of rules, of large political donations made to individual Deputies and retained by them, even for a bona fide political purpose. Today there are new rules in place, to which everyone will be expected to adhere. I want the unhealthy developments and controversies over party funding which have dogged the body politic for 30 years to become a thing of the past for the good of our democracy. I have shown that I will do this without fear or favour in co-operation with other Members of the House. While more should be contributed to our society and our democracy by those who have greater earning capacity and wealth, every citizen is entitled to a fair hearing, a fair share and equal respect for their rights.
Most of us try to do our best for our constituents, will listen to them all and work for them to the best of our ability, regardless of whether they ever make a financial contribution to us or guarantee that they will give us a vote. Both Fianna Fáil and the Government which I lead are committed to maintaining an egalitarian democracy in this Republic and to making equality of opportunity, treatment and rights a full reality. I am sure that ideal is widely shared across the floor of this House.
If we stand back from all the smoke, everything is being investigated that should be investigated. Ray Burke has resigned. There are new rules in place. The Government is doing great work for the country and will continue to do so in full mutual confidence and trust.
I propose to share my time with Deputies McGinley and Howlin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Taoiseach has made a number of statements to the Dáil and elsewhere which have proved subsequently to be factually incorrect. The statement last October that it was the JMSE donation of £10,000 which Mr. Ray Burke gave to Fianna Fáil was untrue. The Taoiseach stated that he and the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, had carried out exhaustive investigations on Mr. Burke and the full array of allegations against him. This is untrue. He assured us that Fianna Fáil had volunteered all relevant information on the Rennicks donation to the Flood tribunal. This was untrue. A legal minimum requirement was furnished. He claimed that Rennicks had denied the donation initially and has now apologised to Mr. Burke. All these statements have been exposed as a shabby shifty series of untruths and, at worst, the systematic protection of the Taoiseach's former colleague Mr. Burke.
Has the Taoiseach severed Mr. Burke's membership of Fianna Fáil? If not, why not? Is it not the case that a vengeful Mr. Burke poses the biggest political threat of all to the Taoiseach?
Not at all.
This scandal has led some commentators and others to focus on the role of the Progressive Democrats Party in Government. We have been told that it has a key role in scrutinising Fianna Fáil in office, to act as a watchdog. However, it sleeps through every controversy and neither barks nor bites. It is a comatose poodle.
This is the man who slept through his ministry.
The Tánaiste and her colleagues, in the interests of their self-respect and their long-term future, must leave the Government sooner or later.
One of the most vocal players in this controversy over the past week has been Independent Newspapers. There have been repeated and blatant examples of the commercial interests of this group being articulated in front page stories and editorial comment. This lacks credibility. Attacks on Deputy John Bruton, Fine Gael and The Irish Times smack of panic. Independent Newspapers——
What about the Dunnes Stores bag?
I know the Minister of State does not like attacks on Independent Newspapers. If he could look after the price of the pint it would be a help. Independent Newspapers, through Princes Holdings, Independent Wireless Cable Limited, Westward Cable and Cork Communications, has 18 of 29 MMDS franchise licences. If everything to do with the Fitzwilton donation and Mr. Burke's handling of the MMDS issues is exemplary from the perspective of Independent Newspapers, these newspapers should be in the vanguard calling for the most thorough, wide ranging tribunal to vindicate their position, yet no such call has been made. They have been forthright in calling for tribunals on other issues and I challenge them to do so now. It is not healthy that this dominant newspaper group should have such a strong in-house commercial agenda. The sooner these non-media and media interests are disentangled the better for Irish journalism and political debate.
I contend that the decisions relating to the MMDS licences made by the then Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, and the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Government in 1989-92 were contrary to the public interest. This public interest is twofold — first, the taxpayer and, second, residential householders seeking access to multichannel television services. There are currently legal claims by the MMDS industry, including Princes Holdings and CMI Limited, before the courts, whereby the Government is being sued for the failure to implement the exclusivity given by Mr. Burke to MMDS operators. These claims could amount to £100 million. The statement of claim is awaited from Princes Holdings. The licensing terms and subsequent ministerial assurances of 28 May 1990 to the Cable Association and the 4 February 1991 letter to Mr. Joe Hayes of Independent Newspapers are part of these compensation claims.
The taxpayer is exposed because the Government of the day thought more about protecting the interests of MMDS investors than the taxpayer. I do not accept that MMDS investors were entitled to legal guarantees eliminating risk on their investments. Many other franchise operators licensed by the same Department, for example, Century Radio and other radio stations, were not entitled to such protection on their investments.
In effect, Mr. Burke issued licences for a 20-year period from 1989 to 2009. The latter ten-year period covers the inevitable switch from analogue to digital signal broadcasting and retransmission. The enormity of this has not been grasped. The exclusivity given to MMDS will form the basis of a further protracted series of legal compensation claims. The Government should licence a digital terrestrial television system to provide universal access to households across the country. RTE has submitted detailed proposals on digico for retransmission. The Government is due to make decisions on this legal framework for digitisation later this month. If the Government proceeds to licence digico or a variation of it, MMDS operators will sue a second time. Thus, the taxpayer is vulnerable to a second compensation threat through the courts. The then Minister, Mr. Burke, and Government provided all the ammunition for such an assault on the taxpayer.
The second matter of public interest relates to the rights of each householder in the country to multichannel television access. MMDS technology is inadequate. It operates on the basis of line of sight signals whereby a signal is beamed from a mast to the receiver on the television set. Due to the topography of many rural areas there is no coverage there. The quality of the service is not optimal and it is impossible to video record on one station while watching another. Many households have been disconnected from community deflector services due to civil actions by MMDS representatives. They find they are restricted to RTE services only because of the failure of MMDS to provide a service.
There is a monopoly created by Mr. Burke without any service obligations. There are tens of thousands of homes whose demand for multichannel reception has been ignored wilfully by the Government. If and when the remaining community television deflector groups are closed down there may be in excess of 250,000 homes with no guarantee of a multichannel service. Incredibly, before embarking on this MMDS exclusivity no technical study was carried out by the Department to see if every household could get coverage.
The decisions made in 1989-92 on MMDS are proving to be highly imprudent and may transpire to be disastrous. The public wants to know whether it is a case of maladministration or the result of too cosy a relationship between business and political interests. Only a tribunal of inquiry can ascertain the truth.
There are terms of reference needed to guide such an inquiry and these should include full details of all moneys donated to Mr. Ray Burke, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats between 1989 and 1992 by MMDS franchise operators and their associated companies. This should include payments made to Mr. Burke's agents, such as his solicitor if there was a client account.
The validity of individual applications for MMDS licences should be fully checked out. Deputy Rabbitte alluded to this in terms of the common knowledge in Wexford of an allegation that the former Minister, Mr. Burke, canvassed Independent Newspapers to lodge an application. The story is that the applications were not received in time and they were handed into the Department by the Minister.
The full series of communications and representations between the MMDS industry, Independent Newspapers and the then Department of Communications where Ray Burke was Minister between 1989 and 1992 should be checked. There is a consistent pattern of the Minister being led by the nose in missives from Middle Abbey Street and elsewhere, which were dutifully copied and put into written guarantees that are now the basis of legal compensation claims. There should be examination of the difference between official advice as offered departmentally to the then Minister and his subsequent actions, the reason no technical assessment was carried out as to the coverage of MMDS throughout the country, why there were no service obligations on MMDS licences to provide minimum levels of reception to householders and why it was necessary to provide a second ten year period of licence renewal on a virtually automatic basis — I quote from the regulations of 1989 — unless MMDS operators showed grave dissatisfaction, which was one of the key changes made by Mr. Burke from the technical advice in terms of the performance of those operators. Was Mr. Burke compromised in relation to MMDS decisions not only by virtue of a political donation but because of the strong media power of Independent Newspapers?
Today the Taoiseach expressed regret in a few areas, but he did not deal with the major issues. Confidence in him and his Government is shattered by his handling of this issue and the Opposition will not rest until the full truth emerges.
The startling revelations in Magill magazine last week that Rennicks, a company closely associated with Princes Holdings which has numerous MMDS franchises throughout the country, had given a substantial financial donation to Ray Burke while Minister for Communications with responsibility for allocating licences sent alarm bells ringing throughout County Donegal at the weekend. No other issue I can recall in the past 20 years has caused so much political convulsion in the county as has the MMDS issue. The largest public meetings I attended in the county in the run-up to the last election were in opposition to the imposition of this system of television transmission. It was seen as an ill-conceived system, unsuitable to the topography and needs of the west, a system rejected in many other countries and, in all probability, a system that will be obsolete in the near future.
A valuable national asset was handed over to a number of companies over the heads of local communities who, through their endeavours and initiatives, provided a service at rock bottom prices on a non profit-making basis to thousands of isolated homesteads in Donegal and the west. The licences handed out by the then Minister, Mr. Burke, at £20,000 per franchise, were a lucrative commodity. They carried the exclusive right of transmitting cross-channel television signals in their respective areas and a guarantee from the then Minister that all community-based deflectors were illegal and would be hounded off the air, backed by the full authority of his Department and the State.
Some communities retreated by disbanding their own systems and accepting the MMDS supplied signals at a hugely increased cost. Many groups in Donegal and the west, however, refused to disband their own community-financed deflector systems and are still holding firm in the belief that the MMDS companies cannot provide a matching quality signal at the same cost. There are in excess of 50 deflector systems in Donegal, most of which are still transmitting in spite of legal threats and other intimidatory tactics by cable management companies. In the light of last week's revelations of £30,000 being given privately to the then Minister, Mr. Burke, by a company within the Fitzwilton group while he had responsibility for allocating MMDS licences throws serious doubt on the legality of the entire process.
I support the motion that the terms of reference of the Flood and Moriarty tribunals should be amended and extended to investigate the granting of MMDS licences while Ray Burke was Minister for Communications. If it is discovered by the tribunal that there is an association between the granting of licences and donations made by companies that benefited, the legality and validity of such licences will be worthless. They would carry no more rights than the deflectors they were to replace. Any decision made because of a bribe is corrupt and open to legal challenge. It will be up to the tribunal to determine what exactly happened.
In the meantime, until the tribunal reports, all actions against community-based deflectors should be terminated. Legal action against landholders on whose land such deflectors are situated must be suspended. No deflectors should be put off the air until the tribunal reports. Until the legality or otherwise of the granting of these franchises by Ray Burke is determined, deflectors that have been closed down because of a threat of legal action by MMDS companies should be allowed recommence transmission. I ask my Donegal colleagues to support this motion and stand by our rural communities until we have the tribunal's report on the validity of MMDS licences issued under dubious circumstances by Mr. Burke when Minister for Communications.
In my contribution to the debate on this all-Opposition party motion, I will concentrate on the history of this murky affair. It is a sad history of, at best, incompetence or, at worst, corruption. On 11 September 1997 this House debated the terms of reference for the establishment of the Moriarty tribunal. Among the amendments I pushed to a vote on behalf of the Labour Party was a proposal to ensure the Ansbacher accounts were fully included in the remit of the Moriarty tribunal and fully investigated. The Ansbacher accounts were the greatest focus of the people at the time, a point mentioned by speakers of all political persuasions. That amendment was voted down by the Fianna FáilProgressive Democrats Government.
The reasoning behind this decision was not given in response to the debate by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, who spoke on behalf of the Government. We were later told, however, that a fear in Government circles that there would be a "flight of capital" from the country if the Ansbacher accounts were fully investigated caused the Government to take that course of action. No spokesperson from the Government or the Central Bank was willing, at that time or since, to back up that exaggerated and overblown claim. The Government has resisted any proposal to include the Ansbacher accounts in the remit of any tribunal of inquiry. There has never been a satisfactory explanation for this apparent Government policy. The story from September to today warrants examination and demands explanation from each of the parties in Government. On the same day, 11 September last, the Government and its supporters in this House voted down combined Opposition attempts to have the Burke payments referred even for a preliminary sifting or examination by the new Moriarty tribunal.
Magill magazine published extracts of a letter from Mr. Bailey to Mr. Gogarty on 25 September last suggesting that he could procure planning permission for 726 acres in north County Dublin. The letter was written three days before Mr. Burke was given £30,000 in June 1989. When that magazine article appeared on 25 September last, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste belatedly recognised that something had to be done. Three days later, on 28 September last, the Taoiseach announced a separate tribunal of inquiry to investigate planning. On 26 March 1998, the Government brought a Bill before the Dáil which sought a change in the law governing tribunals of inquiry. At that time, my party colleague and spokesman on justice, Deputy Upton, said the Bill was unnecessary, unwarranted and an attack on the democratic powers of the Oireachtas.
Mr. Justice Flood, who at the same time was running a tribunal about planning in North County Dublin, completely undermined the Government's line of argument by asking for a change in his terms of reference. The Government had contended it was not possible to change the terms of reference of a tribunal when it had been established. However, it had to agree to do so because of a request from a judge of the High Court. It had to state, contrary to the opinion of all other parties and any legal advice we could get, that new legislation was required to allow the Dáil and Seanad pass a simple resolution to give Mr. Justice Flood the powers he sought.
Quite extraordinary new legislation was produced. The new Bill, signed into law last month, specifies that there can be no change to the terms of reference of a judicial inquiry unless a judge requests such a change. This was legislation that no Member of the House, except the Government, believed was necessary. The legal advice available to us agreed it was unnecessary and a report in a Sunday paper stated that the official advice available to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was that it was unnecessary.
As a result of last month's Act — purportedly a response to a request from Mr. Justice Flood, the Government went out of its way to limit the powers of Dáil Éireann and, by extension, the powers of every citizen of the country. That course of action was an insult to the House, to our citizens and to the chairpersons and staff of the tribunals of inquiry currently under way.
I will restate the course of events that led to that undemocratic and unnecessary legislation put before the House by the Government on 26 March. The Government voted down a Labour Party amendment to the original terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal. That amendment would have empowered the tribunal to fully investigate the Ansbacher accounts. I would love to know what is in those accounts because the parties in Government are very fearful of them. The House was not given an adequate reason for the proposal's rejection. The Government subsequently voted down an all-party Opposition motion which sought to extend the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal and attempted to justify this action by citing unspecified legal advice that has never been brought into the public domain and is unconvincing. Despite the massive public concern about the Ansbacher accounts and the public demand that they should be fully and publicly investigated, the Government stoutly refused to accede to this request and its reasons for doing so remain unclear. The buttonlip approach to the Ansbacher accounts, and to the wider question of how we should establish and conduct tribunals of inquiry in this House, is a disgrace and an affront to the democratic process. Finally, and most devastatingly of all, Mr. Justice Flood, who was chairing a separate tribunal, wrote to the Houses of the Oireachtas asking for a change to his terms of reference. On 1 April last, the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, specifically asked the Taoiseach where the Office of the Attorney General turned to for external legal advice and the cost of such advice in respect of amendments to legislation on tribunals of inquiry. The Taoiseach responded by stating: "Since I do not have the information with me, I give an undertaking to supply it to the Deputy". We are still awaiting the Taoiseach's delivery on that undertaking.
I am convinced that when Mr. Justice Flood made his request to extend the terms of reference of the planning tribunal, he was expecting the necessary resolution of the House to be made under the terms of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. I do not believe Mr. Justice Flood requested new legislation to be drafted and neither do I believe he expected his reasonable request to be used by the Government to restrict the powers of the Oireachtas to set parameters for the conduct of all future tribunals of inquiry. His request was seized upon by the Government to restrict the authority of the House to fully investigate matters of public concern. The Taoiseach and both parties in Government must answer for that. If the Government had agreed to Mr. Justice Flood's request, without concocting the need for further legislation, it would have exposed its vulnerability on the relatively simple question of how to change the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal to include an investigation of the Ansbacher accounts.
The Cabinet discussed the request from Mr. Justice Flood at a meeting on 3 March 1998 and the events that have followed since that meeting have given rise to extremely serious questions that go to the heart of our democratic process. At best, the Government's attitude to this matter can be described as incompetent; at worst, it is downright dishonest. The result is the legislation we are reconsidering today which was signed into law a month ago, but events have required the parties in Government to publish draft amending legislation that closely reflects the Bill moved on today's Order of Business by Deputy Quinn. The terms of this legislation will return to haunt the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue. In defence of this Bill on 26 March, he stated:
Deputy Upton and others appeared to suggest that somebody should go to Mr. Justice Moriarty and ask him if he wants the terms of reference of his tribunal amended. However, anybody who went to Mr. Justice Moriarty, or any other judge in charge of a tribunal, and asked him if he felt the terms of reference of his tribunal should be amended might be considered by many to be interfering with the judicial independence of the chairperson of the tribunal. If any member of the Government did that, legitimate questions would be asked in the House.
I wonder what the Attorney General was doing for the past few days.
By accepting the need for this new legislation, the Government has woken up to the reality which has been patently obvious to the rest of us. Three months ago it cynically published a Bill providing for the narrowest possible circumstances in which the remit of a tribunal could be amended and rammed it through both Houses of the Oireachtas, despite objections from the Labour Party and others. Those objections have now proved to be comprehensively correct. However, the Government has been found out and has been forced to revise Deputy O'Donoghue's Act. The view expressed in the House on 11 December 1997 by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, when she spoke passionately of the Moriarty tribunal being a final opportunity to restore public confidence in the operation of the political system, remains even more urgent today. The Government and its constituent parties have blundered for the past nine months and politics has been the loser.
I wish to share time with the Minister for Social, Family and Community Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy O'Dea.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We have seen two very different sides of Irish politics in the past two weeks. A fortnight ago the people gave their overwhelming support to the British-Irish Agreement. That was a vote for peace, but it was also a vote for politics and the political system, a recognition that politicians of all parties could work together to improve the lives of the people they represent. That was the acceptable face of Irish politics. However, a fortnight later, we are looking at an unacceptable side of Irish politics. We are dealing with very serious allegations against Mr. Ray Burke, a person who has held senior ministerial office in a number of Governments. Yet again we are facing into a crisis of public confidence in our political system.
Strong and decisive action is required in order to restore that confidence. All the allegations which have been made against Mr. Burke should be fully investigated by a tribunal of inquiry as deemed appropriate by this House. That investigation will have to be comprehensive. It will have to inquire into the financial contributions made to him during his political career and the decisions made by him in his various ministries to ascertain if any of them were influenced in any way by contributions received.
The Government is taking the necessary steps to provide such an inquiry by extending the remit of the tribunal which is currently constituted under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Flood. Facing such an inquiry is no doubt a daunting prospect for Mr. Burke, but if he had been more honest in his statement to the House on 11 September 1997 he might not now be facing the same fate as Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry. Technically, Mr. Burke may argue that he did not mislead the Dáil on that occasion, but few could argue that the Dáil was not misled. We now see Mr. Burke chose his words with extraordinary care in order to ensure maximum economy with the truth. He stated in regard to the £30,000 contribution which he received from Mr. Gogarty of JMSE:
As regards the contribution, £30,000 is the largest contribution I have received during any election campaign either before or since 1989.
Most of us took that to mean that there was only one contribution of £30,000. Mr. Burke knew that there was another in that same year, but he did not tell the House. Weasel words have a habit of finding their way into personal statements in recent times.
If what is now known in regard to payments to Mr. Burke was known to me last June I would not have been willing to participate in Government with him. It is up to the various tribunals to do their job. For my part, I hope the work of the Moriarty and Flood tribunals can help to cut out once and for all the taint of grubby dealings and corruption which has debased Irish politics for over a generation. I assure the House also that, in the light of the controversy which has arisen around Rennicks, I will do everything I can to make the full facts available regarding all dealings between that company, the State development agencies and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is important that all the relevant information is put into the public domain as quickly as possible. We published a preliminary report from the chief executive of Forbairt last Friday.
My officials are currently working to assemble all the documentation in this area and I intend to make it public at the earliest possible opportunity.
On a point of order, are we getting a copy of the Minister's statement? Everybody has it except the Members.
It is down in Middle Abbey Street already.
I hope so. Deputy Richard Bruton tabled a written question for tomorrow on the matter and I hope to make the information I have available to him. In my capacity as Minister, I have instituted 11 separate inquiries into various suspected breaches of our company laws. I did not lightly take this course of action and, in response to Deputy Howlin, the Ansbacher accounts are being investigated. I do not want to make any comment that could prejudice the work of any of those inquiries, all of which are being carried out in a diligent and proper manner by dedicated professionals in whom I have every confidence. As a result of these inquiries, new and disturbing information has come to light and this will have to be fully investigated. I have not been afraid to establish such inquiries when I thought they were appropriate. Equally, I have never been afraid to support the establishment of public inquiries where I thought they were appropriate.
It is worth reminding the House that in December 1996 the Progressive Democrats Party moved a motion to establish a tribunal to inquire into payments to politicians by Dunnes Stores. When moving that motion Deputy Bobby Molloy spoke of the public's right to know and of the need to uphold the integrity of our democratic system. He stated correctly that a tribunal of inquiry was essential if we were to get at the truth. That motion ultimately led to the establishment of the McCracken tribunal, one which everyone agrees did an excellent job speedily and efficiently.
Politicians must be consistent if they want to regain public respect. It is no use calling for inquiries in Opposition but then resisting them in Government. We should all have one interest — pursuing the truth. Rebuilding trust between politicians and people will take more than tribunals of inquiry. We must ensure Government goes about its business in a way that is entirely above suspicion. Many of the political controversies of recent years stem from the way in which State assets were disposed of or the way in which lucrative State licences were awarded. The current controversy, for instance, revolves to a large extent around the manner in which Mr. Ray Burke handled the granting of licences to MMDS operators. Another controversy centred on the manner in which Mr. Michael Lowry handled the granting of mobile 'phone licences. On neither occasion were memoranda brought before the Government. I have no evidence that either man acted improperly.
That is quite unworthy.
The truth is bitter.
There is no evidence to suggest Deputy Lowry acted improperly in regard to the issuing of mobile 'phone licences and the Tánaiste should not give credence to any such claim by linking him to Mr. Burke in this way.
I said I had no evidence to suggest either man acted improperly.
Why is the Tánaiste bringing it up?
It was raised in the House previously.
It was highly unusual and wrong that a decision of that kind was made without a memorandum being brought before a full Cabinet meeting. It was equally wrong in regard to MMDS.
Deny that.
Did Deputy Bruton investigate that?
It was dealt with thoroughly and at arm's length.
Accordingly, it is essential we have new arrangements in place at both governmental and administrative level so that all transactions involving the sale of State assets or the granting of State licences can be handled in a manner that is as transparent and accountable as possible. I have already discussed these matters with the Taoiseach.
This Government has a privatising and liberalising agenda that is more ambitious than that of any of its predecessors. I do not want any part of that agenda to become embroiled in future controversy. I am a strong advocate of competition and I agree with comments made by Opposition Deputies about the need for competition in the media. The people have certainly had their fill of political scandals in the last few years. People are bewildered, annoyed and angered at what they see and hear. Indeed, the names Haughey, Lowry and Burke may be linked together as some form of unholy trinity when future generations come to write the history of Ireland in the late 1990s.
For a growing number of people politics has become a world of brown envelopes and backhanders, shady deals and offshore accounts. That is not the kind of politics I practise, nor are they the politics practised by the vast majority of Deputies. As politicians we have a duty to ensure that the scandals of the past are fully and properly investigated and that such scandals never again blot the political landscape.
Sell out.
I am glad to be able to contribute to the debate.
It is amazing there was not one word of criticism of the Taoiseach by the Tánaiste.
The Opposition is engaged in nothing less than a malicious, party politically motivated attack on the Taoiseach and the Government in a doomed attempt to revive its flagging political fortunes.
Nonsense, we did not invent it.
The Taoiseach's political credo since he entered this House is that public service cannot be self-service. A philosophy of self-service runs counter to everything he stands for in politics. It debases politics and destroys the trust that should exist between the public and politicians. This Government and this party has no place for anyone who does not live up to the high standards set by the Taoiseach from the day he became party Leader. The Opposition, which recognises the Taoiseach's political probity and the high esteem in which he is held by the public, has launched a politically motivated attack on the handling of the appointment of Mr. Burke to political office and the handling of the discovery by Fianna Fáil, in March this year, that Mr. Burke had received a second donation of £30,000 which he had not mentioned in his speech to this House.
The Taoiseach has outlined the steps he took to make inquiries prior to the appointment of Mr. Burke. Both last week and today, he has outlined fully — despite the way some Members have tried to twist it — the extent to which I was involved in those inquiries. For the record, as Chief Whip in that period I was acutely aware as to how the persistent rumours regarding Mr. Burke had caused worry to Deputy Bertie Ahern. He mentioned this to me on numerous occasions and indicated he had tried to find out to the best of his ability if there was any truth to the rumours, but to no avail.
I will quote from the contemporaneous notes which I took of the two meetings I had during my inquiries. The full details of these contemporaneous accounts have been given to the tribunal by the Fianna Fáil legal team. On 24 June, I travelled to London to meet Mr. Joseph Murphy junior. This meeting had been arranged with Mr. Murphy at the request of Deputy Bertie Ahern through a third party. I thanked him for taking the time to meet me and confirmed I was there at the request of my party Leader. I informed him that Deputy Bertie Ahern was worried about persistent allegations which had surfaced in the media, particularly in the Sunday Business Post, and rumours regarding Mr. Burke. I informed him it was being alleged that different amounts, including £40,000, had been handed to Mr. Burke at a meeting attended by a leading builder, either his father or himself, and an employee of Murphys called Mr. Gogarty. I said our party Leader had, during the election, been questioned about this and responded by stating he had spoken to Mr. Burke on a number of occasions regarding the persistent rumours and that Mr. Burke categorically denied there was any truth in them. I informed Mr. Murphy that our party Leader wished to get to the bottom of this before he made his appointments to the Cabinet the following Thursday, 26 June.
I asked Mr. Murphy the following questions. First, did either he or his father participate in a meeting attended by Mr. Burke, a leading builder and Mr. Gogarty during which a large sum of money, cash, cheque or both, was handed over to Mr. Burke? Second, if such a sum was handed over, was any undertaking given by Mr. Burke? Third, was there any meeting between his company and Mr. Burke regarding the company's lands?
Mr. Murphy categorically answered "no" to each of the three questions. He immediately and vehemently denied these allegations, and stated that he and his company had been the recipients of constant innuendo and allegations from Mr. Gogarty mainly because Mr. Gogarty, a former employee, had fallen out with the company over financial arrangements. He produced an extremely thick file with Mr. Gogarty's name on it and showed me numerous documents relating to his company's dispute with Mr. Gogarty, including copious court documents.
Mr. Murphy stated that his father had retired from the business in 1982 and had lived in Guernsey ever since. He stated his father could not have attended a meeting in 1989. His father probably did not even know Mr. Burke or what constituency he represented.
I left Mr. Murphy on the basis that, if necessary, either myself or Deputy Bertie Ahern could telephone him if we required to speak to him again and he readily agreed to this. The meeting ended and immediately on my return to Dublin I informed my party Leader of the details.
On 30 June 1997, the Monday immediately after the formation of the Government, I received a telephone call from Mr. Murphy, who said he was coming over the next day and wished to see me as a follow on from our previous meeting in London. Again, he continuously maintained during this meeting that his company had nothing to do with any of these allegations. He stated that since our last meeting he had again spoken to his father, who reiterated that neither he, the company nor Mr. Murphy senior had at any time had any dealings with Mr. Burke. He confirmed that Mr. Gogarty was the signatory for all their cheques in Ireland but they always required a second signatory, with whom he had checked; he had also checked through the records for this period and there were no payments which indicated any of this.
At the time I made written reports of these meetings. On each occasion I reported to the Taoiseach, as he had then become. I submitted these reports in full to the Flood tribunal. It is for that tribunal to investigate this matter and to draw appropriate conclusions. There are other issues in those reports which I do not care to put before the House because it is proper to put them before the tribunal rather than raising hares in this House. I have no direct evidence of these things, given that all of what I was told was hearsay. Unlike others, I will not throw allegations across the floor of the House without evidence. I do not intend to collude with the Opposition in turning this House into a star chamber which can judge people without due process. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and that is the task of the tribunals we have established.
To the best of my knowledge, at the time of the appointment of Mr. Burke the Taoiseach, having made all the inquiries he could reasonably have made, had discovered no proof that any payments, improper or otherwise, had been made to Mr. Burke. I do not know what else the Taoiseach could have done at that time to check these rumours. There is a need for the Deputies opposite and some outside this House to get a grasp on reality when they refer to the investigations carried out prior to the appointment of Mr. Burke. We are talking about a number of public representatives elected to serve their constituents with no special powers or immunities to investigate their colleagues. The Taoiseach, as I said, did everything he could reasonably have done to make the inquiries which were possible in the circumstances. What investigations did Deputy Bruton make before he appointed Deputy Lowry as Minister?
We would love to know.
In relation to recent events, the Taoiseach has accepted that, with the benefit of hindsight, he might have handled the matter differently. He might have come before the House, for example, to inform it directly of the information which had been given to the tribunal acting on its behalf. Hindsight is a great thing. We all remember that over the period in question the Taoiseach was not relaxing in his office with nothing much on his mind. Rather he was, with others, working day and night to ensure that the tenuous peace which had been achieved in Northern Ireland could be copperfastened as it eventually was in the British-Irish Agreement and subsequently in the all-Ireland referenda.
In both cases — the inquiries in 1997 and the handling of the matter from March this year — there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on the part of the Taoiseach or any member of the Government. The Opposition has attempted to build allegations out of nothing in a malicious attack on the Government. Bereft of policies, bereft of ideas, the combined Opposition is reduced to the politics of mudslinging. Fine Gael, in particular, has proved itself good at that if at nothing else.
On a point of order, the Minister has been reading a script and it would be appropriate if it were circulated at time of delivery. Can I ask why that has not been done?
The Chair has no responsibility in that regard.
Deputy Bruton has a short memory when it comes to integrity in office. His track record includes giving two flatly contradictory accounts of his fund raising activities at the beef tribunal and at the McCracken inquiry. Did he tell his Rainbow Government colleagues all about Michael Lowry's tax affairs?
This Government is built on integrity. All allegations will be fully investigated — publicly and fairly — by the appropriate tribunals.
In its first year in office it has achieved more than the Rainbow did in its entire period in office and we have made significant steps in Northern Ireland.
And Dundalk got the jobs.
To say the least we have done much better than the previous Government. I am proud of what was achieved in Dundalk and I thank my Government colleagues, particularly the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. Unlike the previous Government we would like to keep our feet on the ground and continue to put people first. We will not be distracted from our agenda by the Opposition's politically motivated attempts to revive its flagging popularity.
I do not have any script.
Is that the journalist to whom the Taoiseach was talking on "Today Tonight"?
This is a limited debate.
The most ironic aspect of this controversy is the high moral tone adopted by the Opposition, in particular by Deputy John Bruton. I remind the House that Deputy Bruton supposedly espoused the values of openness, transparency and accountability. Yet, on accession to office, he reneged on his promises to deliver openness, transparency and accountability. In fact he trampled on those principles day in day out. That we did not ask the right questions was used as an excuse for evasion of the truth on more than one occasion in this House. Deputy Bruton, far from running a Government, as promised, as if from behind a pane of glass, ran the most closed, evasive and the least transparent Government in these isles since the time of Charles II.
When we were in Government——
Since Deputy Bruton is running around the country breathlessly asking questions and demanding answers will he clarify a few things he has not fully explained to this House or in the public domain to date? Will he explain the circumstances surrounding his visit to Mr. Ben Dunne on 24 April 1991——
The Minister will get a full time invitation after this.
He will always have a job.
——where after a cosy meal he left Mr. Dunne's house with his party £50,000 richer?
That was party business.
Will he explain the circumstances in 1993——
Are there any strings attached?
——when Mr. Dunne gave him a cheque for £100,000 made out to cash? Why was it made out to cash?
It was not made out to cash.
Will he explain how his party which came into Government in December 1994 bankrupt, by his own admission, was virtually awash with cash after one year's tenure in office? Will he explain what questions he asked Deputy Lowry when he was being appointed to the Cabinet? Was he aware that Deputy Lowry had availed of the tax amnesty? If so, did he ask him about it and what explanations did he seek? Did he inform his colleagues he was appointing a Member to the Cabinet who had availed of the tax amnesty? Deputy Bruton must admit he promised shortly before becoming Taoiseach that he would compel those appointed to the Cabinet to publish their tax returns. What happened to that promise? Deputy Quinn will, no doubt, rush to explain whether he informed his colleagues in Government that the Minister for ethics was touting for £100 per plate contributions in some hotel in south County Dublin.
The Minister had better watch out.
I cannot ask Deputy De Rossa anything about his party's fund raising activities because all the evidence has gone up in smoke, courtesy of Maguire and Paterson.
On a point of order, will the Minister explain if there were any strings attached to the £2,000 he received from a local radio station?
None whatsoever.
That is not a point of order.
I openly and honestly declared it as I always do.
If Deputy Bruton is unwilling to give those explanations, it is incumbent on him to explain one thing before this debate finishes. Will he explain his feverish anxiety to link Independent Newspapers and its chairman in some way to the contribution paid by Rennicks to former Deputy Ray Burke? Will he explain his anxiety to create the impression in the public domain by innuendo, double speak, allegation and insinuation that there was some malfeasance on the part of Independent Newspapers or of its chairman?
Let the tribunal decide that.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
People who hold senior political office here, whether in Government or in Opposition, are privileged——
On a point of order, will the Minister indicate whether Independent Newspapers are paying him to write for them?
That is not a point of order.
The Minister has a conflict of interest.
He is going for Bruce Arnold's job.
Can Deputy Bruton explain his anxiety to imply some malfeasance on the part of Independent Newspapers or its chairman? Everybody in this country is entitled to their good name.
The Minister did not answer the question.
People who occupy responsible positions in political life are not entitled to abuse them to pursue personal vendettas.
On a point of order, the Minister has not answered the question.
That is not a point of order, Deputy De Rossa. I have already told you so. Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I put it to Deputy Bruton——
Answer the question.
——that the people he is trying to smear by doublespeak and innuendo are of the highest integrity.
Is the Minister being paid?
I ask Deputy De Rossa to allow the Minister to contribute without interruption and to resume his seat.
There is not a scintilla of evidence——
On a point of order——
Make it a point of order this time.
The Minister is making a statement about standards and whether a former Minister, while Minister, accepted money to do a job on behalf of——
A point of order Deputy De Rossa, please. The Minister is entitled to make his contribution as is everybody else.
Is he being paid by the Irish Independent and is he on the payroll?
When the Chair is on his feet Deputy De Rossa should resume his seat. If you do not resume your seat I will ask you to leave the House.
Is the Minister on the payroll?
It is a yes or no answer.
Please allow the Minister continue without interruption.
Deputy De Rossa comes from a long tradition of forcing people to stay silent and questioning the Opposition. I will not be cowed by Deputy De Rossa. He should answer the question about his own records and the bonfires in his back garden and his signature on the letter from Moscow.
Will the Minister yield to allow me to ask a question?
It is a matter for the Minister if he wishes to give way to the Deputy.
I do not wish to give way.
(Interruptions.)
I suggest to Deputy Bruton there is not a scintilla of evidence to link any of those people he has been trying to smear in the past week to any form of bribery or corruption.
Is the Minister being paid?
Will Deputy Bruton state whether he shares that view? If so, will he state it honestly and openly and without equivocation? There has been enough doublespeak. In relation to the latest so-called twist, the latest controversy that was supposed to rock the Government, Deputy Bruton is well aware — at least his advisers are — that a reply to an order for discovery is done by way of affidavit. An affidavit is a sworn statement. I will spell it out simply for him. You must swear the truth of what you know. You cannot swear what somebody else says is true, regardless of whether you believe it. That is the simple answer to that.
The Minister sent an anonymous letter appended to it.
This Government is facing decisions of major importance on the economy, foreign affairs and Northern Ireland.
The Minister is not making many of them.
We should be allowed to get on with the business of Government. That is what the people sent us here for.
Stick to school buses.
This House should not be diverted by people in positions of privilege and stature who use the privilege of the Dáil to pursue personal vendettas not only against the Taoiseach but people outside who cannot defend themselves.
The Minister is one of the hired hands.
Ba mhaith liom an t-am seo a roinnt leis an Teachta Michael Ring, Thomas Gildea, Joe Higgins agus Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The question was posed by Deputy Bruton and others earlier as to what Mr. Burke has got on the Taoiseach to cause such unwavering loyalty towards his former Cabinet colleague. That the Taoiseach has been so unconvincing, misleading and forgetful in his recall of the events surrounding this controversy has done nothing to quell the speculation about the Taoiseach and Mr. Burke. Deputy Gormley and myself have had information passed to our office, albeit anonymously, that if a tribunal, sufficiently empowered by this House, were to examine the list of companies which succeeded in getting on the tender list for a major public project in the Dublin Central constituency in 1991-2, and compare it with a list of companies which contributed sums of £5,000 and upwards to a particular political party in that constituency at the time, one would find a very high degree of overlap. If, say, the degree of overlap between the two lists was greater than 75 per cent, there might be a case for drawing the tentative conclusion, subject to full and thorough investigation by a competent authority, that there was more involved than coincidence.
In investigating this matter the tribunal might come to substantial conclusions, which it would be unwise to attempt to prejudge. Equally, it might render the service of clearing the good names and reputations of those persons in public life who have been linked by innuendo and anecdote in the engineering and construction industries to the management, or alleged mismanagement, of that contract.
The Taoiseach referred to north County Dublin in his contribution. In 1993, when I was a member of Dublin County Council, I received through the post a cheque for £100 from a small developer. This cheque was attached to a rezoning proposal seeking my support and that of my Green Party colleagues in a vote to rezone farmland for residentially zoned land. I had never before or since received a donation in such circumstances but it is often alleged that donations of this sort are commonplace.
To determine whether there was any substance to this viewpoint, I asked a straight question in the council chamber of the councillors from all parties at one of the many bizarre meetings during the 1993 development plan review, where a coalition of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil councillors consistently voted to rezone farmland against the advice of professional planning officials. I asked whether any other councillor had received a payment of money or other gift as encouragement to vote in favour of a proposal to rezone land. I did not get a clear answer. Instead, I was treated to a tirade of abuse, told to resume my seat and then grabbed by the neck from behind and surrounded by councillors who strained to grab the cheque I had been asked to show. The meeting had to be adjourned in disorder and I was escorted to the county manager's office for my own safety.
The view of that meeting in The Irish Times subsequently was quite telling. The report stated that senior county planners were convinced that more of the Liffey Valley area would have been lost if Trevor Sargent had not brandished his cheque at a meeting of Dublin County Council last February asking whether any other members had received similar donations.
Most of the councillors who had grabbed me in such a violent way were from Fianna Fáil. How much longer can Fianna Fáil continue to behave like some institutional party of the revolution, believing it is not subject to the same checks and balances that apply to everyone else?
The payment to Ray Burke scandal is the latest we know of in a succession of such stories that go back to the foundation of the Irish Press Company in the early 1930s, brilliantly illuminated by the late Noel Browne some 30 years ago. Fianna Fáil believes it is different, and it is more than just a question of "is that a bank draft in your pocket or have you just come to realise how much Fianna Fáil can do for you?" The Burke saga is important in what it reveals about the style of the Fianna Fáil institution and its way of doing business. Does the Taoiseach accept that in his resignation statement Mr. Burke, far from defending the integrity of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Government which Fianna Fáil leads and the honour of this House, misled the Taoiseach — apparently deliberately — and the House in a way that became apparent to the Taoiseach some weeks ago, and has created a fatal mistrust between the parties of this coalition?
Mr. Burke expected that the facts presented in his statement of 10 September 1997 would not, as he said, in all cases satisfy everybody. Did he have any indication that his statement, which concealed so much with such brilliant disingenuousness, was satisfactory in so far as the Taoiseach, who had made him a Minister, was concerned?
This House remains unaware of, and the public remains uninformed about, the exact amount Tony O'Reilly, through Fitzwilton or through any of his other interests, pumped into Fianna Fáil in recent times before the Irish Independent declared that payback time had finally arrived.
It is a shame, and no credit to this Government, that such donors and donations will have to be winkled out by the media and expensive tribunals of inquiry. It would be far more appropriate if the committees of this House had sufficient powers of inquiry to summon Mr. O'Reilly, and his management executives, and require from them information and files on their payments to politicians over the years.
Are we to go back to the ethos of the institutional party of the revolution currently in Fianna Fáil? In other words, whatever benefits the party and the party leadership received must not be questioned too closely. Is it the attitude that Fianna Fáil plays it fast and loose and that casualties are inevitable? That is to say some will get caught but we will sacrifice those and carry on. This Fianna Fáil culture, which is at the heart of this matter, must be thoroughly investigated.
As the only Deputy elected on the issue of MMDS versus the voluntary community deflector system, it does not give me any pleasure to outline briefly the unacceptable manner in which the rural population was treated in the attempted imposition of MMDS. In my constituency of south west Donegal, we became aware of the threatened imposition of MMDS in March 1988. From March 1988 until March 1997, we pleaded with our political representatives to give some form of licensing, legal standing or recognition to our community deflectors, but to no avail. In March 1997, we had no option but to enter the political arena, which we did successfully.
When Cable Management Ireland Limited bought its MMDS licence from the corrupt former Minister for Communications, we were disappointed because with the attempted imposition of MMDS came the greatest onslaught ever mounted against the rural population since setting up this State. The voluntary community development that led to setting up the deflector systems over 20 years ago came under fierce and concentrated attack. Even up to the present day, Cable Management Ireland Limited and its ruthless personnel, including Mr. Ray Doyle and Mr. Padraig White, chairman of the company's board of directors, are engaged in the most vicious campaign of harassment against the law abiding rural dwellers of Donegal. That campaign is also supported by the dangerous monolith of the Irish media world, Independent Newspapers, which has shown its true colours over the past few days when, among other things, it questioned the right of the law abiding rural population to participate in the democratic process.
In view of the manner in which the MMDS licences were awarded by the former Minister Burke to companies which are in many ways associated with Independent Newspapers, and to companies such as Cable Management Ireland Limited, I ask the Government to use its influence to put a stop to the vicious campaign of harassment being implemented by CMI and allow the voluntary deflector systems to continue until the matter of Mr. Burke's acceptance of vast sums of money, which no doubt influenced the granting of the MMDS licences, is fully investigated.
The voluntary community system of television transmission should be allowed to continue where demand exists. I ask the Government to license deflector systems at an affordable cost. These will continue to make multichannel voluntary community television available to even the weakest sections of our rural communities.
My contribution will be brief. I speak tonight because of the editorial in last Saturday's Irish Independent, which asked why the Government should not take on the people who set up illegal deflector systems. I helped to set up the illegal deflector system in the west for which we did not receive £30,000 or even 30p. We set it up because no Government or anyone else was prepared to bring a television signal into the west. I remember when many people went to Kiltimagh and other areas on Monday nights to watch the BBC's “Match of the Day”— which the gaelgeoirs did not like us watching — because they could get a signal from Enniskillen. We then set up a deflector system in Westport and other areas.
One day I spoke on local radio at 1.40 p.m. live from the Dáil Chamber. I questioned why the then Minister, Ray Burke, gave exclusive licences with letters of comfort to these companies. I asked about Mr. White, to whom Deputy Gildea referred, who was one of Fianna Fáil's backroom boys planning and plotting before the election. He was a member of a company which was involved in the legalised signals. I asked some very serious questions at 1.40 p.m. which probably bordered on libel. There was a vote in the Dáil at 2 p.m. during which the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ray Burke, pulled me aside and said "You went above and beyond the call of duty today". I was worried for many days afterwards about whether I would get a solicitor's letter because of what I said on local radio, which was to ask why any Minister would give exclusive licences to anyone. When we were in Government we could not change that policy or introduce legislation, as Deputy Gildea said, to give the deflector operators an opportunity to tender for the licences because the job has been so well done — and we now know why.
I do not have any scriptwriters or spin doctors to spell out what must be spelled out. However, I wish to put one simple question to the Government — why would someone give £30,000 to a person or go to his house and ask to whom he should make a cheque payable? People are forgetting that £30,000 in 1989 would probably be worth £50,000 or £60,000 in today's prices. Nobody gives someone £30,000 unless he does something for him. We now know what was done, which will be proved by the tribunal. We know why people who tendered for the licences got them, although some of the applications were late. Nobody does anything for nothing in this world and £30,000 is a great deal of money.
The people of the west, Donegal, Cork and Waterford are very sore about this. They could not understand why Governments could not give licences to deflector operators who were prepared to bring a television signal into their homes. The people who received the licences were only prepared to bring a signal into large centres of population and wanted to forget about rural areas. I agree with Deputies Gildea, McGinley and others that attacks on deflector operators should be suspended. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, attacked the people in Kiltimagh when the Department of Communications took all their equipment. That equipment, which was paid for with honest, decent money, should be returned until the inquiry is over.
It was a bad day's work by Ray Burke. This all dates back to the Charlie Haughey era when people brought him hundreds of thousands of pounds to maintain his lavish lifestyle. That culture lasted. I was surprised by Deputy Mary Harney tonight. That was not the Deputy Harney I used to see sitting——
The Deputy should refer to her as the Tánaiste.
She was not the Tánaiste when she was sitting on this side of the House but was Deputy Harney. Deputy Harney and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney are two different people. I could not believe what she said tonight because she used to stand up in tears, wondering how she could protect the honourable people of Ireland. She did not do much protecting tonight.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Dublin West): I intend to vote in favour of the motion. Unfortunately, none of the major issues arising from this affair of the payment of substantial amounts of money to Mr. Ray Burke have been adequately dealt with or explained by the Taoiseach, the Government or the Progressive Democrats. That does not surprise me because the reality is that leading members of Fianna Fáil find it very difficult to work themselves up to an appearance of being shocked by revelations of substantial payments by big business to politicians and political parties. Is the Taoiseach embarrassed that leading politicians in his party are up to their oxters in sleazy relationships with big business, or does he regard this as “business as usual” and no more harmless than the same politicians kissing unfortunate babies at election time? That is how it seems.
The reality is that Fianna Fáil has thrived in the murky culture which has festered for decades in this State at the interface of business and politics. That culture blossomed as land owners and developers slapped the backs of Fianna Fáil councillors in the corridors of Dublin County Council, as they drooled in anticipation of those councillors supporting vast rezonings of land which would make them rich beyond the dreams of ordinary people and, incidentally, play a major role in pushing house prices obscenely outside the reach of ordinary working people on average wages. That culture thrived when wealthy businessmen, or their runners, came to Mr. Burke's house with bulging envelopes or cheques made out to cash.
However, there is an underlying hypocrisy in this debate from many of the establishment parties participating in it because the swampy ground at the interface of business and politics has not been infested just by Fianna Fáil politicians and it was not just Fianna Fáil councillors whose backs were slapped by developers and speculators at county council meetings. Fine Gael and Progressive Democrats councillors also found themselves at the butt of tremendous praise from that section as they rowed in behind the rezoning juggernaut on many occasions.
What is the major difference between business people calling at the offices or homes of politicians with their gifts and prominent party leaders rolling up to the fancy mansions of big business tycoons and sipping tea with them as they solicited extensive funds for their political parties? The reality is that across the board the relationship between business and politics in this State has been a sleazy one for decades, as was revealed by this most recent scandal. Ordinary decent people who must work for, and pay tax on, every penny they get do not believe that when large donations are given by big business to politicians nothing is expected in return. They understand quite clearly how it works and they are absolutely right.
Fitzwilton stated that it gave donations to all the main political parties through their representatives. Last Thursday in this House I called on all the parties concerned to state if they had received any moneys from Fitzwilton or any related individual or companies, and, if so, how much. So far I have been greeted with deafening silence. I call again on all parties to outline the moneys, if any, they have received from Fitzwilton and in what circumstances.
What is meant by the phrase "through their representatives"? Surely moneys or cheques would usually be sent to the head offices of the political parties? In recent days, Independent Newspapers has grossly abused its power to criticise those who have asked hard questions about the granting of MMDS licences after 1989. The group is loud in its denunciation of anybody, any institution or organisation which it believes do not adhere to standards it requires. Given this, it is time to turn the fire back on the group, especially on the millionaires who are its main string pullers. It should publish full details on the contributions it, Fitzwilton or related companies made to politicians or political parties over the past two decades. Let us have the names, the amounts and the circumstances. Perhaps then the group will appear more convincing in demanding higher standards.
Ordinary people are disgusted with the type of sleaze that has come to light in recent times. The bluff of the Progressive Democrats has been more than called. Virtually its entire parliamentary party appeared for a few minutes during the debate, presumably to give token succour to the Government. If the party continues to stand over these activities the taxi that brought its members here can be replaced by a motor bike and side car after the next general election because they will have no credibility in going back to the people.
What vehicle did the Deputy use?
(Dublin West): I have been driving a motor bike for ten years. The grasping hands of big business conglomerates must be prised off the reins of power. That is the answer to sleaze. In that way we can have politics answerable to the people whose labour, taxes and commitment makes this society work. It would be real democracy, which has not been forthcoming thus far in this debate.
It is with regret that I support this motion. We all had the right to expect that the tribunals already established would provide the means to investigate fully the serious allegations concerning the former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, and others. We also had the right to expect that the Government would live up to the promise of openness and transparency. However, while our assertion of our right to know has been vindicated in the light of these revelations, those expectations have proven to be naive.
We have seen the unfolding saga of payments to Mr. Ray Burke, the astonishing generosity of Mr. Ben Dunne, which benefited both of the two larger parties, the Ansbacher account debacle and the protection of some of the wealthiest people in this country who were assisted in salting away their money and evading tax. We have also seen the reluctance of Governments to allow full exposure of all these scandals. Instead of the free flow of information, we have had to squeeze every fact out of those with privileged access to the relevant information.
I do not wish to engage in the shadow boxing between the two major parties so frequently seen in this House, nor do I intend to unpick the details of this latest fiasco, important though they are. Rather, I wish to reflect the view of the vast majority of citizens who observe this debate and rightly conclude that politics and politicians have been tarnished and debased, not just by the scandals of recent years, but by the ethos adopted by key players in the larger parties in this House for decades.
It is understandable that many people dismiss politicians as corrupt. What other conclusion can they draw as they see the succession of scandals that have emerged in recent years? Those of us who are political opponents of the two major parties must battle daily against the justifiable apathy and cynicism about politics, which the decades of domination has induced in so many people.
The central issue here is not the ethics of one individual or the credibility of one Taoiseach; it is the corrupt relationship between big business and the big political parties in the State. The people are not fools. Everybody knows that money does not flow from the coffers of big business to those major political parties without a flow of favouritism in the opposite direction. The best illustration of that was the Government's first budget, which reduced wealth tax and corporation tax and spurned the best opportunity in years to harness wealth and combat economic inequality.
The latest scandal has at last brought A.J.F. O'Reilly into the picture. The economic empire of this man and his many companies in this country and abroad is unprecedented. The latest revelations have touched only the tip of the iceberg of influence of the O'Reilly empire in Irish politics. An inquiry which could be usefully established by this House would consider Mr. O'Reilly's influence and role in Irish politics. We know the many companies and newspapers controlled by this media mogul. However, how many politicians does he also control?
I find it difficult to listen to the lofty words from Deputy Ó Caoláin on the fund-raising of political parties when one considers how the Deputy's party was funded for a long period. Most democrats usually ask for their money rather than seek to get it down the barrel of a gun from those who do not give their consent.
The Minister knows his comments are without foundation. He was member of a Government which tried to prevent our party from fund-raising.
The Minister is in possession. The Deputy should desist.
In his short time in the House I have noticed Deputy Ó Caoláin reaches very quickly for the lofty perches of the high moral ground. I remind him that is very dangerous territory, despite our welcome of the conversion by the Deputy's party to full democratic politics. My party encouraged it along that road.
Deputy Ó Caoláin and Deputy Jim Higgins allege that politicians are controlled by big business. A debate like this gives people the opportunity to grind their political axes, as they have been doing for many years. Deputy Higgins, at least, has been consistent in his love of capitalism during the years. I presume he was funded by Militant Tendency for a number of years before being elected to the House and funded by the taxpayer. I find it difficult at times to listen to these gentlemen when they take the lofty high moral ground.
The Minister should address the issues involved.
I have no problem about dealing with any of the issues involved. I will deal with them in due course. Every Government speaker has been heckled continuously in spite of the fact that we have listened with courtesy and respect, even though I disagree with much of what was said.
There is a need for the House, whenever it seeks to extend the powers of tribunals of inquiry, to act responsibly. In some contributions there is a blatant abuse of privilege, regardless of whether a member of my party or a person outside the House is under attack. We should act responsibly and be circumspect in this privileged assembly.
The Minister has a short memory.
Many are of the view that they can make an innuendo to attract publicity outside the House and perhaps notoriety inside it. Anything I have to say will be factual and to the point.
Hepatitis C.
Like all tribunals, that tribunal was above politics. When the then Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson, sought to extend its terms of reference at no stage was it suggested by anybody on the Opposition benches, myself included, that it was an attempt to politicise it. No member of the then Government, including the then Minister, Deputy Noonan, and Deputy Howlin, a former Minister in the Department, sought to do so. Deputy Quinn, then Minister for Finance, never suggested that asking the then Attorney General to extend the terms of reference in the public interest following discussions with Positive Action and others amounted to untoward behaviour.
The Minister is not comparing like with like.
I am. Deputy Howlin's contribution was an example of political dishonesty. It begs the question what are the lines of communication in the Labour Party. The Deputy referred to the contribution by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, when the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal were extended at his request and asked: "What was the Attorney General doing down there over the weekend discussing these matters with the chairman of the tribunal?" He insinuated for political effect that there was something untoward in the constitutional law officer of the State consulting the chairman of the tribunal in relation to the matters which are the subject of this debate.
The Minister is twisting the facts — his strongest forte.
I am not.
Legislation was brought forward to restrict the tribunal.
The Deputy implied that there was something improper in the Attorney General meeting Mr. Justice Moriarty and Mr. Justice Flood over the weekend. It was a grossly dishonest allegation——
What allegation?
Perhaps the Deputy will listen and allow me to make my contribution without interruption. He asked a rhetorical question.
There was no allegation.
The Deputy said that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, had suggested in a previous debate that if a Minister spoke to the chairman of a tribunal that would amount to improper conduct.
That is what he said.
In reply to a letter sent yesterday by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, it was indicated that the Attorney General, in making contact with the chairmen of the tribunals over the weekend, had discharged his functions properly. There was, therefore, no reason for the Deputy to ask a rhetorical question.
The Minister is missing the point.
I am not.
The Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, is wrong.
In a letter today to the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, the chairmen of the tribunals stated clearly that the Attorney General had discharged his functions properly and that at no stage did he advance a specific proposal to alter the terms of reference. Deputy Quinn invited others to publish advice received. I invite him to publish the letter he received from the chairmen of the tribunals today.
It has been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
It makes the point for me. It is an abuse of privilege to seek to impugn the integrity of the Attorney General by asking rhetorical questions when information is available that the Attorney General discharged his functions properly.
The Minister is deliberately missing the point.
I am not. Last week Deputy Quinn misled the House in relation to what had been said to the Taoiseach last September. The person who can corroborate his story is the former leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring. Where is he tonight? Where has he been for the last week? Will he come into the House and recall what was said and the circumstances? The Taoiseach said that Deputy Quinn misled the House when he suggested——
For his own purposes.
——that the contents of the anonymous letter were forwarded to the Taoiseach last September.
(Dublin West): What does the Minister think about Ray Burke's £60,000?
To quote anonymous letters in the House is an abuse of privilege. The Deputy said:
The letter went on to make further allegations regarding the Bovale controversy. Deputy Spring met the Taoiseach around this time to discuss his general concerns relating to the then unfolding Burke controversy. He conveyed the contents of this letter to the Taoiseach and said that, as the letter was unsigned, he would take no further action on the issue.
The Taoiseach disputes this unreservedly. The contents of the letter were not conveyed to the Taoiseach. Deputy Quinn said that we should be careful not to mislead the House. Where the Taoiseach has inadvertently done so he has always apologised, where necessary. That is the manly thing to do. I expect the politically correct to say that that is not a correct recollection of events. Deputy Spring can assist us in the matter. The leader of the Labour Party does not appear to have checked with his former leader in relation to what he said last week, while the deputy leader of the Labour Party does not seem to be aware of the contents of the letter received by his leader today.
Twisting words is the Minister's forte.
What about the £60,000?
(Dublin West): Bluster.
I know, from bitter experience, that this is not the first occasion on which the Labour Party has sought to politicise the Office of the Attorney General.
(Interruptions.)
I will make my contribution on my terms only. I do not require the assistance of Deputy Higgins. I have been a Member for much longer and know how to make my point. The tactics employed might work with the Communist Party of Ireland but they will not work here. We do not operate that way. The Deputy should go and have a cup of tea with Derek Hatton or someone.
The motion before us congratulates the tribunal on the work it is doing. As a practising politician it is in my interest that everything should be cleared up in these matters. We should leave it to the tribunal to deal with these issues. That is what we set it up to do. There were political opportunities for the Opposition to raise the heat on this matter, which it is now taking and fair dues to it. When this House takes upon itself the right, by way of resolution, to seek to extend the terms of reference of this or future tribunals, subject to the consent of the then chairman of such tribunals, there is a responsibility on this House, despite the political attractions of not abiding by it, to allow the tribunal to deal with the issues of concern in the substance of any motion before the House. Allegations have been made in relation to facts which are emerging and a certain interpretation has been put on those allegations.
The Deputy should spell out where the £60,000 is.
I am prepared to await, as should any democrat who is interested in due process, the outcome of those tribunals to see what necessary steps will have to be taken as a result of any findings, as in the case of the McCracken tribunal.
As we did in the case of the former Minister, Deputy Lowry.
When this House sought to impose an extension of the terms of reference of a tribunal without referring that matter to its chairman, he quite rightly made it clear he would close down the tribunal if the Oireachtas unduly interfered in what are quasi judicial matters. Members who talk about extending the terms of reference of the tribunal in the interests of transparency and accountability should be consistent. They should respect the fact that the tribunal is independent and that the chairman has been delegated by this Parliament to deal with these issues in full. No Member on any side of the House should try to delimit those issues which the Chairman wishes to enter into because it is in the public interest that they be dealt with. Members will not hear me in Government or Opposition attempt to prejudge or seek to suggest wrongdoing has occurred before evidence has been properly adduced.
People have constitutional rights, not too often taken into consideration here in the less than charitable comments made by Members during the course of this debate. It is important that anything that is said here, albeit in a privileged assembly, does not in any way compromise the present or future activities of these tribunals or prevent them getting at the truth. It is in all our interests that the full facts emerge. Those who climb the high moral ground and seek to suggest, in a politically opportunistic fashion, that this constituency is theirs alone are going over the top.
The Deputy has gone overboard already.
There is a case to be made for extending the terms of reference. The Government published a Bill this morning and incorporated in its notice, which amends the Opposition parties' notice, a provision that will allow that to happen, but it will be done in a measured way based on the best legal advice. I reiterate to Deputy Howlin, a former Minister, and to any other Member that if it is suggested that the highest constitutional law officer in the land is not the appropriate person to liaise between this House and the chairman of a tribunal independently set up by the House at its request, who is? To suggest that the Attorney General is a political animal or any previous holders of that office were is to do a grave disservice and injustice to his or their guardianship of the public interest. I say that in support of all those who were Attorneys General during my time in this House. It has become politically popular to use the Attorney General's office as a donkey that can be kicked around.
The Deputy attacked Dermot Gleeson every chance he got.
I never at any time suggested the integrity of the Attorney General was at risk. Let the evidence show it has come from the Opposition on this occasion that the Attorney General's liaising with these two tribunals was said to constitute political interference, was unwarranted and wrong. At no stage did the Government parties, when in Opposition, suggest that to be the case in relation to the then Attorney General in respect of the hepatitis C tribunal.
The Deputy has a very short memory.
Those are the facts. That highlights the inconsistency of the Opposition's approach and it shows the political opportunism that is at the base of these allegations which attempt to politically injure a good Government. Let the tribunal decide the issues of public interest and let prurient interest about which we have heard a fair bit here be dealt with and be seen in the context of what it is.
I wish to share my time with Deputy John Bruton.
That is agreed.
Now the racket has died down it might be no harm to return to the substance of what we are discussing. It is about trust in politics, confidence in partnership and judgment in the appointment of members of Government. To be constructive, I want to state unequivocally that when the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, spoke earlier he spoke in a way that is consistent with our investigation and construction of events. He did not mislead the Dáil and what he said is on the record.
I wish to refer to the atmosphere in which this discussion is taking place. Last weekend there was an extraordinary demonstration of bad temper by some of those who have been drawn into the conflict as to the fact that has arisen. There will be another occasion to comment on that, but it rings somewhat hollow to be hearing lectures for some time about the egalitarian democracy we have and the constitutional rights of everyone to his or her good name. I accept that, but no matter what wealth one possesses it does not remove one from the right to be questioned and answers sought on matters of great importance. A matter of great importance is what political culture prevailed when State assets were being allocated? That is important not only in respect of the past because these are matters of fact that must be investigated. It is even more important for the immediate future when further decisions will be taken on the question of establishing competition.
For some time I have been interested in hearing lectures about how the State has to get out of the way to create a free market and when I entered politics a long time ago certain churchmen used to object to being mentioned by politicians. Now there is a new kind of untouchable, those who are building a monopoly outside the State. What we heard this afternoon about a position of dominance by an individual company is of utmost significance. We can debate that on another day, but it was evident over the weekend that one is not supposed to raise questions about that fact. Perhaps, because some of us come from different backgrounds, it is supposed to be irrelevant that one company controls 95 per cent of the Sunday newsprint, 66 per cent of the daily newsprint, ten regionals, had aspirations in the 1980s to add radio on to that and in the future will probably want a whack of digitalisation and services.
In the heading of an editorial in the newspaper is the message that anyone who raises these questions is begrudging. I would like to think the lectures we got on democracy and on the egalitarian republic in which we live regarded all our rights as equal and that any citizen is entitled to ask a question about the abuses of monopoly, the abuses of power and the appalling abuse of a dominant position, which the Tánaiste, in her speech, agreed exists.
We as politicians hear comments about, for example, the payments to politicians tribunal. It would have been much better if the politicians had been named because most behave honourably in every matter including the financing of their campaigns.
When all the huffing and puffing dies down, the issues boil down to the Taoiseach's judgment in relation to appointing somebody to whom none of these controversies were new. They also boil down to how quickly the facts, when they were discovered, were communicated to the partners in Government and the House and the forthrightness with which the matter was dealt.
The response has been winkled out of the Government rather than being offered. It reflects badly on those who state we have been making a great fuss about nothing. If the Government had offered what the Opposition is now seeking, this debate would not be necessary. However, it did not offer it. Information has been knocked out of it. A point with which perhaps all Deputies will agree is that politics has been damaged. It is time to give serious consideration to this aspect.
It would be wrong to suggest that anybody on this side has anything but confidence in tribunals. However, revisionism will not manage to twist history to the suggestions some people are making now. They are raising questions about whether Mr. Haughey was ever a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. He was a member of that party as was Mr. Burke. This matter should be put behind us but the Government has not offered anything. The Opposition was forced to seek information which has been knocked out of the Government.
The crux of the debate is whether the Taoiseach is able to do his job properly. I am puzzled at his reaction when he was told in March that his ministerial colleague had been handed a second £30,000 donation. I am puzzled by the Taoiseach's explanation that he had a two minute discussion about the matter, did not ask any questions and told nobody about it. I am puzzled that the Taoiseach was not shocked.
I do not believe he was not shocked and, therefore, I do not believe his explanation to the effect that perhaps he should have informed the Dáil and he did not take the matter seriously. I believe the Taoiseach took the matter seriously and consciously decided to do nothing.
The Deputy is wrong.
It is incredible, given all the Taoiseach had gone through over the original £30,000 donation to Mr. Ray Burke, that he would not have been shocked to the core when he heard that a second £30,000 had been paid over and that Mr. Burke had retained £45,000, not just a mere £13,000. I cannot believe that the Taoiseach was not horrified when he heard it.
I believe the Taoiseach did not tell his ministerial colleagues about the second donation. The Fianna Fáil Ministers must ask themselves about the character of their Taoiseach if he did not tell them the explanations he gave the House were wrong and that a further £30,000 belonging to their party had been diverted into the pocket of an individual former ministerial colleague. I do not believe the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, was told by the Taoiseach in March that he knew an extra £30,000 had been received. I do not believe the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, was told in March as he should have been that a further £30,000 of his party's money had been diverted into the pocket of former Deputy Ray Burke. I do not believe the Taoiseach told any of his colleagues, including the Tánaiste, about it. This is deeply serious.
I do not accept the Taoiseach's explanation that he was busy with the peace process. He has plenty of time to appear at three or four social events every night in this city and I do not accept that he did not have time to examine whether there was something wrong with a further £30,000 having been pocketed by a man he appointed to ministerial office less than a year previously.
I do not accept the explanations given by the Taoiseach as to why that information was not passed on to the tribunal. It has been suggested that the £10,000 was disclosed in response to an order for discovery and that in relation to such orders one can only swear what one knows as a swearable fact. That is the case.
It relates to documents.
However, that did not preclude the party giving that information to the tribunal under a second cover. It did not do so. The Taoiseach admitted today that Mr. Richardson had furnished an anonymous note to the tribunal. If he was able to do so——
As the Deputy did.
——surely the Taoiseach was able to tell the tribunal that he knew Mr. Ray Burke had received £30,000 and not only £10,000 from Rennicks. This information should have been furnished to the tribunal.
That was a document.
I do not accept the Taoiseach's explanation as to why he did not pass on that information.
The Deputy is twisting two months in time.
It is not the first time the Deputy twisted something.
I wish to draw the House's attention to a form which every Member received that would have provided a basis for the Taoiseach to furnish the information about the £20,000. I refer to question 17 on the form which states:
Are you aware of any act or omission by any public representative which could involve corruption or involve attempts by threats, deception or otherwise to compromise the disinterested performance of public duties?
This open ended question was addressed to the Taoiseach. Yet, having found out that £20,000 had been given to Mr. Ray Burke, he did not answer that question. He did not tell the tribunal what he had known since March about the £20,000.
Exactly.
The Taoiseach, in failing to disclose that information to the tribunal, did not answer honestly question 17 of the tribunal circular to which he was asked to respond.
How does the Deputy know what information he gave the tribunal?
That is a profoundly serious matter affecting his fitness for office.
The Deputy is making it up as he goes along.
Is Deputy Bruton making up the questionnaire?
He is making up the answers.
I do not believe that Deputy Bertie Ahern is fit to hold the office of Taoiseach in light of his gross failure to undertake proper inquiries when he first found out that a further £20,000 had been received by Mr. Ray Burke.
I also draw the House's attention to the comments of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, which touch on the suitability of the Taoiseach's decision in originally appointing Mr. Ray Burke as a Minister. The House was told that at the time Mr. Burke was appointed as a Minister by the Taoiseach he knew Mr. Burke had received the first £30,000. He was satisfied it was fine and that there was nothing wrong. I do not agree with the Taoiseach's judgment on that matter, but that is what the House was told. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has revealed that prior to that, Mr. Burke had been lying to Fianna Fáil. Regarding his conversation with Mr. Murphy, the Minister said:
I informed him that it was being alleged that different amounts including £40,000 was handed to Mr. Burke at a meeting which was attended by a leading builder. I informed him that our party leader had during the election been questioned about this situation and that he had responded stating that he had spoken to Mr. Burke on a number of occasions regarding the persistent rumours and that Mr. Burke categorically denied any truth in them.
The Taoiseach when he appointed Mr. Ray Burke as a Minister knew that denial of those rumours by Mr. Burke was a lie.
He did not know that.
Yet, he proceeded to appoint him as a Minister.
They were rumours of wrongdoing.
The Taoiseach was satisfied that Mr. Ray Burke could be appointed as a Minister even though he lied to the Taoiseach previously about the fact that he received money.
When he appointed Mr. Burke as Minister, the Taoiseach knew that his denial was a lie. However, he proceeded to appoint Mr. Burke.
That is wrong. He did not know.
In other words, the Taoiseach was satisfied that Mr. Burke would be appointed a Minister even though he had lied to the Taoiseach previously about receiving money. He had received the money, and Deputy Dermot Ahern——
It was subsequent to his appointment. Deputy Bruton is making this up. It is despicable.
The truth hurts.
These are rumours and mud slinging with nothing in them, but the Opposition are past masters at it. They are past masters at spreading slurry.
(Interruptions.)
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Brady, Johnny.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Brady, Martin.
- McDaid, James.
- Brennan, Matt.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- McGuinness, John.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Molloy, Robert.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Moloney, John.
- Carey, Pat.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Collins, Michael.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Cowen, Brian.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- Daly, Brendan.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Davern, Noel.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- de Valera, Síle.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Dennehy, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Power, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Roche, Dick.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Smith, Michael.
- Flood, Chris.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Foley, Denis.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Bell, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Belton, Louis.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Bradford, Paul.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Bruton, John.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Bruton, Richard.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Burke, Liam.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Burke, Ulick.
- McManus, Liz.
- Carey, Donal.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Neville, Dan.
- Creed, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Currie, Austin.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Penrose, William.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Perry, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Farrelly, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Ring, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Gildea, Thomas.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Gormley, John.
- Spring, Dick.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Wall, Jack.
- Upton, Pat.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question, "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to", put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Brady, Martin.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Brennan, Matt.
- McDaid, James.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- McGuinness, John.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Carey, Pat.
- Moloney, John.
- Collins, Michael.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Cowen, Brian.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Cullen, Martin.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- Daly, Brendan.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- Davern, Noel.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- de Valera, Síle.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Dennehy, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Power, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Roche, Dick.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Smith, Michael.
- Flood, Chris.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Foley, Denis.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Bell, Michael.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Belton, Louis.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Bruton, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Bruton, Richard.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Burke, Liam.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Burke, Ulick.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Carey, Donal.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- McManus, Liz.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Creed, Michael.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Currie, Austin.
- Neville, Dan.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Penrose, William.
- Farrelly, John.
- Perry, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Ring, Michael.
- Gildea, Thomas.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Gormley, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Spring, Dick.
- Upton, Pat.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Wall, Jack.
- Stanton, David.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Nil, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Question declared carried.