Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999

Vol. 501 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - EU Commissioner: Motion.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I move:

That Dáil Éireann–

–recalling its Resolution of 10 February, 1999, notes with dismay the content of Commissioner Flynn's reply to this Resolution read into the Dáil record by the Taoiseach on 2 March;

–and noting that the Chairman of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters has indicated that he would respond to any request that might be addressed to him by the Clerk of the Dáil on behalf of the Oireachtas; asks the Clerk of the Dáil, on behalf of its members, to obtain from the tribunal information as to the advice it is claimed by Commissioner Flynn constrains him from making a full, immediate statement clarifying his position in relation to allegations that he received £50,000 while Minister for the Environment in 1989 and as to whether the tribunal is of the opinion that Commissioner Flynn is absolutely constrained from making a public statement in response to the Dáil Resolution or could be so released either by the tribunal or by the terms of the Resolution of Dáil Éireann of 10 February, 1999.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The House will be aware of the history of this motion. Yet again, Fine Gael has found it necessary to give over its Private Members' time to deal with this matter because there appears to be reluctance elsewhere to do so.

On 10 February last this House passed a motion calling for an explanation from Commissioner Pádraig Flynn. The Taoiseach communicated the contents of the motion to the Commissioner in a letter dated 11 February 1999. That motion called on the Commissioner to make a full and immediate statement clarifying his position in relation to allegations that he received £50,000 while Minister for the Environment in 1989. It also noted that the Dáil had established a tribunal to inquire into certain allegations and the necessity for the Flood Tribunal to be allowed to complete its work independently and without delay.

The Taoiseach's letter to the Commissioner, which he read into the record of the Dáil last week, stated:

I am confident that, without prejudice to your legal rights or the independence of your present position, you will wish to give careful and serious consideration to your response to the formally expressed wishes of Dáil Eireann, as the body which is the democratic voice of the Irish people.

The motion Dáil Éireann passed was the Government amended motion which, presumably, was placed with the full knowledge of the Government's legal adviser, the Attorney General. The House is confident the Attorney General would not have approved the Government amendment to the Fine Gael motion if he had any doubts about the appropriateness of the Dáil seeking an explanation.

Why, in the absence of an explanation, should this House presume the alleged payment was in whole or in part related to the work of the Flood Tribunal? The alleged donation could, for example, relate to other matters of concern to the House not covered by the terms of reference of the Flood Tribunal. For all we know, Mr. Flynn could be a witness at the wrong tribunal.

The Commissioner's reply, received by the Taoiseach last week and also read into the record of the House by the Taoiseach, claimed that the Commissioner could not respond to the Dáil because he had been requested by the tribunal's representatives not to discuss or divulge to any persons the matters he discussed with the tribunal.

Fine Gael sought clarification from the tribunal on this matter. The solicitor to the tribunal replied that the sole member of the tribunal would respond to any request that might be addressed to him by the Clerk of the Dáil. The purpose of this motion is to give the Dáil the opportunity to direct the Clerk to request the necessary information from the tribunal.

Any fair observer will note that the contents of my opening speech on 10 February were fair, reasonable and balanced. Furthermore, the motion to which I was then speaking sought to provide due process by allowing the Commissioner a number of weeks to furnish an explanation. Not only has there been no explanation, but the Commissioner seeks to imply that the tribunal has advised him not to divulge to Dáil Éireann matters of direct concern to Dáil Éireann, that is, whether a member of the Executive received a £50,000 cheque from a man who came to discuss policy with him in his Department and the circumstances surrounding that.

As I said on 10 February, the questions the Commissioner must answer are as follows. Did Mr. Flynn, while a Minister, receive a £50,000 cheque from Mr. Gilmartin? Did he receive this money in his Department office from a man who came to talk to him about departmental policy? If he received £50,000, what were the circumstances surrounding the gift and to what purpose was the money put? Did Mr. Flynn contact Mr. Gilmartin subsequent to the establishment of the Flood Tribunal to discuss with him what Mr. Gilmartin proposed to say or had said to the tribunal's lawyers? Did he seek to get him to change his sworn statement to the tribunal? If he did, how does he reconcile that with his now stated position that the tribunal's representatives requested him not to discuss with or divulge to any person the matters he discussed with the tribunal. If this advice was given to witnesses, why did he seek to discuss evidence with another witness? Mr. Flynn had no bother discussing the matter on "The Late Late Show".

The House must test his claim with the tribunal by passing this motion. When it was discovered that the former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, had a case to answer in relation to moneys allegedly received by him while also holding office, he not only resigned from Government but he left public life. With similar allegations hanging over Mr. Flynn, not only has he not replied to them but he expects to continue in public life and to clock up a third pension, in addition to his Dáil and ministerial pensions, in the hope that his term of office will have come to an end before the tribunal examines him or reports its findings on his evidence.

Mr. Flynn's evidence may or may not relate to the work of the Flood Tribunal, wholly or in part, and may be of direct concern to the role of this House. That is why we must seek this explanation. It is not good enough that we wait until Mr. Flynn is a private citizen before we receive public explanations from him about public allegations not only that he received £50,000 but that he spent a considerable period of time trying to persuade the donor to sing from the same hymn sheet in giving an account of the circumstances surrounding the donation. The donor has claimed at all times that the money he gave was for Fianna Fáil. However, Fianna Fáil says it did not receive the money.

The Taoiseach spoke to Commissioner Flynn on 23 December last, according to his statement in the Dáil, and spoke to him again last week in Brussels. At no time has the Taoiseach raised this matter personally with Commissioner Flynn. That is an extraordinary situation. What evidence does the Taoiseach have to satisfy himself that the alleged receipt of £50,000 by a serving Minister in totally unacceptable circumstances wholly relates to the terms of reference of the Flood Tribunal? Why is he so ready to accept it does and to leave it at that? The House will be forgiven if it gets a feeling of déja-vu.

Would this happen in any other country? Suppose Mr. Gordon Brown, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, met a man, hardly known to him, in his office tomorrow to speak to him about policy issues and he obtained from him a £50,000 cheque which he said to leave on his desk with the payee section blank and which he then retained for his own use, although the donor presumed he was giving it to the British Labour Party, which would be unacceptable in the circumstances of a person meeting a member of the British Cabinet to discuss Government business, and that Mr. Gordon Brown then became an EU Commissioner and it was subsequently discovered that he had done this, does anyone here believe he would still be an EU Commissioner although he would refuse to give any explanation except for some loose talk on the "Parkinson" television show? Mr. Brown would have resigned or would have been hounded out of office unless he had made a satisfactory public explanation.

Why should the people be treated with the contempt and dismissive attitude of not only Commissioner Flynn but of a half-hearted Taoiseach who has not been up even one tree in Brussels in similar circumstances? Not only are these question marks hanging over the three former Fianna Fáil Cabinet Ministers, Mr. Haughey, Mr. Burke and Mr. Flynn – 20 per cent of the then Cabinet of 15 – but during the same period the procedures used for and the involvement of other Ministers in the sale of assets of the State, specifically passports and Carysfort College, remain unexplained.

The 1937 Constitution set about dividing the powers of the State. We have a Head of State, a Government, two Houses of Parliament and independent courts. Specifically, the Constitution reserved to Dáil Éireann the right to elect a Taoiseach, ratify the appointment of a Government and hold that Government accountable to it. Though the Flood tribunal is an instrument of the Houses of the Oireachtas, it is neither a court of law nor a chamber of Parliament. It is to Parliament, specifically to Dáil Éireann, that accountability by the Executive for actions of the Executive must be made.

There are those who, in another context, the late Dr. John Kelly used to call the sneaking regarders, who want to buy cover for those former Ministers who have specific allegations to answer by implying that this was normal behav iour and that everybody was at it. There are others who want to imply that all Fianna Fáil politicians are at it. I know both of these statements to be incorrect; I said that on the record of the Dáil a long time ago. I am not in the habit of making allegations against any Member or former Member of this House. I do not relish doing my duty here this evening by pursuing this matter further, but as my party spokesperson on foreign affairs, I will do that duty without fear or favour. This House must also do its duty without fear or favour. This is not some parlour game. It is a matter of serious constitutional importance. It is a question of accountability to the people and one of accountable stewardship.

To follow Commissioner Flynn's current claim to its logical conclusion, if an allegation were made against a serving member of the Government, and that member offered to appear at the tribunal to answer claims of the kind made against Commissioner Flynn, a member of the Government could claim that he or she could not answer questions in this House because a representative of the tribunal appointed by this House had requested him or her not to discuss or to divulge to any person the matters he or she discussed with the tribunal. If this were allowed to happen, it would clearly bypass the checks and balances set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann. Indeed, Ray Burke would still be in office.

The Government has pulled its punches for too long on this issue. I realise there are Members of the House who find this whole business painful and unedifying, but the circumstances of this case are such that we are entitled to an explanation and we must seek that explanation. We would be failing in our duty as the public watchdog if we did not pursue this matter to the stage where we at least get an explanation. Our duty is to be watchdogs, not bloodhounds. We would be failing in our duty not to pass the motion here this evening. If we do not do so, we will have eliminated the most important check and balance provided by the Constitution, that is, collective responsibility of the Executive for the action of its members in office and accountability by those members, collectively and individually, to this House.

The time has come to put an end to the prevarications of both Commissioner Flynn and the Taoiseach. Is the Taoiseach aware of the corrosive effect this whole affair is having on public confidence in the political system? The farce must stop. There must be no more embarrassing meetings in Brussels with the two sides contradicting each other as to whether the £50,000 was discussed. There must be no more unanswered letters, which are not followed up, from party headquarters. We must have no more hiding behind tribunals and lift doors. Let the facts be brought out now. The explanation required from Mr. Flynn relates to serious allegations against him as a Minister in the Government. That he be required to explain his actions is a basic function of democracy.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I do not recall in my time in politics more serious allegations against a figure in public life than those levelled against Commissioner Flynn, and I emphasise the word "allegations". Be that as it may, the allegations have been made and they are extremely serious. They relate to the alleged receipt by him of £50,000 ten years ago while he was Minister for the Environment. The second very serious allegation is that when he was approached about the matter by somebody from the media, he attempted to interfere with the evidence of a prospective witness to the tribunal, Mr. Gilmartin. I cannot think of a more serious allegation against anybody in public life.

We have not had a response from Commissioner Flynn to these extremely serious allegations. He has not denied them and from the point of view of his public comments, there is some suggestion that he may accept the truth of these allegations and try to explain them, but we have had no comprehensive statement from him. In the meantime, he continues in office.

The Members of this House did their public duty last month. They examined the issue and, while there were some differences among Members on how the resolution should be expressed, the decision of the House was to call on the EU Commissioner for Social Affairs, Pádraig Flynn, to make an immediate full statement clarifying his position on allegations that he received £50,000 while Minister for the Environment in 1989. Not alone has he declined to respond to this call from Dáil Éireann, it could be suggested he has treated it with contempt. He has written a letter in response to the Taoiseach, the first formal response as far as this House is concerned – apparently he has not yet responded to the letter written to him by the General Secretary of the Fianna Fáil Party last September.

However, I am not focusing on that letter but on his response to the Dáil call for a full and immediate statement. Effectively, he refused to respond to that call or he is trying to do so. He used as an excuse an issue he raised after the call was first made. It can be summed up in one sentence of his letter: "At the outset when my co-operation was sought by the tribunal, it was requested by the tribunal representatives that neither I nor my legal advisers would discuss with or divulge to any person the matters discussed with the tribunal".

We are not seeking details of discussions between Commission Flynn and the tribunal. They are a matter for himself. I have no idea of the range of those discussions. They could have covered all types of details or facts which are not covered by the Dáil call to Commissioner Flynn. While I make no suggestion of that nature, the discussions could have related to issues such as immunity in certain circumstances. These issues are legitimate for discussion between prospective witnesses and tribunal representatives. Discussions of that nature have taken place between other witnesses not just at the Flood tribunal but also at the Moriarty tribunal.

The Dáil is not seeking details about discussions of that nature. They are not a matter for the House. One could draw the analogy further. It is possible that Commissioner Flynn might have discussed this matter with his confessor. He could have bared his soul in confession. If so, that is his own business. The Dáil is not seeking that details of discussions with his confessor, if they took place, be disclosed to the Dáil. It is seeking, indeed demanding, what was stated in the motion passed by the House, that the Commissioner make a full and immediate statement clarifying his position in relation to allegations that he received £50,000 while Minister for the Environment in 1989. This House has not yet received such a statement.

I cannot accept that the Commissioner is entitled to raise spurious excuses for not responding to that call. Effectively, he appears to have made a strategic decision to hide behind the skirts of the tribunal. I and Members of the House do not believe he is entitled to do that. The approach we should adopt is to pursue this matter to ensure that the reasonable and legitimate call of the Dáil is given a response.

It is important, in discussing the technical points of this issue, not to lose the central point. This was an enormous sum of money ten years ago. A sum of £50,000 was sufficient to buy a five bedroomed house in Dublin and that is the amount of money involved.

Despite the reticence of the Commissioner's response to the resolution of the Dáil, it should not be forgotten that, in many ways, Commissioner Flynn made the decision to bring this matter into the public domain. It was his choice to appear on "The Late Late Show" last January and to speak freely about these matters. It is legitimate to ask if he was constrained by his discussions with the tribunal representatives when he appeared on that show. While I was driving through my constituency yesterday morning, I was astounded to hear Commissioner Flynn answering a question about this issue on "The Pat Kenny Show" on the radio. Apparently, an extended version of the interview was broadcast on the "Brussels to Belmullet" show later that day. Therefore, the Commissioner was on the radio twice yesterday speaking about this issue yet he has the gall to suggest that it is reasonable to hide behind the skirts of the tribunal to explain his lack of response to the Dáil. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Ultimately, all public representatives are responsible to the public. The Opposition has tried to deal with this matter in a reasonable manner. It is clear there is no vindictiveness on our part. When the rainbow Government came into office with Deputy John Bruton as Taoiseach in 1994, the renomination of Commissioner Flynn was confirmed. There can be no suggestion of vindictiveness.

Mr. J. Bruton

Certainly not.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

We have a job to do. All Deputies are answerable to the public, including members of the Government parties. The public is seeking an explanation. Is it reasonable that the public should have to wait a year before Commissioner Flynn might or might not appear before the tribunal? That is outrageous. In no circumstances can it be accepted.

We, as public representatives, have a duty to ensure that the resolution of the Dáil is heeded. The motion before the House is entirely reasonable in the context of the response given by the Commissioner. I hope and expect that no constraint will be put on the Dáil in doing its duty. Any discussions held heretofore by Commissioner Flynn with the tribunal can be as confidential as he wishes and any further discussions he might have are his own business. That is not what is at issue. We are discussing a straightforward proposition, that he respond to the questions outlined by my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell. If he fails to do so, consequences should follow.

The Commissioner has been given a more than reasonable opportunity to deal with this matter. At one stage in this controversy his position was described as "impossible". That term was not used by Fine Gael but by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney. Is it not fair to say that his position will become even worse if he continues to pursue his current argument? I will cover another issue before allowing my party leader to intervene briefly in this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy wish to share his time with Deputy John Bruton?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

What reasonable effort did the Taoiseach make since he first became aware of this allegation? I do not know how far back this goes. Perhaps he might tell us that some time. It seems no effort of any consequence was made by him to get to the truth. As Taoiseach, leader of the party of which Commissioner Flynn is a member and given that he was treasurer of the party at that time and would have been responsible for dealing with the sum of money that was alleged to have been payable to the party, surely he has a duty in this matter. He has been lax in the performance of that duty. When he talked about the recovery of moneys to the Fianna Fáil party, it struck me that the statute of limitations would come into play if he continues to deal with the matter in this way.

Whether one is in Government or Opposition, a member of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or the Progressive Democrats, we all have a duty in this matter. It is not a pleasant one, but one we must all discharge. We will not be forgiven by the public if we fail to do so. That is why we must insist on the call of the Dáil being responded to. If that step is not taken by the Commissioner, we must follow this matter to its logical conclusion.

Mr. J. Bruton

I wish to intervene briefly in the debate to express my appreciation to the Government, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and other Ministers for accepting the thrust of the Fine Gael motion. The amendment tabled by the Government to our motion is reasonable and acceptable.

It is important that we understand that those who hold high political office must operate to a different standard from a normal defendant in a criminal case or a normal person whose activities may be the subject of investigation by a tribunal. A defendant in a criminal or any other case or a non-public figure appearing before a tribunal is entitled to refuse to answer questions and to say he or she will give answers when he or she appears before a tribunal. A different requirement applies to those of us who hold responsible public office at a particular time. If one is a member of a Government or a Commissioner, one is in a different position from an ordinary citizen who might be the subject of an investigation.

Commissioner Flynn failed to understand that in the response he gave to the House which the Taoiseach read out. His response was not unreasonable for someone who thought he or she might appear before a tribunal or might be the subject of legal proceedings and wanted to keep his or her powder dry. That is perfectly reasonable, but Commissioner Flynn is not in that position. He is one of our most prominent office holders. He holds an office he obtained because of decisions taken by Members of this House. If this House asks for information, he has an obligation to give answers. He had no right to seek to use the arguments he advanced in regard to his dealings with the tribunal.

I do not believe, although we will know the answer in due course, that the tribunal imposes any absolute constraint on people answering legitimate questions on subjects upon which they may subsequently be examined by the tribunal. Any answers Commissioner Flynn may give in public now to the questions put to him by the Dáil would be of advantage to the tribunal subsequently in the sense that they would be in the public arena and open for examination by everybody well in advance of the oral hearings of the tribunal in respect of which Commissioner Flynn could be a witness. By giving his answers in good time, there would be more opportunity for everyone to examine them and test them against other evidence and so on.

If the answers are perfectly reasonable, as one must assume they are although we do not have evidence to that effect yet, there is no difficulty for Commissioner Flynn in giving reasonable answers now which he proposes to give subsequently to the tribunal. If the answers are reasonable, they will be as reasonable now as they would be in ten months' time when they are unveiled to the tribunal. If they are reasonable, they are reasonable at any time. What problem should Commissioner Flynn have in giving them to the tribunal?

In seeking to adopt the posture of a defendant in a criminal case and stating that he would not say anything that might incriminate him, he is raising more questions than ought to be raised. He was ill advised politically in the course he took. I am not so certain that legal advisers are necessarily the best people to advise one on what is the right thing to do in a political circumstance. If his answers are reasonable, as one must hope they are, there is nothing to be lost from giving them now. If, on the other hand, his answers are not reasonable, that is another question. That is all the more reason we should insist on getting them now. We cannot have someone holding office who is under a cloud. The Taoiseach expressed such an opinion on one or two occasions. It was reported in one of the newspapers that he suggested that under the new code of conduct that will apply to his party, people would have to be only accused and they would be out the door, although I am sure he did not say that.

The course we are adopting here is good and I compliment the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, on his magnanimity and statesmanship in accepting this motion.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"Dáil Éireann

–noting that it has established a tribunal to inquire into allegations concerning the planning process;

–noting the necessity for the tribunal to be allowed to complete its work independently without delay;

–noting the motion of Dáil Éireann on Wednesday, 10 February, 1999;

–noting the letter from EU Commissioner Social Affairs, Pádraig Flynn, which the Taoiseach read into the record of the House on Tuesday, 2 March, 1999;

–noting the letter on behalf of the sole Member of the tribunal to the Clerk of the Dáil enclosing correspondence which indicated that the tribunal would respond to any request made by the Dáil –

requests the sole Member of the tribunal to state whether

(a) tribunal representatives requested Commissioner Flynn or his legal advisers not to discuss with, or divulge to, any person the matters discussed with the tribunal

(b) Commissioner Flynn is now free to make a full statement as requested by Dáil Éireann."

I wish to share my time with Deputy Killeen.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Mr. Dempsey

Only last month the Dáil debated the Fine Gael motion which asked EU Commissioner Pádraig Flynn to give a full and immediate explanation concerning the allegations regarding Mr. Tom Gilmartin. When I spoke in this House on 10 February on the motion, I called for the Commissioner to give such an explanation. I stated that the Government believed a clarification would be in the interests of all, including the Commissioner. The Commissioner responded and I welcomed that. The Taoiseach, to whom the response was addressed, indicated that the reply goes some way towards explaining the position, and that we have to respect Commissioner Flynn's right to have the matter fully dealt with by the planning tribunal.

During the last debate, while calling on the Commissioner to make a statement, the Government at the same time expressed its concern that this House should avoid, either unwittingly or otherwise, acting in a manner which would constitute attempted political interference in the ongoing work of a tribunal established by the House. Those concerns remain as valid for the purposes of this debate, perhaps even more so.

It is absolutely vital that the greatest caution should be exercised in dealing with a tribunal of inquiry. The Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments was set up with the express purpose of establishing, among other things, whether there has been any corruption in the planning process. The Dáil must leave the tribunal to get on with its work of establishing the truth. As we have stated before, the time to debate the matters under discussion in the tribunal is when the tribunal has reported. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that there should be any departure from that principle. In such circumstances it is of paramount importance that the wording of the relevant motion should be framed in a way which protects the independent nature of the tribunal.

The Government recognises the special public circumstances of Commissioner Flynn's position. It also recognises those circumstances mean there should be no misunderstanding of the constraints, if any, placed on him.

It was against this background of balanced consideration of all relevant factors that the Government considered the Fine Gael motion. The Government's position is that it can accept the thrust of the motion to the extent that it seeks to obtain clarification from the tribunal. It could not, however, accept the terms in which the motion was expressed.

The Government's concerns about the wording of the motion can be traced back to its roots in the letter which the Chairman of the Fine Gael parliamentary party wrote to the tribunal directly last Thursday. The Fine Gael letter expressly implies that its purpose was to obtain a reply from the tribunal which would help it decide whether it should use its Private Members' time to debate the matter. It is not acceptable that a political party should seek a statement from an independent tribunal of inquiry to assist it to decide its political strategy.

From its response, it is obvious the tribunal of inquiry was placed in a difficult situation by Fine Gael. The letter sent to the Fine Gael Party, a copy of which was sent to the Clerk of the Dáil, stated the sole Member of the tribunal "considers that it would be likely to create an undesirable precedent if the tribunal were to comment to any political party or individual in relation to the confidential working of the tribunal".

The tribunal did, nevertheless, state that it would respond to any request that might be addressed to it by the Dáil. Where the Dáil decides that it needs to so address itself to the tribunal, it is vital that it would do so in a considered and even-handed fashion.

The Government believes the wording of the Fine Gael motion did not meet these tests. This is clear from the opening words of motion where it calls on the House to note "with dismay" the content of Commissioner Flynn's letter – that is a call for the House to make a judgment which we, its Members, are not in a position to make. We cannot prescribe terms of reference for a tribunal of inquiry which asks it to carry out preliminary investigations in private and then express feelings of dismay when those private investigations are not divulged on request.

We cannot place the tribunal in a position where it is expected to make public detailed, confidential advice on private preliminary investigations which it may have given to any witnesses or informants to the tribunal. Equally, we should not ask the tribunal to make a determination on how much information any person should divulge, notwithstanding being requested to keep such matters confidential. We would be tantamount to asking every witness in the tribunal to discuss his or her proposed evidence in public in so far as such disclosure would not breach any limit on disclosure which the tribunal asked to be respected. That would be the outcome of the Fine Gael motion.

The special public circumstances of Commissioner Flynn's position mean that there should be no misunderstanding of the constraints placed on him. The Government has therefore tabled an amendment which proposes to ask the sole Member of the tribunal to state whether tribunal representatives requested Commissioner Flynn or his legal advisers not to discuss with, or divulge to, any person the matters discussed with the tribunal and whether the Commissioner is free to make a full statement.

The main advantage of the amended motion is that it will ensure there is clarity regarding the positions of the tribunal and the Commissioner without putting the tribunal in an impossible position by asking it to determine in detail how much the Commissioner can say publicly about his evidence. There is nothing more we can or should do without stepping over the boundary of what is proper.

I genuinely appreciate Fine Gael's response to the Government amendment. By agreeing to it, the party found it possible to recognise that there were deficiencies in its own motion. Its attitude is a vindication of the balanced and careful consideration which the Government has given to this matter. It is also an indication that the party accepts the Government's bona fides in this matter.

As Minister for the Environment and Local Government, I have made it clear in the past, and I state again in the House this evening, that I want to see the planning tribunal getting to the truth. If there has been wrong in the past, I want to see it rooted out and I want to see the system cleansed.

I remind the House that I will introduce two important Bills affecting local authorities later this year. The first is a major local government Bill, the publication of which will mark the 100th anniversary of our present system. Drafting is also under way on a planning and development Bill which will modernise and consolidate all aspects of planning law in Ireland.

These Bills are relevant to the subject matters which are currently before the Flood tribunal. As I stated in the House last summer when the Government introduced a motion extending the terms of reference of the Flood tribunal, the various legislative and administrative reforms which I am bringing to the planning system will be for nought if the public does not have confidence in the planning and political systems.

It is in everyone's interest to establish the truth now, to lift the dark cloud of suspicion over the planning system, local authorities and public representatives, and to start afresh, renewed and reinvigorated.

The great majority of elected representatives and officials work honestly and diligently. They deserve to be vindicated. I hope the two tribunals now operating in Dublin Castle will serve to bring to light any past wrongs and ensure they cannot recur in the future.

Mr. Killeen

While I am glad there is agreement on tonight's motion, I am not convinced that debating it serves as positive a function as we would wish. A committee of this House completed a report last week on proposals for additional ethics legislation. It is clear there is a need for it. As Chairman of that committee, I had the opportunity to study a large amount of material concerning ethics legislation in other countries. It put some of our difficulties in context. It also points up the need for a more effective way to deal with them. I thank all the Deputies involved for their help in doing a difficult job. One of the points frequently made by those who have studied ethics regimes in public life in various jurisdictions is that invariably the politicisation of issues demeans all those involved and all those in public life who are not involved. We need to find a method to ensure these matters can be dealt with without damaging the body politic.

In this instance, it is agreed by all sides that a political donation of £50,000 to one individual, especially in a politically sensitive position, needs explanation. If reliable evidence is provided that it was intended for the Fianna Fáil Party, its recovery must be pursued, though it is difficult to see how this could be of benefit to Fine Gael or any other party. This donation may also have been relevant to the other tribunal.

However, the fundamental point is whether this motion makes an explanation more or less likely, whether it makes the work of the tribunal more or less difficult, and perhaps even more importantly, whether it makes more difficult consequent action in pursuit of any wrongdoers who may be found to exist. That consideration must be uppermost at all times when debating matters such as this.

I want to consider the motion in the context of the lessons Parliament can learn from it in shaping future legislation and policy. We also have to look at the effect of the motion in the short-term. The Minister dealt with some of its shortcomings and undesirable side effects. One element of the motion as put down is the public duty argument. There is some merit in that. However, we are operating in a political context and there has been a wide political sweep to the contributions so far.

This is a political institution and we all accept the reality that on occasion, the Opposition sees opportunities to embarrass the Government which are sometimes too good to pass up. In this instance, a "no confidence" motion was originally intended. This was reconsidered for various reasons; it was clearly considered politically unwise. The background to that involves the present negotiations in Europe, Objective One status etc. and a question I heard put to the Minister for Finance last week as to whether the Commissioner was in our corner on this issue. This sets at naught the attempt to present the House's concern with good behaviour in that context. Clearly, there is an element of "Tadhg an dá thaobh" which decides that a more cautious approach is taken because there are political considerations.

If a little more imagination had been applied to this motion, it would have served at least two other purposes, first it would support the tribunal rather than undermine it and second, which would have been more important in the long-term, it would set down a marker for the future as to what kind of behaviour is acceptable. When we are discussing matters as serious as this, saying the political life of this country is at stake, we should opt for the more serious approach.

The effect of the motion is not what is intended in mere political terms. There are serious implications, some of which have been mentioned by the Minister. In the world of realpolitik, those who put questions to embarrass opponents already know the answer. It would be daft for any party to put down this motion if it was not certain the answer would show that what the Commissioner stated in his letter to the Taoiseach was incorrect. If that is the case, it begs the question of how it knows that. Has someone received information from a tribunal source which suggests the Commissioner's letter was incorrect as regards the advice given by the tribunal? In normal conversation, one would not reach that conclusion, but in the world of realpolitik, one knows what is being suggested in a motion such as this.

These questions must be asked. I hope there has not been any leaks. However, the question is a political one and the proposers of the motion could have made it more clear that that was not part of its intent. The response from the sole member of the tribunal to the correspondence from the chairman of the Fine Gael parliamentary party and to the Clerk of the Dáil which was laid before the Dáil last Friday states that the sole member does not wish to be unhelpful, but considers that it would be likely to create an undesirable precedent if the tribunal was to comment to any political party or individual on the confidential working of the tribunal. That is a very important point. It is a marker that any tribunal needs to put down and is one we would ignore at our peril. It has been indicated that the member would respond to a request addressed by the Clerk of the Dáil, on behalf of the Oireachtas, which is interesting.

The relationship between this House and the tribunal is a very formal one. It is laid down in Statute and the resolutions of the House establishing a tribunal and its terms of reference set that down. Under the Tribunal of Inquiry Evidence (Amendment) Act, 1998, a tribunal may request the Houses to change its terms of reference. Under the resolutions of this House, the tribunal, which is, in effect, the sole member may report to the Houses at various times and on various aspects of its investigation. No other communications are provided for and once established, the integrity and independence of a tribunal ought to be respected within the parameters laid down for it. That is why we have Standing Order 56.3 which states that a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner as that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the functions of the courts or a judicial tribunal. The motion, as amended, overcomes that consideration. However, the original motion, which required a judgment, would have had serious implications. Even as it is, it seems to have fundamental implications for the work of the tribunal, which is engaged in dialogue, written or oral, with this House or a political party.

All sides need to remember that a great deal of public trust and money has been invested in the two tribunals currently sitting. The public want them to work, as do the Members of this House. They want them to make findings and they want to see the facts established. There is a great deal of interest in both tribunals because of what has been uncovered. There is amazement in this House, not to mention the public arena, at some of the matters unearthed. However, the public not only wants to establish the truth, it also wants to see issues pursued subsequently in the courts, if necessary.

If anything is done in this House or in any form, which provides a defence for someone being investigated by the tribunal in subsequent criminal proceedings – and there are clear legal precedents established in this area – then a very grave disservice will have been done. Public money, which in the first instance was made available to be used constructively and to good effect to expose most undesirable activities, will be perceived by the public to have been misused. We need to state clearly that this House and all parties have confidence in the tribunal. If anything else is the case, that also needs to be stated and there are actions consequent on that which must be looked at. It must be said clearly that this House has confidence in the tribunal, it wants it to continue its work and it is committed to not undermining it. If I was seeking information from the sole member of the tribunal, he could be asked for his views on section 3 of the Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence (Amendment) Act, 1979, which amends section 1 of the Tribunals Act, 1921. This deals with the matter of witnesses before tribunals. One could then think of Mr. Flynn's contributions to "The Late Late Show" and yesterday's programme, as mentioned by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. Other witnesses' statements, including that of Mr. Gilmartin, could also be considered. It would be extraordinary if the actions of this House were to undermine the tribunal when we should be looking for a means of strengthening its role and a way of ensuring tribunals in their present form would not be required.

This debate and others have raised questions about the efficacy of the tribunal mechanism. Parliament places great trust in a tribunal by setting one up and places great demands on it, that some find unreasonable. One could clearly envisage developments which would require changes in the terms of reference of a tribunal, and one frequently hears of a tribunal being criticised on the grounds that if its terms of reference had been correct, it would have performed more effectively. If that is the case, we must learn from it, but having set up a tribunal, it is surely in nobody's interest to undermine it.

Neither am I suggesting that this House should have no right to debate issues before a tribunal. I see nothing wrong with the Oireachtas debating issues before a tribunal. What concerns me is going the step further of being seen to interfere with the process of a tribunal, and in the context of what we are discussing tonight, we could be open to that charge. The Dáil has an obligation to consider matters of public interest and concern, and since there is no timescale for the completion of any tribunal's work, it would be unreasonable to suggest that matters before a tribunal could not be debated. It would be very foolish to pursue matters in such a way as to interfere with or undermine the work of a tribunal. Tonight's debate is sailing close to the wind on this score, and it would require much legal consideration to accept tonight's motion.

Something that must be kept on the agenda as long as it takes – perhaps forever – is that the people are disgusted with what the tribunals have turned up and what is perceived to have happened in public life. Members will know we are all tarred with the same brush, and that is greatly resented. It has the most serious and fundamental implications for the work of Parliament. On one hand, we need to establish what and how things went wrong; we also need to establish what facilitated and allowed it to happen, as well as determining what can be done to ensure the framework no longer operates in the closed fashion it has done. Some of the allegations remain allegations, while others are accepted as truths, but a new focus must be set to ensure this is not repeated in future. In fairness to the tribunals, and to the Houses for setting them up, their effect has been, on balance, very positive. They have shown it is possible to probe the undergrowth and to find facts often alluded to but never before proven. That will not be the case until the tribunals present their findings, but the evidence suggests there will be interesting matters for debate. It is not necessary for the Houses to wait for the tribunals to present their reports before acting to change legislation. There are at least three committees working in this area, and the Government, at the Taoiseach's instigation, put forward proposals late last year which were considered by the committees. It is important that is realised and that action is taken on foot of it. That action needs to be well thought out and the fundamental points need to be addressed. In the interim, the rights of the tribunals to pursue the matters referred to them without undue interference have to be respected, notwithstanding this Parliament's right to continue to examine issues of public concern. We must at all times be careful not to undermine the findings of the tribunals, particularly if further action is required at a later stage.

Mr. Gormley

It is very difficult to explain Pádraig Flynn's famous appearance on "The Late Late Show". There is a charitable explanation that there was a chemical imbalance and that he was on some sort of high. It certainly looked like that. He did not speak on the programme; he shouted and lorded it over the rest of us. In subsequent interviews in Brussels he was more subdued, as in the famous interview where the lift doors closed on him. Last week he was back to his more expansive, ebullient self. He met the Taoiseach and referred to him as "Taoiseach Bertie". The Taoiseach did not look like a man following someone who allegedly stole £50,000 from the Fianna Fáil coffers; he looked bemused and slightly edgy. His attitude to the whole affair is incredible, and people do not understand what the Taoiseach is so complacent about.

The Taoiseach's reluctance to pursue this matter is baffling and disquieting. The Progressive Democrats' willingness to brush the matter under the carpet undermines their credibility as a party of integrity. With Deputy O'Malley's famous speech they marched up the hill, but with the Tánaiste's return from Australia they marched back down again. This is a party with no backbone and which has lost its moral authority; it will and has compromised its principles for the perks of power.

Pádraig Flynn has very serious allegations hanging over him. He is alleged to have stolen £50,000 destined for Fianna Fáil's coffers, and he is alleged to have interfered with a tribunal witness to ensure their stories matched. It appears he is getting away with it, but I have brought up the mechanism to compulsorily retire a Commissioner in the House before, Article 160 of the treaty setting up the European Community. We were told that was the case, but the situation has changed somewhat. Commissioner Edith Cresson is under scrutiny. Other Commissioners, with the exception of Pádraig Flynn, are pursuing Edith Cresson and asking for her resignation. We should do likewise and put the pressure on Commissioner Flynn. These are very serious allegations and his situation, as Deputy Harney said, is impossible. We have been given a number of explanations for his behaviour, one of which was that it was a personal donation. If it were a personal donation he would have to account for how he could manage to spend £50,000 during an election campaign. Some £14,000 is probably the maximum he would have spent at that time on his campaign. It is difficult to believe the Gilmartin donation of £50,000 was a gift and was not to be used for election purposes. An explanation also doing the rounds is that he was prohibited from speaking about this at the request of the tribunal. This explanation is much too convenient.

Another explanation is that we cannot televise the proceedings of the tribunal because apparently Justice Flood would not agree. I have in my possession a letter from Justice Flood who said this is a matter for the Oireachtas. Deputy Killeen said the people want this matter pursued. I agree. The public want total transparency and would welcome the proceedings of the tribunal being televised. Justice Flood has told us the ball is in our court. All parties should pursue this matter. It is in our interest and that of the public that the proceedings be televised. While Vincent Browne's radio programme is excellent with actors playing the part of James Gogarty etc. there is no substitute for the proceedings being televised. This is an issue the Green Party will pursue.

The explanations do not add up. In relation to the former Deputy, Ray Burke, we were told donations destined for Fianna Fáil went into his back pocket. We were told a number of individuals in Fianna Fáil knew about this, including Deputy Seán Fleming, Des Richardson, Pat Farrell, the General Secretary, that they informed Mr. Haughey but no one else knew. Apparently the Taoiseach knew nothing about this when he appointed Deputy Burke.

We have been told also that only one individual, Seán Sherwin, knew about the donation to Commissioner Flynn. We are all members of political parties and know how they operate. Sometimes we go for a pint and have a little tittle tattle. Are we supposed to believe no one knew about these donations, that no one ever spoke about it? If that is the case, Fianna Fáil is very different from all other parties in the House, because we all talk to each other. There is gossip and the usual tittle tattle. Yet we are asked to believe these individuals in Fianna Fáil are the souls of discretion and did not tell anyone. I simply do not believe that and I do not think anyone believes it. One explanation is that people did know but because it was commonplace in Fianna Fáil at the time they did not bat an eyelid. I believe people knew and people know who knew. Eventually they will speak out. If Ray Burke decides to come to the tribunal and sing it will be the end of the Government.

Mr. Barrett

Deputy Gilmore has kindly offered me two minutes to correct a few points which have arisen. Both the Minister and Deputy Killeen were at pains to point out that Fine Gael was in some way trying to interfere with the workings of the tribunal. That is far from the truth. It was Dáil Éireann, in fact a Government amendment, that requested Commissioner Flynn to make a full statement. Given that he replied saying he could not make a full statement because he was constrained by some legal imposition imposed on him by the tribunal, it is only right that we should find out what that constraint is and how it arose. The reason for tabling this motion – I am glad the Government amendment more or less coincides and we can accept it – was to establish whether he can or cannot make a full statement. Let us not cod ourselves, certain matters will arise which are not within the remit of the planning tribunal.

Deputy Gormley mentioned one particular donation which was in the public domain. It was not put into the public domain by Fine Gael or any other political party but by some leak. I refer to a donation given by the Fitzwilton Group through Rennicks. It was stated that a former Minister and a former Member received a sum of £30,000. It was clear that donation was meant for the Fianna Fáil Party. The Fitzwilton Group is entitled to donate money to the Fianna Fáil Party or any other party. That is within the law. So far as the Fitzwilton Group is concerned the planning tribunal will not investigate that matter because it does not relate to any planning issue. The terms of reference of the Flood tribunal refer to planning issues. This was simply a donation given to an individual to pass on to his political party. It appears that £20,000 of the £30,000 disappeared. How can the Flood tribunal investigate that issue? In fairness to the Fitzwilton Group, how can that matter ever be cleared up? It will not come out in any tribunal. There are times when we in this House have to pursue issues. It is our responsibility as Members of the Opposition to ask the Government questions. In the time I have been a Member and for as long as I remain a Member, I have no intention of denigrating anybody's character. I intend to ask questions but it is up to the person to respond. If a court or a tribunal investigates something, so be it. An Opposition cannot be gagged in asking the appropriate questions when these issues appear in the media and are a cause of deep concern to the public.

Mr. Gilmore

This House has had to revert once again to matters relating to the £50,000 donation allegedly received from Mr. Tom Gilmartin in 1989 by the then Minister for the Environment, Pádraig Flynn, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. This is due to the refusal of Commissioner Flynn to respond adequately to the motion passed by Dáil Éireann on 10 February and the failure of the Taoiseach to follow the matter up with the vigour required.

Since this allegation first came into the public domain the attitude of Commissioner Flynn has been totally inconsistent. He has chosen on some occasions to comment publicly to the media about these matters, as in the infamous "The Late Late Show" interview, and has opted on other occasions to shelter behind a claim of legal impediment to making a comprehensive public statement or answering questions on the grounds that he is due to be a witness before the Flood tribunal. A week ago the Taoiseach read into the record a letter from Commissioner Flynn in which he responded to the motion passed by the Dáil on 10 February by saying that because he was due to be a witness before Mr. Justice Flood, it would be inappropriate to make a public comment on the matter. Yet yesterday listeners to RTE radio heard Commissioner Flynn comment freely on his "The Late Late Show" interview, outline his views on political and personal financial contributions, deal with his relationship with Mr. Gilmartin and offer an entirely new and hitherto unheard explanation for his controversial telephone call to Mr. Gilmartin in the immediate aftermath of the original Sunday Independent story.

It seems that when Commissioner Flynn receives an official request from Dáil Éireann to make a statement on these matters he seeks refuge behind legal advice from the tribunal – advice that he claims to have received but that we have not seen or heard – but when somebody puts a microphone in front of him, he feels free to comment without any legal restraint.

It is important to restate that when the story first appeared in the Sunday Independent last year suggesting that Mr. Gilmartin had made a £50,000 donation to Mr. Flynn for the Fianna Fáil party, there was little political response. Most Members of this House took the view that it was most appropriate to leave the matter to the Flood Tribunal. However, it was Commissioner Flynn who made the issue a matter of legitimate public and political comment when he gave his extraordinary interview to Gay Byrne on “The Late Late Show” on 15 January.

The matter was made a further subject of legitimate public and political comment by the fact that on the weekend of "The Late Late Show" the Taoiseach's media handlers were busy decrying Commissioner Flynn's RTE appearance and making it clear that he had now no prospect of reappointment to the Commission for a third term.

Following "The Late Late Show" and further public comment by Mr. Gilmartin, my party leader, Deputy Quinn, was the first Member of this House to publicly call on Commissioner Flynn to make an immediate statement responding to the allegations made against him. In a subsequent statement he said that notwithstanding any investigation by the Flood Tribunal, issues pertaining to people who hold high office must be answered. He said: "It simply is not acceptable that respect for our democracy should be further diminished by allegations of wrongdoing which are left unanswered, possibly for months or even years, concerning senior politicians".

At the time, the Labour Party and Deputy Quinn were accused by some Government representatives and by a number of commentators of going over the top, but the subsequent course of events have borne out the validity of our position. Had Commissioner Flynn made a comprehensive statement at the time setting out the facts as he saw them, dealing with the basic questions that have been raised, then the matter could probably have been regarded as closed until such time as Mr. Justice Flood was able to deal with it in much more detail.

Instead, the way in which Commissioner Flynn continued to try and duck the issue and evade answering any questions on it, coupled with the reluctance of his Fianna Fáil colleagues to even ask the relevant questions, has simply added further to public cynicism about politics in general.

What are the basic facts we already know and what are the issues on which we require answers? What we know is that Mr. Gilmartin claims that in 1989 he gave a contribution of £50,000 to Mr. Flynn, which he says was intended for the Fianna Fáil Party. This donation was made at a time when Mr. Flynn was Minister for the Environment and when Mr. Gilmartin was seeking to advance a huge development project in the Dublin area. Mr. Flynn has not, at any stage, denied receiving this money.

We also now know that the money in question was not apparently received by Fianna Fáil headquarters. It has also been claimed by Mr. Gilmartin that as far back as 1989 he made the Fianna Fáil national organiser, Mr. Seán Sherwin, aware of the fact that he had given Mr. Flynn the donation in question. Despite this, it was only ten years later, when the matter came into the public domain, that the general secretary of Fianna Fáil, Mr. Mackin, actually got around to writing a pro-forma letter to the Commissioner asking what had become of the money.

There are a number of questions that arise both for Mr. Flynn and for the Fianna Fáil Party which can be answered without prejudicing or prejudging the work of the Flood Tribunal. Mr. Flynn should state simply and directly whether he got the money from Mr. Gilmartin. He should outline the circumstances of the donation and say whether all or any part of it was passed on to the Fianna Fáil party. If the money was not passed on, he should indicate how he spent or applied the money.

In the case of the Fianna Fáil Party, it should say very clearly when it first became aware of Mr. Gilmartin's donation and why it took no action for ten years to establish what happened to the money. The failure of Fianna Fáil to pursue this matter is one of the most puzzling aspects of this bizarre affair. Fifty thousand pounds was, by any standards, a massive donation in 1989. This sum would have been enough to fund a general election campaign in several constituencies, yet Fianna Fáil apparently did not take any action to recover the money or to establish what happened to it. I am sure that even Fianna Fáil, for all the legendary generosity of its backers and for all its success in fundraising, would have regarded this as a substantial donation and would have wanted to locate it and put it in the bank.

However, an even more fundamental question arises. If Mr. Gilmartin made a donation which he intended to be passed on to the Fianna Fáil Party, and if the money was not passed on as intended, is there not a danger that a criminal offence may have been committed and that there could have been an obligation on the appropriate personnel to bring the matter to the attention of the Garda? If members of the committee of a small sporting or social club heard that somebody had made a donation of £50 to an individual, which had not been passed on, one would expect that they would have made more effort to recover it than Fianna Fáil apparently did in the case of Mr. Gilmartin's £50,000.

The Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Bertie Ahern, has adopted something of a mantra about ethics and politics. I do not ques tion the genuineness of the Taoiseach's desire to see new ethical standards in politics and particularly within his own party, but for him to have the credibility to do so, it is essential that he confronts wrongdoing by those in his own party in the past and imposes appropriate political sanctions on those responsible. This is the only way to lance the boil.

At successive Fianna Fáil Ard Fheiseanna we have heard him talk about looking to the future and setting new ethical standards for political life. However, we have yet to see or hear the Taoiseach denounce the sort of wrongdoing that has been well documented on the part of a number of those who have held very senior positions in the Fianna Fáil Party and in Fianna Fáil Governments.

Despite all that emerged in the evidence to the McCracken Tribunal and despite the findings of Mr. Justice McCracken in his report, I have yet to hear the Taoiseach condemn in the unequivocal way that every citizen would expect, the improprieties, irregularities and downright abuse of public life perpetrated by his predecessor and political sponsor, Mr. Haughey.

I have already referred to the extraordinary failure of Fianna Fáil, including during the period since the present Taoiseach has been leader, to follow up on the Gilmartin donation. We know that at the time the first allegations were made against the former Deputy, Mr. Burke, the Taoiseach claimed to have "been up every tree in North Dublin" following them up. It subsequently emerged that what this tree climbing amounted to was simply to ask Mr. Burke in a casual way if anything was bothering him, and to send the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, off on a fool's errand to London to interview Mr. Joseph Murphy. We also know that Fianna Fáil headquarters were aware for many years that Mr. Burke had passed on only £10,000 of the £30,000 he received from Fitzwilton in 1989 – that most successful and financially rewarding of years for senior Fianna Fáil personnel.

Perhaps the Taoiseach's promises of new ethical regimes might be taken somewhat more seriously if he showed some enthusiasm for establishing what happened in the past. Fianna Fáil has now taken to claiming credit for the establishment of the tribunals of inquiry, conveniently forgetting that in the case of both the Flood and Moriarty inquiries, Fianna Fáil initially stoutly resisted all demands for their establishment and conceded only under intense and sustained pressure from this side of the House.

Initially, Fianna Fáil spokespersons rubbished the suggestion that the Dáil should call on Commissioner Flynn to make a statement. I recall in particular the comments made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, who said the initial motion on this matter "may well constitute an attempted political interference in the ongoing work of a tribunal established by the House". He then went on to deliver a eulogy in praise of Commissioner Flynn and compared him, in passing, to the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four. Clearly, that speech was written before the Government recognised the writing on the wall and had to table its own amendment calling on Mr. Flynn to make a "full and immediate statement clarifying his position in relation to allegations that he received £50,000 while Minister for the Environment in 1989".

As we know from the letter read to the House by the Taoiseach last week, Commissioner Flynn, despite being a long serving Member of this House, has decided to thumb his nose, to ignore the motion passed by the Dáil, and has again sought refuge behind supposed legal advice from the tribunal that he should not make any public statement on the matter.

I welcome the fact that the Government has accepted the general thrust of the initial Fine Gael motion on this matter. If Mr. Justice Flood confirms that the advice given to Mr. Flynn was as suggested in the Commissioner's letter, then clearly the Dáil will have to accept that and await the matter going before the tribunal. However, if it turns out that the statement made in Mr. Flynn's letter to the Taoiseach was misleading or inaccurate, or did not truly reflect the advice given to him, then it will add to the seriousness of the Commissioner's behaviour and leave the Dáil with little alternative but to return to the matter and take appropriate action.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Question: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to" put and declared carried.