With the permission of the House I wish to share time with Deputies John Bruton, Quinn, Rabbitte, Gormley and Joe Higgins.
In 25 years of public life I have never experienced such outrage among taxpayers. Their outrage is matched only by their cynicism — that the system has failed them, that it does not work in a fair and just manner, that there is one law for ordinary taxpayers and another for the well heeled and influential and that, in the memorable words of Mrs. Helmsley, "taxes are for little people".
The Ceann Comhairle has accurately measured the mood of the nation today in allowing this motion and I thank him for it. GUBU is back in town in all its former ignominy.
Judge McCracken in his report said he "became satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that all of the moneys paid by Mr. Ben Dunne were received by or on behalf of Mr. Charles Haughey for his benefit or, in one case, for the benefit of a member of his family." Anybody who has even scanned the McCracken Report should not be surprised at this conclusion as Mr. Ben Dunne had in sworn evidence said he gave £1.5 million to Mr. Haughey, and Mr. Haughey in his last appearance before the tribunal admitted this was so, that he had received the money and that it was for his personal benefit.
Members of the House are well aware that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a legal phrase which describes the highest level of proof required in a criminal court. A judge or jury must find "beyond reasonable doubt" before they can convict. In simple terms they must be certain. There is no higher level of proof. Judge McCracken was certain that Mr. Dunne was the donor and that Mr. Haughey was the beneficiary. Both are quite clearly domiciled in Ireland and it defies reason that a Revenue appeals commissioner struck down an assessment by the Revenue Commissioners made against Mr. Haughey on the grounds that the evidence of the McCracken Report was an insufficient base on which to move to collect outstanding capital acquisitions tax.
Much of the work of this House, I believe, will be set at nought as a result of this decision. We have had scandals, controversies, parliamentary debates, motions, rows about terms of reference, the establishment of tribunal after tribunal, evidence and legal arguments before tribunals, reports of tribunals and findings of tribunals, and when the taxpayer had hoped payback time had finally come and that outstanding tax would be collected from those who had evaded it, the very ground on which the Revenue Commissioners were standing has been taken out from under them.
Currently there are two tribunals of inquiry sitting. The tax evasion issue is a central issue for both, particularly the Moriarty tribunal. If the findings of these tribunals cannot be relied on as a basis for collecting tax which has been evaded, then the effectiveness of the tribunal process is substantially diminished and the intent of this House is set aside.
In the Finance Act, 1998, the Oireachtas made provision that rulings of Revenue Appeal Commissioners could be published at the discretion of the Appeal Commissioners. It is vital in this case that Mr. Kelly's ruling and the arguments which led to his conclusions are published without delay. Until this happens we will not know what the policy implications of this decision are or what amending legislation the Minister for Finance may have to bring forward. I invite all Members of the House to join with me in calling for the immediate publication of Mr. Kelly's ruling.
One of the most astounding aspects of this debacle has been the fact that the Appeal Commissioner who made the decision is the brother-in-law of the Taoiseach. The brother-in-law of the present Fianna Fáil Taoiseach judged the case of a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach. I am not questioning Mr. Kelly's probity, but I believe it was extraordinarily imprudent of him not to have disqualified himself from hearing this case. There is a provision in section 856 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, which disqualifies a commissioner in cases of personal interest. A commissioner is debarred from involving himself or herself in any income tax appeal, proceedings or matter in which he or she has an interest either on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another person. Mr. Kelly did not in my view have an interest under the terms of section 856 in Mr. Haughey's appeal, but the existence of the section should have acted as a red flag to him when he decided to adjudicate on Mr. Haughey's appeal. If he had stepped aside as, for example, Mr. Justice Andrias O'Caoimh did at the time of the arms trial, he would have saved the Government and the current Taoiseach much embarrassment. Why did Mr. John O'Callaghan, the other appeal commissioner, not take the case? Was he conflicted?
The Minister for Finance, as a matter of urgency, should return to the practice of appointing at least one of three appeal commissioners from the senior ranks of the office of the Revenue Commissioners. The two current office holders were political appointments from the private sector, made by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, after the 1992 general election when it was unclear whether Fianna Fáil would form part of the new Government.
Appeal Commissioners drawn from the private sector, because of their professional background, have contact over their working lives with a very significant number of clients. Their function as Appeal Commissioners is semi-judicial and the possibility of conflicts is quite high simply arising from their professional practice over so many years. Senior officials at the Revenue Commissioners have less possibility of conflict and the Minister for Finance should appoint a third appeal commissioner with a public service background who does not have a background of dealing with so many clients.
The Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, has not adequately explained the circumstances of the appointment of his brother-in-law. There are questions which he must answer before the Dáil goes into recess, including the considerations he took into account when he appointed Mr. Kelly? Was Mr. Kelly selected from a list of suitably qualified persons, or did Deputy Ahern simply pluck him from the private sector after forming the view that he was the most suitably qualified person for the job? Did Mr. Kelly personally seek the office or was the office sought on his behalf by a third party? Were representations made to Deputy Ahern by persons in politics or in other professions to appoint Mr. Kelly? The Taoiseach claims he has not spoken to Mr. Kelly in the past five years. What was the nature of his contact with Mr. Kelly in 1992? Did Deputy Ahern inform the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, of the appointment and that Mr. Kelly was his brother-in-law? Was the appointment mentioned by him or discussed in Cabinet? Was the Cabinet informed that Mr. Kelly was Deputy Ahern's brother-in-law?
The Taoiseach is very familiar with the findings of the McCracken tribunal. He is uniquely well briefed on the findings and, like every other Deputy in the House, he knew that the Revenue Commissioners intended relying on Judge McCracken's findings in pursuing Mr. Haughey's unpaid tax. Did it ever strike the Taoiseach that if Mr. Haughey disagreed with the assessment of the Revenue Commissioners, there was an even money chance his brother-in-law would hear the appeal? Did he take steps to avoid the potential embarrassment?
The central figure in this debacle, however, is not Mr. Kelly, but Mr. Haughey, and as Mr. Bruce Arnold wrote in this morning's Irish Independent:
. the recent revelations about his receipt of large sums of money have inextricably linked together his exercise of power, his by-passing of constitutional requirements, his arrogant interference on a wide range of financially sensitive deals — on property, on beef, on passports, on unspecified favours which earned handsome cash presents — with his occupation of the highest political office.
This by definition is corrupt. It was seen as such and challenged as such by intrepid politicians from within his own party, led by men like George Colley and Deputy Des O'Malley, and their fate, like that of other lesser names, was confrontation and isolation. The rest of the Fianna Fáil Party, the vast majority, watched and did nothing. They saw the abuse of power. They saw the acquisition of gross unexplained and unjustifiable wealth. And they simulated incomprehension, bewilderment, ignorance, amnesia, stupidity.
They were intelligent, in some cases, gifted men and women. Yet through their inertia, they subscribed to a constitutional nonsense, to a leader of their party, of successive Governments and of the country over long periods of office, acting against the country's interest and increasingly in his own personal interest. Several are in power at this moment, including the Taoiseach who enjoyed an extremely close and intimate association from the time he was Assistant Chief Whip of Fianna Fáil to his enjoyment of the powerful position of Minister for Finance.
Despite his attempts in recent years to distance himself from the Haughey era, this debacle has again reminded the public that the Taoiseach, for much of his political career, was Mr. Haughey's closest lieutenant. No amount of spin doctoring will erase this fact from the public consciousness.