Before we proceed with this matter, I remind Members that the subject matter of these statements relates to a sitting tribunal of inquiry established by the Houses under the relevant Acts. Under Standing Order 56, a matter should not be raised in such an overt manner as to appear to be an attempt by the Oireachtas to encroach on the functions of the courts or a judicial tribunal. When permission to raise a matter has been granted, there continues to be an onus on Members to avoid, if at all possible, comments which might, in effect, prejudice the outcome of proceedings. I would ask Members to bear this in mind when making their contributions.
Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 31: Newspaper Allegation.
I wish to share time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, a Labour Party representative and possibly a representative of the Green Party.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Taoiseach expressed frustration and anger in the House this morning that his business and the business of the Government was being constantly disrupted by the flow of allegations published in the media in recent weeks. He has focused his anger on the wrong target. My frustration and that of most Irish people is not with the drip-fed allegations, but with the drip-fed, half-baked responses to them from various sources. If speedy, comprehensive and definitive answers were provided to questions when they were raised, the Taoiseach's frustration might be a good deal less than it is.
All the matters which have emerged cannot be left to the tribunals to examine. Anything which can be answered should be answered immediately. The proceedings of the tribunal will not be prejudiced by straight answers being given to questions when they arise; indeed, the work of the tribunal might be assisted by its having notice of the answers given on particular matters before it considers them. The idea that the tribunal would be interfered with in some way by questions being answered is incorrect. The Taoiseach has called on Commissioner Pádraig Flynn to provide answers to matters which are before the tribunal. If that principle applies to Commissioner Flynn, it should also apply to other officeholders, including the Taoiseach, should the need arise. I am sure that will be the approach adopted by the Taoiseach in this matter.
The Taoiseach referred to the material in this morning's newspapers as "a load of lies". Yet, the nub of this morning's story actually emerged from a source in the Taoiseach's office. A person in the Taoiseach's office informed The Irish Times that a sum of money had been diverted from a passport account in the ICC to Fianna Fáil. If that statement had not been made to a journalist, there would not have been any story this morn ing. If the statement was a lie, then the Taoiseach might care to ask himself whether his own highly indirect methods of news management have contributed to what has happened today and to his rushed journey back from Wexford.
The journalist in question has publicly confirmed that she was told this money came from a passport account, which would clearly be understood by most reasonable people to mean the account into which money for investment was paid by the passport applicant in return for obtaining a passport. Political donations do not come within any understanding of investments, nor could loans to political parties be deemed to be investments. When the Government source confirmed money had been diverted from a passport account to Fianna Fáil, the issue became a legitimate matter of public concern.
If the donation had come from an account which had nothing whatever to do with the passport application, one would have expected the Government source, who has been aware of this allegation since last Friday, to have clarified matters earlier this week to the journalist, thereby avoiding this morning's story. The source did not do so. Perhaps the Taoiseach might vent the anger he vented this morning in this House somewhat closer to his own office.
It is not really relevant whether the money was a donation or a loan; indeed this morning's story simply states that the money was 'diverted' to Fianna Fáil, not that it would never be diverted back again. Presumably the money is still resting peacefully in the Fianna Fáil account in a blameless slumber that was quite undisturbed until the Taoiseach's source revealed its hiding place earlier this week.
Let me remind the House that the passports for investment scheme has a murky past and questions will be raised about it. It is well known and indeed, well documented in a reply to a question tabled by the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 1997, that the conditions applying to the scheme began to 'loosen' – to use his word – between 1988 and 1994. The former Minister for Justice, now newspaper columnist, Mrs. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, has also written that she was 'deeply concerned' about one particular passport for investment case. Against this regrettable background, it is important that the Taoiseach clarify and respond to reasonable queries raised by the revelations in this morning's newspapers.
The Taoiseach might like to inform the House whether Fianna Fáil received a donation in 1993 from a person who had benefited under the passports for investment scheme or whether the party received a loan from any such person. If so, he might reveal the identity of the donor or lender, the amount involved and whether the donation came from an investment account in the ICC Bank or a separate account. If it did come from a separate account, what was the nature of that account? If it was a separate account, why did a senior Government source inform a journalist in the past two days that it was a passport account? Perhaps the Taoiseach would reveal the identity of the authoritative Government source who supplies these newspaper stories which cause him such aggravation.
It would also be helpful if the Taoiseach would inform the House whether he has ever met the donor in question. He appears to know who the donor is and specifically stated that his party did not make representations on behalf of the donor so he has presumably carried out a lot of research on the matter. I do not know who the donor is. Has the Taoiseach ever met this man who was the beneficiary of a passport or of investment?
The issue of whether immunity was offered to Mr. Ray Burke was raised in The Irish Times story. I note the comments made by the Taoiseach on the Order of Business in this House this morning that he has no power to grant such immunity. He is absolutely correct in that. The Taoiseach claimed, in a burst of self-ignited anger this morning, that he had been personally accused of having something to do with immunities for particular witnesses. Perhaps he was listening to a different radio station than the one I listened to. I did not hear any such allegations and I was surprised the Taoiseach felt it necessary to deny an allegation which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been made.
It has not been alleged that the Taoiseach was personally involved in this. It would be quite amazing for a Taoiseach to involve himself in the issue of immunities. The activities of the DPP are entirely separate from the activities of the Taoiseach. There is no communication between the DPP and the Taoiseach of the day. I have no doubt the Taoiseach would not want to interfere with this. Even if he did, I do not believe he could interfere with the issue of immunities. There is no foundation in any suggestion of that kind. I did not hear any such allegation, although the Taoiseach seems to have heard one. I was surprised he reacted in the way he did because nothing of this kind could happen.
It would be helpful if the Taoiseach outlined what communications take place between the legal officers of the Government and the Flood and Moriarty tribunals and, in particular, what consultations take place between the legal officers of the Government and the tribunals on the issue of immunities. I understand a partial immunity was granted in one instance. How was that decided? What criteria are used to decide whether an individual qualifies for immunity? If, as was helpfully suggested to me, this may be done by the tribunal, does the DPP not have a role in the matter? If the DPP has a role, what is the respective role of the DPP and the tribunal in a matter of this kind?
The Taoiseach should give information to the House on this matter. He has some questions to answer about the matter that appeared in today's The Irish Times. He also has some questions to answer about the role sources in his office played in bringing about what happened.
Deputy Bruton raised specific questions which deserve responses. I want to broaden the issue and to raise other questions to which I want the Taoiseach to respond. Between 1988 and 1994, 66 passports for sale were issued and further passports were issued to spouses and children. Will the Taoiseach confirm if the passport in question was one of those 66?
It is clear from a series of questions I tabled on the passports for sale issue and from questions tabled by Deputy O'Malley that the procedures followed in the issuing of some of those 66 passports breached the Constitution, flouted the law and did not follow the Government guidelines which set out the basis on which such passports were to be issued. I would be interested to learn did that happen in relation to the passport in question.
Anybody seeking Irish citizenship must comply with provisions in Article 9 of the Constitution. Article 9.2 states "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.". To comply with that article one must make a declaration of loyalty and fidelity to the State. It is clear from investigations to date that the procedures followed in respect of ten of the 66 passports granted during that period did not qualify under that provision as the required declarations were not made. Was the passport in question one of those ten?
When applying for naturalisation it is necessary to produce evidence of good character to comply with the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act. It is clear from investigations to date that the procedures followed in respect of 49 of the 66 passports issued between 1988 and 1994 do not qualify under that Act. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the procedures in respect of the passport in question come under the category of the 17 that qualified or the 49 that did not?
This scheme was put in place as a result of a Government decision in December 1988. I am indebted to Deputy O'Malley for highlighting the facts of this scheme. The guidelines on the scheme were set forth in a reply to a question he tabled on 15 October. They state there must be substantial investment in the manufacturing or services sector of the economy, there must be the purchase of a substantial residence and proof of residence for a period of 60 days in the preceding two years. On that basis the Minister for Justice could be entitled to grant naturalisation leading to the issuing of a passport. It is clear that the procedures followed in relation to 56 of the 66 passports issued between 1988 and 1994 did not comply with the 60 days residence requirement. Does the passport in question fit into that category? It is also clear that 11 of those 66 passport holders did not purchase a residence in the State. Will the Taoiseach tell us if the passport holder in question fits into that category? A total of 49 of the 66 passport holders did not comply with the requirement to reside in the State. Will the Taoiseach indicate to what extent the application in question complied with the provisions of the Constitution, the law and the Government guidelines established on the basis of the decision made in December 1988? I emphasise the relevance of that decision because it was on that basis the scheme was operated up to 1994, when, as the Minister for Justice said in his review last year, the guidelines were introduced and were followed since.
It is also relevant to recall that the former Minister for Justice, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, in a debate in May 1994, stated that 25 of the 39 passports granted between 1992 and 1994, were in respect of soft option loans and, therefore, in breach of the Government decision of December 1988. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether the passport in question fell into that category and whether it was granted in respect of a soft option loan and, therefore, on that basis did it breach the Government decision?
I mentioned that the assiduous exertions of Deputy O'Malley were helpful in highlighting the facts of the scheme. It was also mentioned that his party colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, was helpful – I refer to his contribution to a debate on 31 May 1994.
Has the Deputy anything relevant to say?
Deputy Molloy pointed out at the time that he was informed by the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, of the business investment scheme and how it operated. He pointed out that each case was to be brought to the notice of the Taoiseach so that he might adjudicate on it and pass the matter on to the Minister for Justice. He also mentioned that he had brought two such investments to the notice of the then Taoiseach. Was the passport in question one of those two brought to the attention of the then Taoiseach by the then Minister, Deputy Molloy? Were other Cabinet Ministers in that Administration similarly informed by the then Taoiseach? Was the current Taoiseach so informed? Did a similar regime apply to him as applied to the then Minister, Deputy Molloy? Did the current Taoiseach or any of his colleagues question the role of the then Taoiseach, having regard to the law that applied and the Government guidelines? Did that procedure continue following the departure of the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, and his replacement by Deputy Reynolds as Leader of Fianna Fáil and Taoiseach?
These general questions follow up the specific questions put by Deputy Bruton. They focus on the passport in question. The specific questions raised by Deputy Bruton deserve a full reply. I want the Taoiseach to respond to my general questions, particularly in so far as they relate to the passport in question.
My position on the passports for sale issue is that I am not against the scheme per se, provided it is operated in accordance with due process and the law.
I am glad the Deputy clarifies that.
How many passports did the Deputy's party sell?
My position is the same as that held by the former Deputy Michael McDowell. I am in favour of the scheme in some circumstances provided it is implemented in accordance with the law and due process. I want to know if due process was followed and the provisions of the Constitution, the law and the Government guidelines were complied with.
The format of this debate is unsatisfactory. We on the Opposition benches are effectively operating with one hand tied behind our backs. On at least three occasions in the lifetime of this Dáil when debates under Standing Order 31 were granted by the Ceann Comhairle, agreement was reached between the Government and the Opposition on a format which would allow at least some time for questions. Today the Government Chief Whip, presumably at the instigation of the Taoiseach, refused point blank to agree to any time for questions.
The House decided.
The Opposition also suggested the Taoiseach should be allowed speak first so that he could set out his case in advance of contributions from the Opposition benches, and that he would then be allowed additional time at the end of the debate to respond. This was also turned down by the Government Chief Whip. It seems that despite all his pledges of openness and prom ises to answer questions, the Taoiseach is sheltering behind Dáil procedures.
The Deputy asked for a debate under Standing Order 31.
He wants simply to make a statement on which he cannot be questioned and then regard the matter as closed. This is not satisfactory, acceptable or consistent with the pledges he has repeatedly given. It is totally contrary to the pledge given by the Taoiseach in the House on 27 January 1999 when he said he would deal with any allegations put into the public domain.
There appears to be growing irritation in Government circles at being called to account following the publication of newspaper articles. My party has always supported tribunals, even when it was unfashionable amongst others to do so. We would like to see the tribunals currently under way finishing their work. It would be preferable that a general election should not interfere with their work, particularly an election called for the sole purpose of avoiding the implications of the findings of either tribunal.
However, I stress to colleagues who have been elected that it is not the Opposition which has been responsible for the stream of stories which has emerged in recent weeks. The Government and its backbenchers would do well to remember this. One analysis is that today's story, as Deputy Bruton said, may have come from a member of the Taoiseach's party. The Taoiseach would do well to get his own house in order before getting annoyed at others. The bottom line is that the fate of the Government depends on the Progressive Democrats Party and the Independents who support it. Once he is no longer able to count on that support, an election will ensue. The Labour Party, for its part, has never had confidence in the Government, but as we have hardly, if ever, voted with it, that is not exactly surprising.
The lead story in The Irish Times today is just the latest in a series of reports which have appeared over a number of years and that have raised questions about the involvement of Fianna Fáil personnel in the passports for sale scheme. The scheme first came to the attention of the general public and, I suspect, to most Members of the House, when it emerged in 1994 that a £1 million pound investment had been made under the scheme in the petfood company owned by the family of the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, and that two Saudi Arabians, Khaled Nasri and Najwa Nasri, had received Irish passports as a result.
The Labour Party was in Government at the time and it is no secret that the disclosures in 1994 created some discomfort for us. However, we accepted the then Taoiseach's word that he had no knowledge of the investment or the granting of the passports, difficult as this was to believe, especially given that Deputy Reynold's wife had been at the time a director of C&D Petfoods. The water was further muddied by the disclosure that then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, had given the applicants a character reference, although he claimed he did not know the recipient of the investment was the company owned by the family of his Taoiseach and party leader.
As a result, the Labour Party insisted that the terms of reference of an interdepartmental committee, which had been established earlier, be strengthened with the objective of ensuring that the scheme would inspire the "confidence of both investors and the people, and at the same time fulfil the scheme's primary purpose of job creation, protection and investment". We also insisted, in the face of considerable opposition from Fianna Fáil, on the earliest possible enactment of the Ethics in Public Office Act.
I was Minister for Enterprise and Employment at the time in 1993 and my Department had made a submission to the Government taskforce on small industries which argued very strongly for changes to the scheme. My Department objected, in particular, to naturalisation being made available on the basis of investment only, arguing that it should be provided only to the "entrepreneur who has been directly involved in the establishment of the business through his efforts and financial resources".
Subsequent reports added to public concern about the operation of the scheme. For instance it also emerged in 1994 that in 1990 the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government had granted passports to a group of 11 Saudi Arabian and Pakistani nationals, two of whom were under investigation on fraud charges arising from the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, BCCI. In this case there was also strong evidence to suggest that none of those who had obtained passports had actually taken up residency in Ireland although this was required under the conditions of the scheme at that time.
In regard to this case, an internal Department of Justice investigation confirmed that the procedures for issuing passports had not been followed by the then Minister for Justice, Ray Burke, and that most extraordinarily Mr. Burke had himself signed the certificates of naturalisation at his home on a Saturday night, directly departing from the practice whereby this function would be undertaken by a senior official of the Department. We also know that the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, delivered the passports to the recipients at a lunch in a Dublin hotel the following day.
Given this history, which is not disputed, the allegations made in The Irish Times this morning are of the utmost seriousness and raise questions of legitimate public interest. The story was written by a reputable journalist in a responsible newspaper.
That remains to be seen.
I pass no judgment on the contents of the article, but I look forward to hearing the Taoiseach deal with the issues raised in it. Before the Taoiseach turns his wrath on the Opposition parties, I draw his attention to the fact that the story in The Irish Times is based not on any claims made by Opposition parties, but on claims made by senior sources within his Government. Geraldine Kennedy repeatedly refers to “Government sources” as the basis of her claims. I am forced to conclude this can only mean people associated with either Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats.
When matters of political controversy are raised in the press and when allegations of the seriousness of those contained in The Irish Times article are raised, the Opposition has a duty to raise them in the Dáil and insist they are answered. If Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats Party were on this side of the House they would be doing exactly what we are doing. If they did not do so they would be failing in their duty. We did not raise these issues and we are not the source of them. Rather we are performing our function as Opposition Deputies, as Deputies on the Government benches would do if they were on this side of the House. The Taoiseach may find it irritating and annoying that he has to come into the Dáil to deal with such matters, particularly on a day when he was being honoured with the freedom of Wexford city. However, this is the way the process works in the Oireachtas. When the Labour Party was in Government, we came into the Chamber to answer questions raised by Fianna Fáil when that party was in Opposition.
They were probably real.
We will find out whether the allegations are real. The core allegation contained in the article was that a sum of around £10,000 – I am using the words which appeared in the article – was diverted from the ICC bank account of a passport investor to a Fianna Fáil account in another financial institution. Judging from lunchtime news reports, Fianna Fáil sources seem to be accepting that a transfer of money took place, but are denying that it was the account of a passport investor. The Taoiseach must spell out in detail, if he can, the precise sequence of events, giving all details, including the date on which the application for the passport was first made, when the investment was made, who the Irish beneficiaries of the investment were, when the passport was issued, and who the Minister for Justice was at the time it was issued. I think these are reasonable questions. Any Opposition Deputy or, indeed, Fianna Fáil or Progressive Democrats Deputy would table such a question for written reply in the form of a parliamentary question. There is nothing untoward in this regard.
There is a further set of questions which the Taoiseach may not particularly want to answer because they refer to his party political functions. Was the Taoiseach also treasurer of the Fianna Fáil Party at the time of the transfer? Was he aware of the transfer? Does he know how the transfer came about? Whose names, if that is relevant, were on the account into which the money was transferred?
I note that the Taoiseach said this morning that the file in question was now in the possession of the Moriarty tribunal. I presume the file in question is the Fianna Fáil file on this matter, if that is a reasonable assumption. In what circumstances was that presumed Fianna Fáil file passed to Justice Moriarty? Was it requested by the tribunal or was the file volunteered by Fianna Fáil or, if it was not a Fianna Fáil file, by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? I do not know.
Perhaps the most serious suggestion made in The Irish Times article was that an offer of limited immunity was made to Mr. Ray Burke at the Flood tribunal if, as stated in the story today, he “would tell all that he knew”, but, according to the story, this offer was subsequently withdrawn. The Taoiseach is on the record of this morning's Order of Business denying such an allegation, and I accept his word in that respect. However, I have to ask the Taoiseach what information, if any, does he have in respect of this suggestion or allegation? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the tribunal has sufficient powers to grant immunity if it considers it necessary to so do? Alternatively, does the law need to be amended to provide a greater degree of flexibility for Justice Flood in this regard?
I look forward to the Taoiseach dealing with these issues when he speaks. I regret that, under Standing Orders, I will not have an opportunity to put appropriate questions to him, if such arise or remain pertinent. In effect, as I said earlier, contrary to previous procedures, the Taoiseach has ensured that he does not have to answer questions this afternoon, but we will not be silenced by that should questions remain unanswered. I hope for all our sakes questions do not remain unanswered.
All the signs are, and I am getting them from the backbenches as I speak, of a Government at sixes and sevens. The tetchy and petulant manner of the normally unflappable Taoiseach which we saw here earlier today has been very evident. A senior Minister, who is away at the IMF, advised the Taoiseach not to give any more interviews, and the same Minister for Finance, in turn, was publicly rebuked from Paris by the Taoiseach. The Tánaiste's support for this Government, as far as I know, remains conditional and, more startlingly, the founding member and first leader of the Progressive Democrats denounced his Fianna Fáil colleagues in the most scathing and merciless manner.
The Taoiseach might well heed the words of Winston Churchill who pointed across the House of Commons to the Labour Opposition and said to a colleague, "that is the opposition: the enemy are on the benches behind us". We have, on the basis of Geraldine Kennedy's article, a Government in which senior figures are leaking against each other. A former senior Government figure who is to appear before the Flood tribunal hinted that he has more to tell and that his further evidence could implicate the Taoiseach. We have a Government so diverted by its internal problems that it is unable or unwilling to deal with serious problems, like mounting hospital and housing waiting lists.
In short, this Government is showing all the signs of an Administration on its last legs. We do not know when its final death rattle will be heard, but whenever that happens we will be willing and ready for the election that will ensue.
On a separate but related note, during the course of the afternoon I have been made aware that Government sources have put it around that I made representations on behalf of a Mrs. Elena Lindzon in connection with an application for a passport. She was a US citizen at the time. Having checked with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I would like to put the following on the record. I confirm that I supported the application for the passport on the basis of a genuine wish to invest in a company in west Cork. According to my inquiries, I wrote a letter to the Minister for Justice on 14 July 1993 in support of the passport application and I wrote again a year later urging that the passport be granted. I have to make an admission and confession that I even went so far as to hand write a note asking the then Minister for Justice to give urgent attention to this matter and to direct that it be granted. The Minister in question happened to be the former Deputy, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, and anybody on that side of the House who thinks she would take directions from me or anybody else has another think coming. However – this may come as a disappointment – I understand no difficulties have arisen in relation to the accompanying conditions to the granting of that passport and that all of them were honoured. The passport was subsequently granted by former Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn.
Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Higgins (Dublin West) agus an Teachta Ó Caoláin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This issue was also raised by the Green Party, An Comhaontas Glas, prior to the Order of Business this morning. The information we have is that contained in The Irish Times. That was limited enough but it raises a number of questions. The unfortunate thing is that those questions will have to be answered in one fell swoop by the Taoiseach rather than giving him the opportunity to deal with them one at a time. I trust the Taoiseach's associates in the media will be able to tease out the rest of the questions, as no doubt they will want to do.
The fact remains that a sum of money believed to be around £10,000 was diverted from an account of a passport investor into a Fianna Fáil account in 1993. The question which immediately comes to mind is how could this State money be transferred from one account into that of a non-Government body. What happened to that sum of money? If it was a political donation, why did it come from an account set up for the use of the State? We all wish to know who that investor was and if that person realised that serious questions would be raised if this procedure came to light. What pledges were made in terms of favours in return for the investment apart from the obvious passport which was, in itself, valued?
The Taoiseach was treasurer of Fianna Fáil from 28 January 1993, although he assumed the role in 1992. It seems that the former Deputy and Minister, Ray Burke, has now made allegations that the Taoiseach knew about this transaction. A question which will be raised is, who else knew? The allegation that the Taoiseach knew about this transaction was made by Ray Burke in his depositions to the Flood tribunal. James Gogarty has been given limited immunity for giving evidence in the Flood tribunal and former Dublin assistant city and county manager, George Redmond, has sought the same immunity.
Ray Burke had been given an informal indication that immunity would be forthcoming on the basis of his full co-operation with the tribunal. Following from that, Ray Burke made further statements in which he implicated the Taoiseach, such as, in the past few days the informal promise of immunity has been withdrawn and Ray Burke has been more reluctant to give evidence. Was it the Director of Public Prosecutions who offered immunity and under what circumstances was it withdrawn? Were other banks used by investors availing of the passports for investment scheme? Are similar transactions involved?
During his political career since the mid-1970s in which he has been a close associate of three senior Fianna Fáil figures who have been engulfed in financial allegations, namely, Mr. Haughey, Mr. Burke and Mr. Flynn, has the Taoiseach been the beneficiary of a payment, contri bution or gift from any source which, with the benefit of hindsight, he now considers to be unorthodox, unusual or irregular? Prior to becoming treasurer did the Taoiseach act as accountant for Fianna Fáil? Were its accounts independently audited and were they ever qualified?
The charities Bill is long awaited. From information that has come to light, there are 127 bodies benefiting from charitable status which are not in the public domain. Is the Taoiseach satisfied none of these is associated with Fianna Fáil fundraising activities? When will the Bill be published to ensure transparency, the lack of which has diverted us from important national issues. We are obliged to ask these questions.
Whatever the detail of this revelation, the real scandal is the passports for sale scheme. Trading Irish citizenship in the select club of the world's wealthy is a shameful pursuit. It brings shame on us as a nation, demeans our citizenship and mocks our birthright. While the world's wealthy are sold Irish citizenship, Irish passport holders in the Six Counties are denied the right to vote in elections that matter to them. Our emigrants have no vote. The selling of passports contrasts with the treatment meted out to those seeking refuge from political persecution in their homelands. Not belonging to the multi-rich, "Ireland of the Welcomes" is a different experience for them.
On Wednesday, 8 October 1997, the Taoiseach stated in reply to a question that the passports scheme was not established under legislation. Selling Ireland once meant betraying the nation, now it means big business but only the highest bidders need apply. Such schemes do little to enhance our international standing and leave the political managers of our affairs open to accusations, with or without a basis in fact. It is time to put such schemes and practices behind us for good.
(Dublin West): Apart from the merits of the question, this issue raises the relationship between big business, wealthy individuals and the political establishment. The passports for sale scheme was a grotesque affront to the concept of equality and democracy. The beneficiaries included the rotten rich, often drawn from the elite of totalitarian regimes, who could buy their way into Irish citizenship by virtue of the money they were supposed to invest – their ill-gotten gains from the exploitation of their people who enjoyed neither democracy nor fair play in terms of their incomes. Outright crooks have benefited from the scheme and swindled their way around Europe on the strength of it.
The Deputy should be more temperate about people who are not in the House.
(Dublin West): I am being restrained. Questions should be asked and answers given. What should be debated, however, is the political system and how it relates to big business. For several months there has been a continuous drip about the unhealthy relationship at the interface of big business and politics. In recent days there have been more dramatic revelations.
In 1985 the then Government of Fine Gael and Labour picked up the tab for the most powerful financial institution in the country, Allied Irish Bank, when its subsidiary, the Insurance Corporation of Ireland, went broke by virtue of reckless speculation on the world's insurance markets. The taxpayer was blithely called on to pick up the tab and no one knew if it would be repaid.
A few years later the same institution was involved in a massive swindling of the taxpayer by virtue of its offshore bank accounts scheme. It has been alleged that its tax liabilities were wiped out. This is under question. It engaged in covert activities at the expense of the taxpayer. It subsequently wiped out a debt of almost £200,000 of a former Fine Gael Taoiseach having previously wiped out the debt of a few hundred thousand pounds of a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach. A few years later it divided £200,000 between the main political parties.
What is needed is a debate on the relationship between the political system and big business. If the full story was known, there would be no need to torture anybody in an effort to squeeze out the truth bit by bit. The instances mentioned mirror the relationship between other business institutions and the main political parties. I cite the massive swindle of the 1993 tax amnesty as an example. Powerful vested private business interests scratch the backs of the main political parties and are handsomely massaged in return. Is it any wonder the people are cynical about what passes for politics and political institutions?
Everything should be brought out into the open. Publish the names of those who benefited from the tax amnesties. Let us have it out in the open. Publish how much they gave to political parties and how they influenced those parties to give them that tax amnesty and other benefits. Perhaps then we will have the full picture of the relationship between the major parties in Dáil Éireann and the fat cats of the economic establishment.
Standing Orders is a new issue in this House. I spend about 90 minutes per week answering questions on the Order of Business which is about double that spent by the previous Taoiseach. This is an obligation I have to the House. I also take requests under Standing Order 31 or any other debates agreed by the Chair. We have had more requests granted under Standing Order 31 by the present Ceann Comhairle than at any time since they were created and that is a matter for the Chair. I reject allegations that I do not answer questions.
Unlike my predecessors, I rarely miss the Order of Business as I like to be in the House. I missed one in this session and that was raised against me. I did not behave that way when the last Government was in office. No one from the Opposition can allege that I do not answer questions.
My first knowledge of anything to do with this issue was on Friday night, 5 February when a staff member asked me if I ever had an account in ICC or access to an account in ICC. He said that journalistic inquiries were being made to this effect. The allegation being made at that stage was that I had a large offshore account in ICC which was going to be exposed in one of the Sunday newspapers. I explained that I did not have such an account or access to one, and that I was not aware of anyone in my family or in Fianna Fáil who had access to such an account on my behalf.
On Friday, 12 February a specific question was put to one of my staff and he categorically denied the allegation concerning accounts in ICC. The matter was again raised by the journalist on Tuesday, 16 February. It was also raised on Wednesday evening, 17 February.
In the meantime, inquiries were being made on my behalf into all aspects of the issue, as additional information began to emerge. Most of the information has emerged in recent days. I am given to understand the Flood tribunal got the ICC files on the passport for investment scheme.
We are all aware of the controversy that has surrounded the passports for investment scheme which was discontinued by this Government last year. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform files are with the tribunal. Nevertheless, I want to share with the House the knowledge I have at this stage.
The files concerned are not Fianna Fáil files but the files of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which were given as part of all of the files asked for last year. The Minister went through the process of the order and the files were sent down. I am fairly certain that files were also sought from ICC by the tribunal and that they have been forwarded by the bank. I do not have that information officially but I believe it to be true.
Between 1989 and 1994 there were 66 investors. From 1989 to date, 163 people have been naturalised, they include 62 spouses and children and the total investment to date has been £95 million.
I am advised by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that individuals' names should not be used in this regard. The application in question was applied for through proper channels and used companies of the highest standing. The investment account moneys were invested in Penncastle, a ceramics company in Shanagarry, Cork.
The various and only representations were from Deputy Quinn. All involved varying degrees of urgency and were received and dealt with in the urgent manner requested. The approval was given by the Minister for Justice, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, and the passport was issued on 2 November 1994.
Under the scheme a reputable American businessman and his wife had two investment accounts in ICC in 1991 with the intention of obtaining an Irish passport. A third account was also opened which was a joint deposit account with Mr. Brian O'Carroll, an Irish businessman.
In July 1993, Mr. O'Carroll transferred £10,524.59 from the account in ICC on which he had signing powers. I am assured by the account holder this was not an investment account.
On being appointed party treasurer in 1993, I set about putting the party's finances in order and a fund-raising account was opened in Bank of Ireland, Baggot Street. The party was severely in debt at the time and one of the schemes we set up was a loan scheme whereby party workers were asked to donate funds to put party finances in order.
Fianna Fáil head office printed forms on which individuals would enter name, address and amount and indicate whether the amount was a contribution or a loan. From general recollection without access to the records, the scheme raised approximately £300,000. The majority of this money was by way of direct contributions and the balance was by way of interest free loans. The loans were always repayable on request and the scheme was intended to run for three years.
The entire party was involved in this scheme, including the national executive. Among other members of the national executive, Mr. Joe Brady was asked by Fianna Fáil headquarters to seek interest free loans in his constituency to help clear the party debt. One person he contacted was Brian O'Carroll. An interest free loan of £10,524.59 was received via Joe Brady, Roscommon, a member of the national executive finance committee, on 21 July 1993. The money was sent by credit transfer to a current account in the name of: Reynolds/Ahern at Bank of Ireland, Lower Baggot Street Branch, Dublin 2.
This account was opened by Fianna Fáil in early 1993. It was an ordinary fundraising account in the name of the party leader, trustees and the party treasurer. The account was opened in Bank of Ireland so that Fianna Fáil could build up a deposit of funds to enable it pay its loans and creditors. The account was in Bank of Ireland so the funds would be kept separate from the party's day-to-day operating accounts. Mr. O'Carroll had a joint account with the applicant.
The joint account holders agreed to make a loan of £10,500 to Fianna Fáil. The money was transferred from their account in the ICC Bank into the Fianna Fáil fundraising account. The account from which the money was transferred was not an investment account. The official name on the Fianna Fáil account was Reynolds/Ahern. The interest free loan has not been repaid, nor has any request been made to repay it. I became responsible for authorising the issuing of moneys from this account, on presentation of demands, by party accountants when I became leader of the party in December, 1994.
As to the people or institutions involved in this account it appears that nothing underhand, deceitful or criminal took place in the transfer of funds from the joint account to the Fianna Fáil account. All the persons involved acted with integrity, honesty and professionalism. Money was not diverted from any investment account into Fianna Fáil accounts. Statements that the money transferred to the Fianna Fáil account was the equivalent of putting IDA money into the account are without any basis. My programme manager categorically denies that he said the money was from an investment account. I did not have any knowledge of the transaction in question, nor would I have been reasonably expected to have had such knowledge. It was entirely a matter for the professional people employed to deal with it.
I did not and do not hold any account in the ICC. I have not ever taken any money from an ICC or Fianna Fáil account unless properly authorised to do so for specific purposes.
As regards the comments of Deputy Sargent. I do not believe I have ever done anything wrong concerning money in my 22 years in politics or prior to that. I would be honour-bound not to do so as a professional accountant. I hope I have not done so and I deem that I have not done so. I have not acted as an accountant for Fianna Fáil but only as a party treasurer. Being party treasurer does not mean that one checks every single detail. We pay people to do that but I take an active interest in ensuring that the party's accounts are audited quickly, that the trustees meet regularly and that the party fulfils its obligations. I endeavour to ensure that the party acts with honesty and integrity. My colleagues are of the highest standing. I have worked hard with them to introduce our own ethics code which will be finalised shortly. If I could get some co-operation from the House we could also get the ethics commission legislation through. I have been waiting for that for a year although the media blame me for not getting on with it. It is being sat on by a committee of the House. The committee should release it so we can introduce legislation.
The buck has to stop somewhere.
I am not nor have I been a beneficiary in any way of the ICC account. In particular, I wish to state that I never received moneys from this or any other so-called passport investment account. I never had anything to do with passport accounts, good, bad or indifferent, or off-shore accounts. The fact that the account was called Reynolds-Ahern was designed to nominate it as an official Fianna Fáil account, but certainly not a personal account referring to either of the two people named.
It is particularly unhelpful that newspapers would use leaked material of an alleged nature to try to build up a head of political steam on this or other matters to damage this Government at any time, but particularly when we are endeavouring to get on with important Government matters such as the peace process and Agenda 2000. The tribunals must have a view on the legality, correctness, justice and principles of common decency regarding people who leak, publish and broadcast tit-bits of supposedly damaging information which clearly undermine the work of the tribunals.
The House has given to the Moriarty and Flood tribunals the full authority and jurisdiction to deal in a comprehensive way with all these matters. The House should remind itself of its duties in leaving to the Moriarty and Flood tribunals the work it assigned to them and not seek to abrogate to itself the tasks we have already assigned to them. The tribunals, at the behest of this House, are the only places where the totality of these matters should be heard and decided upon.
On many of these issues it appears people have information from outside the House but check matters inside the House. I did not know until the past number of hours that the details of 15 ICC accounts went to the tribunal. I assume others knew that information. I did not know until last night that this file and others went to the Moriarty tribunal. However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform assures me this one did. I am not making allegations. I will be fair about these matters even if nobody else in the House is fair about them.
I could mention Deputy Quinn's name and go through all the letters. However, that is all tittle tattle also. These people did nothing wrong and I do not think the Deputy did anything wrong, although he pushed the matter. However, if the notes mentioned by the Deputy were done by one of my colleagues, the Opposition would be jumping up and down as if the House was about to fall in.
The difference is that notes were not left.
The Taoiseach mentioned the notes.
Deputy Rabbitte would mention the foundations of the State.
The Dáil does not matter.
The Deputy should stay quiet.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
What is happening is that people are throwing muck and hoping that some of it sticks. There have been five issues this week and I could mention five more on which people are digging around.
Do not stop now.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
I could come in armed very differently. I could bring in all the files that have gone to the tribunal because I have the records. I could say who did what during their time in office. I could go around the House and raise issues.
The Taoiseach is spending a lot of time on it.
Should that be taken as a threat?
The Deputies should be quiet.
The Tánaiste is looking decidedly uncomfortable.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
Is the Taoiseach threatening the Opposition?
Nobody is threatening anybody.
The Taoiseach should stick to his script.
It sounds like a threat, but they do not count here.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
The Deputy should not lose his temper. He is quick to lose his temper. As soon as anything gets to him, he gets excited.
Will the Taoiseach yield?
No.
The Taoiseach had said he will not yield, which is his prerogative.
The Taoiseach said he would go through the files of all the Deputies in the House.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
If I did not hear everything on "Morning Ireland" correctly this morning, I apologise.
Is the Taoiseach apologising?
Why did the Taoiseach not put on a spokesman?
A Deputy
He did not do so out of respect for the House.
Deputy Bruton misheard me. I said I could mention all the files relating to different Governments which have gone to the tribunal. That does not mean anything was wrong but I could play the innuendo game.
The Taoiseach is doing that anyway.
I am not doing that. The files relate to periods under different Governments.
The Taoiseach should not threaten the Opposition.
Nobody is threatening anybody. Who is getting threats all week?
The Taoiseach should look behind him.
Deputy Bruton said I was getting excited about immunity, but that he did not raise the issue. However, the Deputy's notice under Standing Order 31 mentioned an offer of immunity to someone willing to testify to the Flood tribunal.
There is no mention of the Taoiseach.
What else could one read into it?
What else was it about?
It is a legitimate issue.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
A question was asked about the diversion of money. Deputy Quinn's notice under Standing Order 31 states:
The allegations made in a newspaper article that a sum of around £10,000 was diverted from the account of a passport investor to a Fianna Fáil controlled account in another financial institution in 1993 at a time when the current Taoiseach was treasurer of the Fianna Fáil Party and the need for the Taoiseach to make a full statement on the matter.
Deputy John Bruton's notice states:
The admission by a Government source today that money has been accepted by Fianna Fáil from a passports for investment investor;
Deputy Gormley's notice sought the adjournment of the House "to allow time for a debate on the revelations that a transfer of £10,000 from an ICC account of a passport investor to a Fianna Fáil account in another institution took place in 1993."
To what is the Taoiseach referring?
I am outlining the questions which were raised and trying to answer them.
It sounds like the Taoiseach is reading a telephone book.
The Deputy appears upset.
Mr. Burke has the Taoiseach upset.
The Taoiseach has plenty of reasons to be upset.
Not at all. I am enjoying myself.
Reading a telephone book is more interesting than listening to the Opposition.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
Geraldine Kennedy said the account into which the £10,000 was diverted seems to have been in the name of Fianna Fáil specifically, that money paid for passports is State funds and how could it be a political donation. The RTE commentator said it would be extremely serious if Fianna Fáil asked for money in the passports for sale scheme. The facts are now clear. The money was transferred and not diverted from a deposit account in ICC into a Fianna Fáil fundraising account in the Bank of Ireland.
From the investor, not the account.
Deputies Bruton, Shatter, Gay Mitchell and Jim O'Keeffe asked about the allegation that I was aware of the donation. Those points were listed this morning and are covered in my notes in reply to questions asked outside the House. I had no knowledge of the transaction or any other detailed transaction of this nature. Professional people work in that area.
Deputy Bruton asked about the claim that an offer of immunity to somebody willing to testify on these matters at the Flood tribunal was withdrawn. I had no knowledge of any of these matters until they were in the media this morning. I understand it is solely a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and nobody, good, bad or indifferent, raised this matter with me in relation to the former Deputy Burke or anything else about the former Deputy.
Another question was whether I had reported this issue to the Moriarty tribunal. The RTE commentator said on "Morning Ireland" this morning that it is extremely serious if the Moriarty tribunal has not been informed. All the files of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are with the Moriarty tribunal. Since I have no knowledge of the issue, or of any wrongdoing in this instance, I could not have been expected to refer it to the tribunal.
I have answered all the issues raised to the best of my ability. I have no argument or issue with anybody on these matters. The Fianna Fáil Progressive Democrats Government is clean on all of these issues which have been thrown at us this week.
Question, "That the Dáil do now adjourn", put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 February 1999.