Yesterday in an operation north of the Border at Killeen a number of members of an illegal organisation hijacked a truck carrying 3.3 million cigarettes which were worth approximately €1.6 million. According to the Garda and the PSNI, the raid had all the hallmarks of a Provisional IRA operation. It follows on the heels of the discovery of a scam in the building construction area by the Provisional IRA. This comes a week after the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said he was certain that organised crime, particularly involving the Provisional IRA, was funding Sinn Féin. The Taoiseach has indicated on a number of occasions that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. Given the comments of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and yesterday's illegal activities north of the Border, does the Taoiseach share the view of the Minister that an illegal organisation, namely, the Provisional IRA, is funding Sinn Féin and, if so, what does he and his Government propose to do about it?
Leaders' Questions.
I do not have any information about yesterday's significant seizure of cigarettes. There have also been other activities recently which are being investigated. I am aware of what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said in response to questions he was asked about this matter. Every Member of the House accepts that there can be no room for ambiguity on such issues in a democratic society. The Minister is determined to ensure that these criminal acts and organised gangs, regardless of where they come from, are dealt with.
Sources in Sinn Féin have contacted me to point out that they have nothing to do with any of these things and they continue to make that position clear. Deputy Kenny is correct but I have also said, throughout my political career, that I consider the IRA to be the opposite side of that coin.
During Question Time today I spoke about the importance of the International Monitoring Commission. Its role is to ensure that there is scrutiny of paramilitary activity and it is vital, if we are to establish the type of trust and confidence we spoke about during Question Time, that the IMC should do its job.
Deputy Kenny will appreciate that I am not at liberty to speak about security briefings or security issues, but I am aware that the Garda has been investigating certain activities by people who may have connections with the Provisional IRA. There are a number of these cases and I have been briefed on them, but it would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of the briefings.
I accept that the Taoiseach cannot comment on sensitive matters arising from security briefings. However, is he happy with the evidence presented to him by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, based on the latter's certainty that organised crime by the Provisional IRA is funding the Sinn Féin Party?
This is a democracy. I accept the Taoiseach's bona fides in his differentiation of right and wrong in the funding of political parties. This is provided for in legislation and I accept it. However, I do not accept that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can confirm publicly, based on evidence available to him, that he is absolutely certain an illegal organisation is funding a party that has successfully contested elections. Without outlining the security details, does the Taoiseach accept the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's comment that the Provisional IRA and organised crime are funding the Sinn Féin Party and, if so, what does the Government propose to do about it?
My party is, correctly, constrained by law in how it raises money and we adhere to that. However, I will not stand for a situation in which an illegal organisation that is pursued by the Garda authorities is, according to the evidence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, funding a political party in this House. The Taoiseach must ensure that this is stopped and, if necessary, that the CAB is given extra resources to go about its business effectively.
I am constrained in what I can say but I wish to make a number of points. I do not have evidence that a political party in this House is funded by illegal activity. I do not have that evidence and I am not going to say that. Senior people in Sinn Féin have made it clear to me that this is not the case and that they reject these accusations.
Ultimately, it is a matter for the Garda to pursue criminal activity, regardless of who the perpetrators are, and to examine the connections. The Garda is doing this. There has been a number of big cases, some of them high profile, on which I have been briefed. There are certainly suspicions about them so I will not say there is nothing in all this. There have been occasional allegations that Provisional IRA members have been involved in what might be called organised crime, such as robbery and hijackings. That is a fact. They are not proven cases and they have not been dealt with in the courts, but obviously the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has more details about these matters. I am aware that the Garda has been investigating certain activities by people who may have connections with the Provisional IRA. I have been briefed accordingly and I do not wish to mislead the House.
Some time ago the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made an application to the High Court for recoupment of costs of the investigation into Ansbacher Cayman and a number of companies. This morning the application was, by consent, struck out in the High Court on the application of counsel for the State. Given that this involves taxpayers' money, can the Taoiseach say if an enforceable order for full value can now be registered against an entity in this jurisdiction? What are its terms?
This investigation into tax evasion must be seen in the context of the testimony last Thursday to the Committee of Public Accounts by the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners that he has now recouped €922 million for the State as a result of various inquiries –€697 million from the DIRT inquiry, €48.5 million from National Irish Bank, €27 million from Ansbacher, €13.9 million from the Flood tribunal and €6.7 million from the Moriarty tribunal. This should be seen against the belief expressed in January 1998 by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, when he told RTE news:
The sums uncovered are very small in the context of the level of tax paid each year, so I think you need to put it in context. It is an insult to the vast majority of taxpayers to say that tax evasion is widespread. The question of tax evasion is not a unique Irish problem, nor is the question of residents having offshore bank accounts for tax evasion a unique Irish thing as well. So these things should be borne in mind, rather than people going off half-cocked and making ridiculous and outlandish allegations, both against the Revenue Commissioners and against other people as well.
It is an irony that the man who so derided the notion of tax evasion has been the beneficiary of €922 million falling into his lap as a result of inquiries pressed by this party and others in this House and which were opposed by the Minister at the time.
It is evident from the quote that the Minister on that occasion was defending the Revenue Commissioners from attack. It was the Minister, with myself, who gave the Revenue Commissioners the powers over the years to deal with these issues. I agree with the Deputy that enormous sums of money have been recovered by the Revenue Commissioners as a result of the Ansbacher and other inquiries.
I do not have the details about the court case and its settlement today. The State was seeking to recover costs of approximately €1.2 million in particular cases and it was the advice of senior counsel that it should settle in those cases. There were significant legal hurdles involved in doing anything else, based on the Lynch judgment in the Siúcre Éireann case of 1991. It was agreed that it was best to settle these cases and the State has recovered €1.2 million.
This is part of a significant recovery of taxes and of dealing with those who abused their position in Irish society to defraud the State of taxes in one form or another. Time and again we have recovered those sums and forced people into legitimate business. That is the reason the tax base is as healthy as it is, in contrast with what it was in the past.
One cannot read the statement by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, as a defence of the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners were not engaged in tax evasion. Many people known to the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, were. I am not saying that he knew they were engaged in tax evasion. The €922 million which was recovered bears this out dramatically. The Taoiseach took steps to close off some loopholes during my time in the House. He opened a few also, but I will not go down that road now.
The actual application made by the Minister, Deputy McDowell, was for €3.4 million against a number of companies involved in the Ansbacher affair. There has been just one statement so far from the IIB, who said the settlement did not cost it any money. Is the Taoiseach saying €1.2 million of the €3.4 million has been recovered and against whom is the order registrable?
I do not have the full details. Most of the recoveries today were in respect of Ansbacher accounts. Some of the €1.2 million was against Guinness Mahon Bank. These two accounted for the bulk of the sums recovered. The legal advice was that we should settle in respect of these accounts. In other cases the legal advice is not to settle but to continue to pursue the cases. This decision related to a group, including individuals with Ansbacher accounts and Guinness Mahon Bank.
I would have thought there would be an advantage in bringing them to court.
I do not disagree with that thinking. The decision of Mr. Justice Lynch in the Siúcre Éireann case in 1991 indicated there would be a significant legal difficulty going down that road, which is why these cases were settled.
To return to the questions posed by Deputy Kenny, is it not the case that the Taoiseach's response to the Deputy's remarks only fuels the remarks of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, in casting a disgraceful slur on the party I and other colleagues in this House are proud to represent? Is it not the case that a veil is being used of so-called security briefings? Rather than stating he does not have such evidence, he should affirm quite categorically that there is no such evidence, because there is no such linkage. Sinn Féin has not just met the statutory requirements to furnish annual accounts, it has voluntarily submitted these accounts to the Revenue Commissioners. It submits to the requirements of the Standards in Public Office Commission and to the electoral office in the Six Counties. Will the Taoiseach agree that Sinn Féin is one of the most scrutinised parties in the country? Its accounts are not just scrutinised on this side of the Border, but north of the Border and in regard to the party's ongoing work in the United States.
Is it not the case that there is absolutely no evidence and that the remarks of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform are a scurrilous slight on this party? Is the Taoiseach aware of the great hurt and vexation caused to elected voices and supporters of this party throughout the island of Ireland and abroad? Is he aware that if he is not prepared to deny categorically the charges so abusively presented to the media by the president of the Progressive Democrats in his role as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he is aligning himself with these views and that there is a requirement on him to set the record straight?
I do not think Deputy Ó Caoláin should get too upset. I have spent most of my nine years as leader of my party defending it in regard to investigations and examinations into all kinds of issues. I have had to answer to tribunals and facilitate all kinds of investigations. It comes with the territory in a democratic society. I have had to take on the issues and deal with them.
I have said to Deputy Kenny that I have no information on the issue. Sinn Féin continues to make clear how it is funded. I have made it absolutely clear that I have no other information. However, I am not the Garda Commissioner, the CAB or the special investigation unit. What I am merely saying is that I am aware the Garda has been investigating certain activities by people who may have connections with the Provisional IRA. I also said there have been allegations from time to time that Provisional IRA members have been involved in what might be called organised crime, for example, robberies and hijackings of goods. If I say anything else, Deputies will say I am misleading the House. I will not go into the details. In fact, I will not say anything, because Deputies could deem anything I say to be unfair.
As Deputy Kenny acknowledged, I cannot stand up in the House and give security briefings. Neither can I say I have not been briefed. If the Deputy tells me his party has complied with the Standards in Public Office Commission and the electoral Act, I will believe him, even though when he raises issues in the House he says he does not believe what I or my party say. I will pay Deputy Ó Caoláin the courtesy of believing him.
Given its seriousness, the issue requires a focus. I do not agree with the Taoiseach. It does not come with the territory. I roundly reject the sourcing of funding through criminal activity for Sinn Féin or any other political party. This is not acceptable under any circumstances. We are talking about funding of Sinn Féin which has met every requirement and demand of it. I will personally furnish the Taoiseach with a copy of our accounts so that he will be well aware of the facts in regard to this party's activities.
We are in competition with Fianna Fáil and all the other political parties. It is no coincidence that following Sinn Féin's becoming the largest Nationalist voice north of the Border this attack has been launched on the integrity of our party. It is not only an attack on the name "Sinn Féin", it is an attack on each individual member of the party and the supporters throughout the country.
Does the Taoiseach not recognise that involved in all of this is the very dangerous situation that it represents an undermining of confidence in terms of both the peace process and the political process, with Sinn Féin seeking at this point to move forward from the electoral result north of the Border? What has been said is grist to the mill of the Democratic Unionist Party. Comments made previously in this House were grist to their mill and are now repeated. It will be used again to further stall and thwart the normalisation of politics on this island.
As I previously pointed to the Deputy, we cannot have a separate Standing Order for the Deputy.
This is how serious the matter is. It ill behoves the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Taoiseach or anyone else to think or act as they have done.
Deputy Ó Caoláin must resume his seat. There cannot be a separate Standing Order for the Deputy.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is protesting his innocence, but I have not said anything about his guilt so I am not obliged to answer. I merely said that accusations about how one obtains one's funding come with the territory in democratic political life. In September I saw a programme about funding on RTE, the national television station, which would make one think members of my party were a crowd of criminals. I did not get excited, nor did any of my colleagues, because this is part of the territory. One must defend oneself in these positions. If Deputy Ó Caoláin has complied with requirements, such as those of the Public Offices Commission, it would be as relevant for him to send me his accounts as it would be for me to send him my accounts.
I would like to—
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
If Deputy Ó Caoláin's accounts are in order, they are in order. I am not an auditor for his accounts.
They are audited by P. O'Neill and company.
Deputy Ó Caoláin says that none of these—
The Taoiseach's time is concluded.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle.
He is going well.
I have only said what I have said. I cannot withdraw anything for Deputy Ó Caoláin because I have said nothing other than that I believe him.
The Taoiseach is being frank for a change.
I am just stating my position. If Deputy Ó Caoláin wants to raise any question I will try to answer him but senior people from his party have told me that none of this applies to them and I accept that. The Garda Commissioner, of whom I must also take account, said that certain activities of people who may have connections with the Provisional IRA were being investigated. That is all I am saying.
The Taoiseach is keeping all sides happy.
He is neither on one side nor the other – he is in the middle.