Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Oct 2006

Vol. 625 No. 1

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

It is great to see the Government in action at last. It now appears that the prevaricating democrats are in for a penny, in for a pound, with apparently another political hoax in the form of new ethics legislation that makes it all okay. I would like to tell the Taoiseach directly that I hope this will be the last time we must raise these matters in this House. I understand that both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have issued statements about the close and warm relationship that now exists between them and that they intend to see this Government either run its course or into the sand. Seeing that it is a last gasp effort at propriety by the Progressive Democrats, perhaps the Taoiseach might take the opportunity to tie up the remaining loose ends that must be dealt with here?

In respect of the questions that were not answered by the Taoiseach, does he now share the Tánaiste's assessment in the statement issued by him today that what he did was wrong? The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, who gave a stooge-like performance for the Progressive Democrats this morning, reluctantly said that in his opinion, the Taoiseach was wrong. In his statement, the Tánaiste said the Taoiseach's actions were wrong. Is the Taoiseach prepared to say that what he did in 1993 was wrong?

Can the Taoiseach give the House any new information used to pacify the Tánaiste about the attention paid to the Manchester payments, people he now knows were present at the function or whom he has discovered were present since last weekend? Will he pass this information to the Mahon tribunal, as he said he would? Some people claim that what took place in Manchester was an illusion and never happened. Given that there were only three possible dates during the period from 1993 to 1994 when the football match in question could have taken place——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kenny's time has concluded.

Mr. Kenny

Has the Taoiseach identified which of the dates it was? If the date coincided with the football match, it must be one of three dates. The Taoiseach should answer these questions and end the matter once and for all.

The Taoiseach

In respect of Deputy Kenny's first question, as I explained today, I did not consider at the time that I was in breach of any legal or ethical requirements applying or intended to apply to Ministers and gave reasons for this belief. It was an error of judgment, notwithstanding the fact that my actions did not breach obligations. It was open to construction and capable of misinterpretation, in some cases deliberately. I regret having accepted the money at the time, notwithstanding the points I made about the circumstances. I have nothing new to add to what I said last week.

In respect of Deputy Kenny's second question, we have put forward proposals for changes in the ethics Act. In respect of Deputy Kenny's third question, I have already stated that it was connected with a football match. I cannot be precise about the date but I have tracked down some of the information. I know I was in Manchester on six occasions that year. I will give any information to the tribunal.

Mr. Kenny

When the Taoiseach states he has tracked down some of the information, does he mean he has tracked down some of the persons at the function and that he will pass on that information?

Will the Taoiseach outline the new ethics which were arrived at between the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste? How can one legislate for conscience, right and wrong and principle? Will the Taoiseach state what is the new agreement? Is it a case that if any Minister, such as the Minister for Education and Science, gets his or her house painted, he or she must ask the Standards in Public Office Commission whether it is all right? Is the essence of the new ethics Bill that one must approach the Standards in Public Office Commission and ask whether an offer which has been received is all right?

This matter apparently came from leaks from tribunals, which is a serious matter. The Taoiseach has a close and friendly relationship with the Tánaiste who is sitting beside him. Last Tuesday on the plinth of Leinster House, the Tánaiste stated many people in here will have a lot to answer for when the second report of the Moriarty tribunal is published. The Moriarty tribunal has been sitting for nine years and a first report has not yet been published. How does the Tánaiste know when the second report will be published? Has he explained to the Taoiseach how he knows or pretends to know what is in the report? It is a serious matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in his capacity as deputy leader of the Government.

The Taoiseach

One of the issues which came out of this is that while we introduced an enormous amount of legislation, such as the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, the Electoral Act 1997 and the later electoral Act, it is still possible for somebody to receive a substantial gift from a friend or a loan and not declare it. That point was made here and elsewhere on a number of occasions. I made the point myself.

The Tánaiste and I agreed to amend the ethics legislation to deal with the question of significant loans or gifts from friends. Essentially what we have in mind, and what the Government approved in principle this morning, is that the views of the Standards in Public Office Commission will be sought where such gifts or loans arise. In any such case, the commission will be required to give its opinion as to whether acceptance of a loan or gift would compromise an officeholder, Deputy or Senator in the discharge of his or her functions. It would be an offence not to seek or comply with an opinion of the commission in these circumstances. At present, that is not there. Many people were surprised to find it was not there. We will bring forward the legislation as quickly as we can to deal with this issue.

Regarding how the Tánaiste knows the Moriarty tribunal will publish its second report in January, it is because I told this to the House approximately two weeks ago in reply to a question. Nobody knows what it contains.

Mr. Timmins

The Tánaiste is not telling the Taoiseach everything. The Tánaiste must be frank.

Mr. Durkan

The Tánaiste was bluffing as usual.

Mr. Rabbitte

I, and I imagine many people in the country, would like to raise issues such as the latest increase in gas and ESB prices or the latest botched job in privatisation. However, there is a surreal air about the House this afternoon from which we cannot walk away. The situation over the past five or six days has seen headlines about the coalition on the brink and the Tánaiste in hiding or considering new information given to him during the weekend. Independent Deputies are writing out their shopping lists. Deputy Healy-Rae will not come alone and will also deliver Deputy Fox. Deputy Cowley will deliver a larger group but not until after the general election.

Then we are expected to believe from a press conference today that all this was made up by what the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, refers to in his extraordinary speech from the dock as a "small minority of commentators". He states none of this ever happened.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

Please allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue without interruption.

Mr. Rabbitte

He was behind his desk all this time, writing press releases for that nice Minister of State, poor Deputy Tim O'Malley. There was no dispute. I find this unbelievable and pathetic. Did one ever in one's life read such patronising vainglorious nonsense? Wait until the Ceann Comhairle hears this: "It would be an act of supreme moral and political folly to reward the wrongful actions of a leaker in this way." This comes from a man who knows a thing or two about leaking. "It would also amount to a failure of politics and statecraft——"

Mr. Penrose

Witchcraft.

Mr. Rabbitte

There seems to have been a measure of witchcraft over the weekend. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste claimed they have drawn a line in the sand. Have they done so? When will we obtain answers to the outstanding questions? The Tánaiste stated in black and white he wanted to know the identity of the donors, the mysterious money men at Manchester. He stated he wanted to know the nature of the function.

The Taoiseach told us it was an organised function, that he made a speech and that they were his friends. He then told us it was not an organised function, he did not make a speech and he does not know who was present, apart from two people. He told the authors of a book that he bought his house for £139,000 and he told the House it cost £180,000. Did the Taoiseach have the particulars delivered to the Revenue Commissioners as he is required to do?

Will the Taoiseach explain to the House why he volunteered the information that he had paid gift tax and capital gains tax? Nobody asked him whether he did, but he stated he did. Why and on what did he pay gift tax? Will we receive answers to these questions or must we await the Taoiseach's appearance before the tribunal before we have any coherent statement which will bring this to an end? How can the Tánaiste sit there having conferred approval on this activity, as compared to his statements and sentiments expressed in the past?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Rabbitte asked three questions. I do not have to comment on his comments on what was stated at the press conference today.

Mr. Quinn

The Taoiseach is lucky.

The Taoiseach

I already gave as full information as I have about Manchester. I answered the questions fully. I paid £180,000 for my house. I had a mortgage of £150,000 and £30,000 from my own accounts. I put all of that information in the public domain.

Regarding whether I paid this, that or the other tax, I am entitled to state what tax I paid. It extraordinary that I am being asked during Leaders Questions why I paid gift tax or on what I paid capital gains tax. If the House really wants to know and if it would make such an enormous difference to the House, it was when a policy I held moved from a mutual one to shares. Like everyone else with a similar policy, I was given the calculated amount which was subject to capital gains tax. Hundreds of thousands of others also paid it. I paid gift tax on a matter which has nothing to do with the tribunal and one will not hear about it at the tribunal. One must comply with the law and regulations. If the only issue in the country today is my paying capital gains tax, or gift tax or how much I paid for my house, it is a sad day for this House.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is not the only issue at all, as the Taoiseach well knows. The last time he told us about the mortgage it was €100,000; it is now €150,000. The Taoiseach has made more changes to this story than a supermodel makes at a fashion show.

The Taoiseach

There are no changes. Keep to the facts.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Taoiseach said it was €100,000 the last day.

The Taoiseach

No, €150,000.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Taoiseach said it was €100,00 the last day, another major change. He came down the steps today with his Tánaiste beside him with a laughable, cobbled together, face saving legislative solution to a problem that ought not require legislation in the first place. The Sunday Tribune showed last week that the Taoiseach was very good at raising money for political purposes in his constituency, he is perfectly legally entitled to do so and no one prevented him from doing so. This, however, is about the use of money for private purposes.

The Taoiseach came in today with this cobbled together solution that gets the Tánaiste off the hook. If he is so interested in amending the Ethics in Public Office Act, why does he not introduce the amendment sought by the Standards in Public Offices Commission when it asked for the right to initiate investigations into this kind of thing? Why does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform concede that in the legislation he wrapped around himself? When I said yesterday he would settle for a fig leaf, I did not think he would settle for one so miserable as this but apparently it is enough for him.

What information was he given over the weekend? What was it about? Did Micheál Wall eat the dinner after all? What is the new information? It is an insult to this House for the Tánaiste to now emerge blinking into the light of day and pretend none of this happened and he is mesmerised as to why the entire news media were reporting that the Government was on the brink, would be sundered, the PDs could not live with it and all the rest. It appears the PDs can live with anything after this. We have not got the answers the Tánaiste said he wanted and, in so far as the Taoiseach is giving answers, they are changing from day to day.

The Taoiseach

I gave the figure last week that the house cost me €180,000, that is exactly the same figure as I gave last week. That is the same the figure.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Taoiseach said the mortgage was €100,000.

The Taoiseach

The mortgage was €150,000, I did not say €100,000, I am just looking at the note of what I said last week. I have put out all of the information. By the way, I do not know anyone else's mortgage in this House. If the issue here is to find out how much someone's mortgage is or who ate a dinner and who did not and who ate a sandwich instead, we should get real. I have answered a level and depth of questions never answered by any Deputy in this House before.

Mr. Quinn

The Taoiseach caused the problem.

The Taoiseach

I do not consider I caused a problem. I did not leak anything from the tribunal, the tribunal asked me questions about Mauritius, about whether I got €15 million from O'Callaghan and about a range of other things. I gave my facts in answer to those questions and someone leaked those facts. I do not know who did it or how but I must answer those issues.

This is the level that the House gets into now, that I am asked my mortgage, why I paid capital gains tax — I answered that — why would I pay gift tax, was I at a function and did I have a private function, a Saturday night function, who ate the dinner, who drank the wine, who had water, who had Ballygowan. That is what I am meant to answer. Is that what I am to turn in here every day to do?

A Deputy

Who gave the €60,000?

Mr. Durkan

Why do we need new legislation then?

Mr. Sargent

I do not care who had the water and who had the wine but I want to ask about another anniversary this year. We had the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising, where the Taoiseach took the salute in O'Connell Street, a very happy day for him. It was also the 90th anniversary of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. The Taoiseach mentioned earlier that he is doing away with much of the pre-Independence legislation but, fortunately, in 1928, Dáil Éireann updated that law and it was in force in 1993 and still is today.

Last week I asked the Taoiseach to choose a course of action — to resign, to go to the country or to clean up politics. Today he might try to say he has taken the last option. This minimal face saving exercise with the Tánaiste, who appears to have regained Government but lost most of his party, is nothing more than that. It is a face saving exercise but does it comply with the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, which outlawed the giving or acceptance of any money, gift or consideration by and from anyone seeking a contract with the State. The Act assumes that such gifts are corrupt unless the contrary is proven. Can the Taoiseach assure the House that none of the individuals who attended the dinner in Manchester and none of the individuals who contributed to his whip-arounds were seeking Government contracts in the early 1990s?

The Taoiseach

I can confirm that nobody in any way either lent me money or that anyone who was at a dinner to the best of my knowledge——

Mr. Sargent

Can the Taoiseach check that?

The Taoiseach

——did anything corrupt or involving a corrupt act.

Ms Burton

How does the Taoiseach know if he cannot remember who was there?

The Taoiseach

Can I answer? In the middle of my answer, if people start saying I am not answering the question how can I answer it?

Mr. Sargent

I am not sure the Taoiseach heard the question.

The Taoiseach

I heard the question. I said there was nothing corrupt nor were they looking for contracts nor were they doing anything wrong.

Mr. Sargent

The Taoiseach might need to clarify that because he says it is as far as he knows. I appreciate he may not have all the facts at his fingertips on that matter, I am simply putting the legal situation to him. This is not just about the Taoiseach, the Prevention of Corruption Act is much bigger than any activity the Taoiseach was ever involved in, it goes back much longer and will be there long after him.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the Transparency International report for 2006, a league table of perceptions of this country? When the Taoiseach entered office in 1997, we were in 12th place in the corruption perception index. The 2005 corruption perception index sees us slip to 19th place. There is work to be done to reverse that perception. Will the Taoiseach have a clear line, like that of the Green Party, on the unacceptability of any Oireachtas Member receiving gifts such as those the Taoiseach was given by prominent people, a line Mr. Justice McCracken has set down clearly? As well as doing what the Taoiseach plans, which goes some way along the line, will he end the acceptance of corporate donations and set spending limits on electioneering between elections? Will he show some leadership to his party, to Government and to other parties in this House that still continue to accept corporate donations?

The Taoiseach

I have been responsible for most of the legislation in the last nine years. We set up the Standards in Public Office Commission, a group that did not previously exist, to deal these issues. We have changed the Electoral Act for national and local elections.

Mr. Sargent

It has not worked.

The Taoiseach

We built in a substantial number of procedures and I think it has worked.

Mr. Sargent

The evidence is there that it has not worked.

The Taoiseach

The evidence is there that it has worked. The amendment we now have states no one can receive a substantial gift in any way from friends that could be linked with any perception that it is wrong and the Standards in Public Office Commission would have to arbitrate on that before anyone could accept it. If it finds that it is not permissible, it is illegal to ignore that. That is as strong as we can make it.