Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 2007

Vol. 631 No. 4

Moriarty Report: Statements.

The Taoiseach

What came home forcefully to me as I read this report is the sheer scale of the amounts of money — more than €11 million, or some €45 million in today's values — found by the tribunal to have been either privately donated to Mr. Haughey or misapplied by him during the period under inquiry from 1979 to 1996. What struck me even more forcefully were the devices employed to conceal the fact of and the nature of those transactions. We are indebted to Mr. Justice Moriarty and the tribunal team for their outstanding work in painstakingly stripping away the layers of secrecy and obscurity surrounding Mr. Haughey's financial affairs and exposing them to public scrutiny. We look forward to receiving the second part of the their report soon.

To those of us who knew Mr. Haughey, who worked with him over the years, who saw him as a dynamic colleague and leader of exceptional abilities, the detailed revelations in this report come as a grave disappointment. Even now, I and others who worked with him in Government find it difficult to comprehend the complexity of the man and the other life he led. Mr. Justice Moriarty states in the report:

Apart from the almost invariably secretive nature of payments from senior members of the business community, their very incidence and scale, particularly during difficult economic times nationally, and when Governments led by Mr. Haughey were championing austerity, can only be said to have devalued the quality of a modern democracy.

This is a harsh and damning indictment. It is also a great tragedy.

I said hard things on numerous occasions about Mr. Haughey and my disappointment at his lapses from the expected high standards. I said it at our Ard-Fheis in 1997 and in subsequent statements and interviews. I stand over those criticisms. I also stand over my comments made at Mr. Haughey's funeral and on other occasions that he did a lot of good work for this country. I believe I was right in those comments. There is no denying that he delivered much political progress but history will be the final judge of that.

In this forensically detailed report, we have a judgment on a politician and statesman who had it in him to be great but who was seduced by a conviction of personal entitlement that ultimately undermined his vocation to be a true servant of our country and our people. Regrettably, the account now presented to us is that of the private person who failed to live up to the high standards that we are entitled to expect of those in public life, including elected representatives and officeholders.

It is a cause of deep personal hurt that the report also found serious misappropriation of donations intended to assist with the medical treatment of the late Brian Lenihan. The revelation that Mr. Haughey, for his own personal benefit, redirected those and other donations, such as the political donations intended for the Fianna Fáil Party, was a matter of grave disappointment for me and for those who worked with him.

In those times past, the lack of a formal, developed, ethics code and oversight machinery for those in public office no doubt facilitated the years of evasion and deceit that characterised Mr. Haughey's financial dealings, but does not excuse them. Today we have a highly developed ethics framework that not only provides a mechanism for keeping holders of public office honest, but sets out clearly for them the highest standards of behaviour that they must meet to earn the public trust. I refer specifically to the enactment of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

The 1995 Act provided mechanisms for dealing with conflicts of interest in regard to Members of the Houses, Ministers and officials in the Civil Service and the wider public service. It established the independent Public Offices Commission and provided for a Select Committee on Members' Interests in each House of the Oireachtas to oversee its key provisions. It required Members of the Oireachtas, senior civil servants, public board members and senior executives of State bodies to disclose their personal interests in order to provide transparency in decision-making and accountability. It also regulated the acceptance of gifts by officeholders.

The 2001 Act, for which I personally pressed, established a new Standards in Public Office Commission, to be chaired by a judge or former judge of the Supreme or High Court. It was given wide investigative powers into acts or omissions of public servants or officeholders that are inconsistent with the proper performance of their duties, or that would be inconsistent with the maintenance of public confidence in that performance.

The commission can engage inquiry officers to conduct preliminary investigations of complaints and indicate whether a case exists for further investigation by the commission of a matter of significant public importance. The commission has tribunal powers; it can summon individuals and papers, administer oaths, order discovery and preservation of documents and require the giving of evidence. It is an offence to obstruct an investigation of the commission or an inquiry officer.

The 2001 Act also provided for the preparation of codes of conduct, in consultation with the commission, for Members, for office holders and for directors or others employed by public bodies. These codes of conduct deal with the standards of conduct and integrity appropriate to the performance of their public duties by the persons concerned.

The Act also requires Members of the Houses to furnish a tax clearance certificate within nine months of an election. A statutory declaration that the Member's tax affairs are in order must be made one month either side of the election. Similar arrangements apply to persons appointed to positions as judges or senior public officials. Penalties for a false declaration were increased from a fine of £50 to one of £2,000 and a term of imprisonment from three to six months. The result is a strong ethics statutory framework overseen by a powerful, independent standards commission.

The strengthening of the ethics framework has also led to the imposition of vigorously enforced standards for the treatment of political donations and expenditure, as set out in the Electoral Acts. We are preparing proposals to further strengthen the ethics legislation to address issues that arose last autumn.

As a result of these initiatives, the transparency in the financial affairs of public representatives, now required and enforced by law, stands in sharp contrast to the secretiveness and evasiveness of the transactions revealed in the tribunal's report.

The tribunal's report also makes several other important findings, not least ones relating to me. I refer to the operation of the leader's allowance account and the practice that had progressively evolved for administrative reasons of pre-signing cheques. I accept the view expressed in the report that the practice was undesirable. I am happy, however, that the tribunal accepted my evidence and was satisfied that I had no reason to believe the account was operated otherwise than in an orthodox fashion. I am also pleased that the tribunal said in its report that it is noteworthy that at my insistence amendments have since been made to the governing of the leader's allowance accounts.

The important point to emphasise is that the issues, which arose in respect of that account, arose more than 15 years ago. Even before the introduction of statutory controls in 2001, the operation of the account within Fianna Fáil was reformed in 1992 by my colleague Albert Reynolds and was further reformed in 1994 when I became party leader. For example, I arranged for the party's auditors to present the audited accounts to the party's national trustees, its national treasurers and senior party officials. This further increased the transparency of the account.

In Government, Fianna Fáil has changed the legislation governing such accounts. Under the old system, a party leader had a large amount of discretion as to how the account was to be used and this gave rise to an ambiguity about what was permissible. The 2001 amendment set out with greater clarity the purposes for which the leader's parliamentary allowance are to be applied. The categories of expenditure which are to be included in the meaning of ‘expenses arising from parliamentary activities' have now been clearly defined. In addition, the new legislation requires a parliamentary leader to prepare a statement of any expenditure from the allowance. It requires that such a statement be audited by a public auditor. This audited report is then required to be furnished to the standards commission.

The standards commission: considers the statement and the auditor's report; can consult with the parliamentary leader; furnishes a report in writing on the statement and the auditor's report to the Minister for Finance; and causes a copy of that report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Since the reforms by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in 2001, the system is far more robust. We did not wait for the Moriarty tribunal to conclude; we went ahead and changed the system. There are now a large number of restrictions and guidelines as to how this money can be used. We will closely study the report of the tribunal to establish whether there are any further improvements that might now need to be made.

On the issue of the pre-signed cheques, it is important to recognise that this was not an uncommon feature of life in past decades. It was done for convenience and to save time. There was no reason for me to believe any unusual use was being made of any of these cheques and the vast majority of the cheques drawn on the Fianna Fáil leader's account were put to proper use. A very small number were used otherwise. As a result of the reforms I introduced, first within the Fianna Fáil system and later by legislation, this practice which ended 15 years ago cannot be repeated.

In the interests of clarity, it is worth pointing out that for as long as I have been leader of Fianna Fáil, the party leader's allowance has been administered from Fianna Fáil's headquarters. The account is administered by the party's financial controller, each of whom in my time as leader has, at my insistence, been a qualified accountant. The financial controller, in conjunction with our general secretary, operates expenditure of the account under strict criteria based on supporting our parliamentary party. The account is independently audited and is signed off by the trustees, the treasurers and senior officials. I sign off on a statement of expenditure. The cheques go directly into the party account and not to me as party leader. I would be surprised if there is a party in this House that operates the leader's allowance on a more regulated or strictly controlled basis than the Fianna Fáil party.

We have learned much from the work of this tribunal, from its predecessor the McCracken tribunal and from other tribunals and inquiries. We have developed a greater awareness and understanding of the need for explicit measures to underpin the high standards of governance the public deserves and expects. As I already noted, many important legislative and other initiatives have been taken to address this.

In addition to the measures I have already referenced, actions have been taken in relation to individual issues of tax evasion; a major reorganisation of structures in the Revenue Commissioners, including the strengthening of anti-evasion operations through the creation of a dedicated investigations and prosecutions division to manage and advance all Revenue prosecutions in cases of tax and duty evasion; conferring of substantial additional statutory powers on the Revenue Commissioners; development of codes of practice and other procedures to guard against conflicts of interest; strengthening of the financial regulatory and supervisory framework. The establishment of the Financial Regulator as a single financial regulatory authority with an explicit mandate for consumers has placed the Irish regulatory system at the forefront of best international practice; sharing of information by State agencies. Legislation now allows the Financial Regulator to report suspicions of money laundering, which includes the proceeds of tax evasion, directly to the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners. The regulator is also obliged to report any suspected criminal offences to the appropriate enforcement authority, for example, the Director of Corporate Enforcement; the creation of independent regulatory authorities for the enforcement of company law and for the supervision of the accountancy and auditing profession. In this regard, also we are undertaking an ambitious programme of reform of the existing Companies Acts, led by the company law review group, in order to keep our companies legislation up to date and appropriate for the needs of our economy; and strengthening the prevention of corruption legislation, including a presumption of corruption for non-disclosure of a significant political donation in particular circumstances.

We will continue to apply the lessons learned from the work of the Moriarty tribunal and other inquiries. However, the overarching lesson is that the achievement of high standards cannot be taken for granted. High standards must be promoted, through legislation, through changes in our political culture and, above all, through constant vigilance of which the independent standards commission is the ultimate guarantor.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach's response to the Moriarty tribunal today has been mainly to deal with the changes wrought in the intervening period. From his response to this massive tome, one does not get any sense of the environment or atmosphere in which politics was played out during that period in which many of us here were Members of the House.

In the actions of all men, and most of all princes, where there is no tribunal to turn to, we look to results. Those are the words of Machiavelli, sometime inspiration to the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, and his followers. Unlike Machiavelli's unhappy subjects, we had a tribunal to which to turn. It is just as well we did, given the results we faced and so the House discusses the first report of the Moriarty tribunal into those results. This report is a bleak but essential analysis of the relationship between politics and business and what posed as, and passed for, national leadership in worryingly recent times. It is a catalogue of corruption. It is a devastating critique of a powerful elite exposing a gross abuse of privilege, a rank abuse of public office and, most importantly, a devastating abuse of public trust. In that alone, Mr. Justice Moriarty has done an important job, notwithstanding the lengthy timeframe.

It is fair to say that the behaviour he uncovered was less than edifying and less than worthy of high office, or indeed of any office in our modern democracy. Mr. Justice Moriarty returned a devastating verdict on the late Taoiseach, Charles Haughey. However, to see Mr. Haughey's behaviour as an aberration within Fianna Fáil would be an affront to the tribunal and to every democrat in this country. Far from being an aberration, Mr. Haughey's behaviour and attitude typified the culture of Fianna Fáil at a significant period, in which Raphael P. Burke accepted corrupt payments related to radio licences, there was serious corruption of the planning process and funds, donated to Fianna Fáil for the practice of democratic politics, were deliberately misappropriated.

To Fianna Fáil, it may have been just business as usual. There is an abiding sense and abiding evidence that many in the inner circle wanted, and felt they deserved, a piece of the action. More disturbing still is the current Fianna Fáil leadership's refusal to condemn the actions of their former colleagues. Throughout the Moriarty tribunal and in its aftermath, they have been ambivalent, to say the least. Many of the new breed of Fianna Fáil Ministers were apprenticed into their craft by those who are now in public and political disgrace. Those usually voluble Ministers have been stunning in their silence on how their masters profited personally from holding high political office. Recently, individually and collectively, they refused to condemn the practice of serving senior Ministers accepting money from friends for private use. As to the misappropriation of funds intended for Fianna Fáil, I have yet to hear even one of them demand that the matter and the money be pursued.

Is time itself the only difference between new Fianna Fáil and old Fianna Fáil? It seems to be the same old attitudes and same old culture, just bright new, if not tired, faces. Their attitude is summed up by the Taoiseach's refusal to answer any questions on the tribunal's findings relating to himself. This is a clear abdication of his duty of accountability to Dáil Éireann and to the country. Until current senior members of Fianna Fáil are willing to acknowledge the wrong and the damage done to public confidence in politics, it will not be possible for them to make a clean break from the culture of corruption that enveloped their party for such a long period. Many people are sickened by the revelations and want a Government of integrity which will have the public interest, rather than personal gain, as its compass.

While some in public life equivocate about former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, in his long, considered and detailed analysis, Mr. Justice Moriarty does not. At the core of his valuable work there is uncovered in the period up to a decade ago a ruthlessness, an ambition and a sense of force and cunning more in keeping with how a banana republic operates than one of the world's most modern and newest Republics. It was repressive, secretive, corrosive and, as Moriarty now reveals, corrupt. In that context, the report is an eyewitness to misery.

Ordinary Irish people tightened their belts almost to the buckle, paid mortgages at 16%, tax at 58% and collected dole at £42 per week. Meanwhile the docile, biddable, cohort of loyalists scuttled along their party and departmental corridors, signed blank cheques while Ireland was broke, put up and shut up, watching their leader, immaculate in Charvet, smile and smile and be a villain.

Some say Moriarty holds up a mirror to Irish politics and the people who led it, some of whom still lead today. Surely, no mirror can reconcile the utterly contradictory views on the late Mr. Haughey. On one hand, Mr. Justice Moriarty considers Haughey to have devalued the quality of a modern democracy, while, on the other, the current Taoiseach holds that Mr. Haughey had a proud identity with Ireland. Mr. Justice Moriarty found that Mr. Haughey volunteered no information on payments to the tribunal, which was set up by the Oireachtas, and that several portions of his testimony were unacceptable and had to be rejected. The current Taoiseach takes the view that Mr. Haughey was a patriot to the core.

Mr. Justice Moriarty said that the man affectionately called "Boss" engendered elements of fear and domination in individuals, in both the private and public sectors. The current Taoiseach can reconcile patriotism with the abuse of power and of the institutions of the State, not to mention taking money from friends for private use in public office. I cannot. Nor can I, as a public representative, or my party, accept a dig-out or free loans because with power comes responsibility — the responsibility to apply the highest standards of probity.

Power is always problematic. It is not always exercised benignly, justly or morally, as this report confirms. It is a damning indictment of former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, and far more damning than we might have expected. He finds that Mr. Haughey lived a lifestyle and incurred expenses vastly beyond public service entitlements, which were his sole, apparent income. He rubbishes Mr. Haughey's protests that he knew virtually nothing of his financial arrangements and his claims that he never knew where the Cayman Islands were, never mind what they were for, before the tribunal. He finds that Mr. Haughey had use of €11.6 million over the 17 years to 1996. That amounts to 171 times his salary in, as Mr. Justice Moriarty notes, difficult economic times and when Governments led by Mr. Haughey were championing austerity.

According to the report, the former Taoiseach's financial actions were secretive, opaque and frequently involved offshore vehicles. He siphoned money from friends, party and, ultimately, his country at a time when he held the highest office in Government. Even the late former Minister, Brian Lenihan's transplant fund was fair game. Public austerity went with private affluence and avarice. As for tax, the subtext was "I am the Taoiseach; I can be a difficult adversary".

Money is one thing, public duty is another. This report's findings cast serious doubt over the probity, independence and ethical operation of Mr. Haughey's Governments. The report notes his disposition to involve himself in the affairs of individual Government Departments. We have to ask on what basis he did so. We have to ask what actually took place at the Cabinet table, in Government Departments and in public decision-making fora. The report finds elements of fear and domination engendered by him in individuals in both private and public sectors. That fear enabled him to hide the money trail. The domination meant he could live with impunity on dirty money. Together, they sent the Haughey gravy train down the tracks because, in that corrosive climate, he and his inner circle in business knew that nothing or no one could stop them.

There is a solitary comfort in this report, namely the conclusion that, while what transpired was unacceptable, wrong and must not be replicated, it would be quite unwarranted to conclude that everyone was at it. Everyone was not at it but the names Haughey, Lawlor and Burke cover politics with something less than glory.

The Taoiseach said that everyone was at it and I know of many cases where treasurers at various clubs around the country sign blank cheques. At the end of the year, however, they have to account for where they went. The Taoiseach said he was at an election count on 16 June when a cheque for €25,000 was made out to cash, for personal purposes. The fact that it was not accounted for properly represents a failure on the part of the Taoiseach, as an accountant and a politician.

I will finish with the words of Machiavelli:

Everyone understands how praiseworthy it is in princes to keep faith, to live uprightly and not craftily. Nevertheless, we see from what has taken place in our own days that princes have set little store by their word, but have known how to overreach men by their cunning, have accomplished great things, and, in the end, got the better of those who trusted to honest dealings.

I hope this tribunal report will ensure such a thing never happens again.

Mr. Allen

I believe everything is not all right and that a change of Government is the only way to change the current political culture. People were rightly shocked by the recent revelations of the Moriarty tribunal which clearly indicated that the Taoiseach was engaged in wrongful practices. Are we satisfied that it is all right now when the Moriarty tribunal exposed the reality of a Taoiseach who personally netted the equivalent of €45 million from business while serving in office?

Are we comfortable with the statement of the current Taoiseach that the signing of blank cheques was all right and that it was the wholesale practice at the time? Was the signing of blank cheques a wholesale practice in each of our community groups, caring organisations or businesses? Did the current Taoiseach, in any practice of accountability, account for the signing of cheques at the end of a financial year in the same way as those community groups or even the smallest pitch and putt club? It is outrageous for anyone to insist that was normal practice and, as a former accountant, the Taoiseach should state clearly that it was wrong.

Do we now accept the words of George Colley that, under the leadership of Charles J. Haughey, there were low standards in high places? Does the recent report of Mr. Justice Moriarty not indicate that a political mafia operated in Ireland under Charles J. Haughey? Does that mafia still exist, as does the Mafia in Italy? Does anyone believe the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, when he says he did not know the purpose of the blank cheques being cashed? Should we care? Does anybody care? It is time for the people to take note of these matters because recent revelations confirm that when people were paying 65p tax in the pound, political leaders in Fianna Fáil were having a very good time at their expense. That is not all right.

The political culture that has been laid bare in recent times requires urgent and effective eradication. We need a government that removes once and for all the political culture of the Haughey era. I believe that culture exists to the present day. When I do not hear outright and unambiguous condemnation of the actions of former leaders, I believe it is proof that the culture still exists.

It is essential to the political well-being of our country that there is a change of government in 2007. Fine Gael, with our colleagues in the Labour Party and our democratic allies, will continue to provide the people with a democratic choice that will remove Fianna Fáil from government for the next five years. We will ask the people to break the link with the Haughey era, and especially with this Government and the Taoiseach, who only recently described the late Mr. Haughey as a patriot to his fingertips.

Mr. Rabbitte

I record my thanks and appreciation, and that of my party, to Mr. Justice Moriarty and his team for this report. Tribunal reports are the end product of a tortuous process. All parties in this House are uneasy about that process, in particular about the delay and extraordinary expense involved, but much of that is due to the stonewalling and destructive tactics of those who have most to lose from the truth. We have yet to see whether the tribunal will use the new powers available to it to ensure that the eventual cost is borne by those who generated this expense rather than by the taxpayers.

Despite the attendant reservations that must accompany the publication of a document that was commissioned almost ten years ago, I believe this report is important. It, together with the McCracken report which immediately preceded it, goes some way towards rescuing our democracy from growing uneasiness that a small group of powerful and wealthy individuals had come to regard themselves as the beneficial owners of the State, while nobody in authority was prepared to call a halt.

The findings of this, the first report of the Moriarty tribunal, represent a damning indictment. As Deputy Kenny said, it is an indictment not just of the record of Charles Haughey, but also of the entire political culture in Fianna Fáil during the period when he dominated that party. It is the reason that a new conventional wisdom has grown up that Fianna Fáil cannot be let out without an escort. Even those likely to support the party do not trust them to govern alone. It is accepted without question that there must be a watchdog. For years the Progressive Democrats made a good living from riding shotgun on Fianna Fáil. When the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, went up a pole in Ranelagh during the last election with his "Single Party, no thanks!" poster, he did not need to explain that he was exploiting the Haughey legacy; Fianna Fáil cannot be trusted to govern alone.

Whether the Progressive Democrats have discharged that role is a subject for another day. The fact that the Progressive Democrats today collude with the current leader of Fianna Fáil to allocate just 90 minutes of Dáil time, almost two months after the report was published, to allow for statements only on the issues that arise is testament that the watchdog no longer even barks.

The point of these tribunals and their reports is not just to conduct historical researches and arrive at the truth about long distant events, but to derive lessons for public policy on the way we conduct our business in future. This is a very detailed report but it is just part one. There are still public hearings to be held and then a second and final report. I hope that final report will contain Mr. Justice Moriarty's recommendations on some of the outstanding issues.

Despite the attempts of the Fianna Fáil spinners to downplay Mr. Justice Moriarty's findings, the judge, in most cases, is unsparing in his criticism of Mr. Haughey and other senior Fianna Fáil figures, both members of the parliamentary party and those who were key contributors to Mr. Haughey and his party. This is a sorry tale of misuse of taxpayers money, the placing of public servants under pressure to do the will of the then Taoiseach and a group of craven colleagues who were unwilling to challenge his writ. I had arrived at my own view on these matters ten years ago and I repeat today what I said in the debate on the setting up of this tribunal. I stated:

What would Mr. de Valera have thought of the Gandon mansion, the estate with the roaming thoroughbreds, the island, the fine wines and the yacht? A successor of Mr. de Valera posing as a country squire, a man of the arts, a man of the turf, a great helmsman who embodied the spirit of the nation and who was born in, or with an affinity to, a county in each province, a man who was the possessor both of the common touch and wealthy benefactors. The persona which Mr. Haughey affected, where Micheál Mac Liammóir meets the Great Gatsby, seemed to regard the huge private payments not merely as being permissible but as being the natural order of things. Just as the chieftains of ancient times lived off the fat of the land, our modern day warrior took it all as his due entitlement. Others, while almost certainly not knowing any of the details of Mr. Haughey's financial chicanery, also seemed to regard it as the natural order of things. This was the high point of the new political culture ushered in when the men in mohair suits took over from the men with no arses in their trousers.

Charles J. Haughey was the arch-practitioner of the new culture in a party where only a few rebelled and a majority willingly did his bidding.

Throughout all these controversies. . . we did not hear one word of criticism about the conduct of the main players from any senior figure in Fianna Fáil. When in Opposition, the Progressive Democrats had no doubts about the reason this was the case, as their then Finance spokesperson, [Deputy] Michael McDowell, made clear in the Goodman debate of 2 September 1994. He stated:

We have never heard it and I dare say we never will because the reality is that they were bought and stay bought. They know that Goodman knows where the bodies are buried; they dare not even rebuke this man because they know in their hearts that he has information on them and that he would bring them down like a group of skittles if the truth ever emerged.

That was the Progressive Democrats in Opposition. These days, it is a mutter from a relieved Tánaiste to an even more relieved Taoiseach after a press conference during the "Bertiegate" affair: "We have survived it, Taoiseach".

It is hard to disagree with Mr. Justice Moriarty's conclusion that the payments received by Mr. Haughey during his political career "devalued the quality of a modern democracy" or the finding that the years from 1979 to 1992 "was a dismal period in the interface between politics and business". Some idea of the scale of the money received by Mr. Haughey under the period examined by the tribunal can be gauged by Mr. Justice Moriarty's finding that it was the equivalent of 171 times Mr. Haughey's salary as Taoiseach for the year of 1988.

Perhaps the most shocking finding of the tribunal about Mr. Haughey is on the question of the money raised for his friend and lifetime colleague, Brian Lenihan. It is difficult to believe that somebody as wealthy as Mr. Haughey could actually have set out to raise more money than he knew was required to fund Mr. Lenihan's operation and then apply part of these funds for his own purpose. Nothing has been more revelatory of the nature of Fianna Fáil as an organisation, and its single-minded focus on retaining power, than the restrained response of those closest to the late Mr. Lenihan.

I also find it significant that the tribunal has specifically commented that its findings "cannot and does not give rise to a finding that all other acts or decisions in public office on the part of Mr. Haughey during the relevant years were devoid of infirmity". For example, as someone who gave evidence to the beef tribunal and studied it carefully, the decision not to make a single order for discovery of bank accounts virtually undermined its credibility when it came to its findings as to corruption.

The terms of reference of the tribunal were geared towards examining Charles Haughey's finances throughout his later ministerial career, and his period as head of Government, rather than examining particular allegations concerning specific public, ministerial or Government decisions. On the one hand, in trying to determine where the money came from, it was an exhaustive and exhausting exercise. On the other hand, in the absence of specific allegations and specific leads, we still do not know why the money came nor, despite the stories of fine wines and Charvet shirts, do we know where it all went.

We do know, however, that during the periods when he raised most money and spent so much, Charles Haughey retained a relentless grip on the reins of power in Fianna Fáil despite the fact that every reasonable assessment both within and outside that party was that he was an enormous electoral liability.

The misuse of the party leader's allowance, which is taxpayers' money, was denied up to the last in this House. Charles Haughey even resorted to the leader's allowance to give a colleague a "dig out" from public funds to avoid a bankruptcy that would have cost the party a Dáil seat.

It was his abnegation of responsibility in the management of that account that has come back to haunt the present Taoiseach. Introducing the resolution to establish this tribunal back in 1997, the Taoiseach was disingenuous, to put it at its kindest. He said:

Deputy Spring has raised the issue of the party leader's allowance during Fianna Fáil's period in Opposition. In so far as I could with little available records I am satisfied, having spoken to the person who administered the account, that it was used for bona fide party purposes, that the cheques were prepared by that person and countersigned by another senior party member. Their purpose was to finance personnel, press and other normal supports for an Opposition leader. There was no surplus and no misappropriation. The person involved had sole control of the account. The money came in, the person lodged the cheque, dealt with the bills and invoices and paid those not covered by the ordinary allowance.

Nowhere in that account of events did he admit the fact that the "other senior party member" he referred to was in fact himself, or that his practice was to sign blank cheques by the dozen. If Deputy Spring on this side of the House knew enough about the abuse of the leader's allowance to write to Mr. Haughey about it at the time, how is it that the man signing the cheques suspected nothing?

It is true that in the ten years since the tribunal was set up, there have been reforms. It is also true that every reform has been dragged from this Government like extracting teeth. My party published Bills in 2000 on tax clearance for candidates, on reform of our prevention of corruption laws and on the registration of lobbyists. There has been movement on two of those issues but no action at all on lobbying. That failure is all the more disgraceful given the relentless river of revelations coming from the other tribunal that shows just how debased our public planning process had become due to the interaction of big business, party funding, lobbying and backhanders.

The Government has failed also, despite some initial signs of movement following the first DIRT report, to do anything to enshrine the independence of the Revenue Commissioners and ensure their freedom of action, free of any fear of political interference. Both the Revenue and the Department of Finance signalled their acceptance of a need to legislate along these lines but nothing at all has been done about it.

One other failure also needs to be mentioned. In the past 20 years or so during which tribunals, judicial and parliamentary, have become a part of the Irish furniture, I cannot recall a single example in a single module of any one of those tribunals where a public servant blew the whistle. We have no culture of whistle-blowing in this country and our public life is the poorer for it.

Labour's reaction to this report is not just one of recrimination and "I told you so". Our reaction is that it sets an agenda for change. It reaffirms us in our commitment to our registration of lobbyists Bill and our Protection of Whistleblowers Bill, which this Government accepted on Second Stage and then put out to Committee Stage six or seven years ago and left it there. It strengthens our resolve to reform the Ethics Acts in line with the Standards in Public Office Commission's own recommendations to allow it to hold a preliminary inquiry without the need for a formal complaint and formal hearings.

We are committed, another promise flagged by the Taoiseach ten years ago but about which we have heard nothing since, to the establishment of a single, independent and resourced electoral and ethics commission. This single commission will incorporate the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Constituency Review Commission and its constitutionally enshrined status will, in the Taoiseach's own words, "guarantee the independence and impartiality of the commission, generate greater confidence in public life, create greater transparency in public institutions and provide an independent source of advice and information in the areas of ethics in public life and electoral law reform".

At the time of his death I said of Charles Haughey that, in and out of office, he was a dominant figure in Irish politics for a period of almost four decades. He was at all times a hugely controversial figure who attracted great loyalty among his supporters, even if it inspired amnesia in them, and fierce opposition from his opponents. As Taoiseach and as a Government Minister, Charles Haughey had many achievements of note. He was a skilled parliamentarian and a genuinely reforming Minister for Justice and Minister for Social Welfare.

There is no doubt, however, but that we must conclude Charles Haughey did this State a profound disservice. He devalued the State as a political entity because he devalued the profession of politics and, thereby, he devalued our status as fellow politicians. We have collectively been lowered in public esteem as a result of the self-serving swathe he cut through public probity and, when it came to the Lenihan fund, common decency.

This is the dilemma that faces us. On the one hand, we must search out the truth and face up to its implications. On the other hand, the damage that is done in the process is suffered by all of us currently involved in politics. The only way to rebut the claim that "all politicians are the same, they are all at it" is to demonstrate convincingly that standards have changed, that the rules are different, that new rule changes are on the way and that there is no going back to that discredited and utterly discreditable way of doing the public's business.

Mr. Morgan

I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Sargent.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Morgan

No one was surprised at the findings of the report of the Moriarty tribunal on the personal finances of the late Mr. Charles Haughey. The manner in which he conducted himself while holding high office has been well exposed before now and is confirmed by the report. Equally, if not more important is the light the report sheds on the relationship between privileged people in politics, and big business and financial services. Charles Haughey benefited from this relationship. While small customers were treated by AIB with the utmost severity, the privileged, such as Mr. Haughey were allowed to default on huge debts. As a beneficiary of the Ansbacher scam, the late former Taoiseach was one of a select few wealthy people facilitated in hiding their money offshore and evading tax in the late 1980s.

Let it not be forgotten that companies that aided the Ansbacher rip-off of the ordinary taxpayer included Cement Roadstone Holdings, from whose head office the scam was run. CRH is still one of the most powerful players in the Irish economy, with a virtual monopoly on the construction material market. It has benefited hugely from the speculator-driven and anti-people planning and development policies of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in Government for the past decade.

While legislation has made it more difficult for politicians to benefit personally from the types of dealings exposed by the tribunal, a golden circle still exists. Without doubt decisions have been taken by Government that were against the public interest and in the interest of its friends in big business. A classic example is the changing of Part V of the Planning and Development Act after intensive lobbying by developers. The original Part V required developers to provide 20% social and affordable housing in all developments. This was changed by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government at the developers' behest to allow them to buy their way out of their obligations by paying money to local authorities. As a direct result, low-income families have been deprived of homes.

We have seen the granting of major tax concessions to the developers of private hospitals. The former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, admitted he introduced this concession after lobbying by a private hospital developer in his constituency. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has extended the concession by making public hospital land available to developers of private hospitals. Just as scandalous as anything in this report is the ongoing robbery of our natural gas and oil by multinationals which were handed these resources by successive governments.

What of the role of the former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, and other Ministers still with us in making and maintaining sweetheart deals with the multinationals? Do they not warrant an inquiry? Instead the Government has ridden roughshod over the community in Rossport and robbed this and future generations of what are rightly ours. Why have we not had a tribunal on the privatisation of Eircom to the benefit of multi-millionaires such as Tony O'Reilly and at the expense of many thousands of small shareholders who were conned? As a result we have a substandard telecommunications infrastructure in the hands of a private monopoly. Far from regretting this, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats went on to privatise the national airline, Aer Lingus. All of these measures are legal, but against the public interest and in the interest of a golden circle that still exists here.

The report of the Moriarty tribunal states that the conduct of Charles Haughey "devalued the quality of modern democracy". That devaluation continues to this day and never more so than under this politically bankrupt Government. Efforts should be made to retrieve the taxpayers' hard-earned funds.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Moriarty tribunal report, which dealt with payments to Mr. Haughey and Deputy Lowry. It is a very important and detailed report and I commend Mr. Justice Moriarty and his excellent team for their top-class work. It is a sad day for politics and those in public life — Deputies, Senators and councillors. As a former member of Dublin City Council, I know that many councillors are very upset over what has happened over the years on this issue.

Corruption and sleaze in politics are simply wrong. There should be no fudge, no dithering and no dodging the issue. It is simply wrong and all politicians should say so. Being elected to the Oireachtas is a great honour and privilege. Many of us have worked hard to get here. When we witness events such as those outlined in the Moriarty tribunal report it deeply disturbs us. We are elected on the trust of our people. That trust should never be damaged or tainted in any way. The report clearly shows how certain politicians did that. All the major parties need to examine themselves. It is not just one or two individuals. We need to review the role of big business and vested interests, and their political connection. Even in 2007 big builders, developers and those with big resources are supporting and actively lobbying certain Deputies, which is not acceptable and is dangerous. The decision-making process can be compromised very easily.

There is a way forward on this issue. Many of us believe the two most important things in politics are hard work and honest politics. We need to challenge those out there. Sadly we lose 20% to 30% of the voters at each election because they have become disillusioned. I constantly hear "You are all the same" on the doorsteps. We are not all the same and it is not acceptable. I challenge people who say that and do not vote. Many of us here do our best. We try honest politics, try hard work and we get on. I agree we have a vested interest. My vested interest is to represent working people, the elderly and the disabled. That is my mandate and I have the honour to represent the people of Dublin North-Central.

Mr. Justice Moriarty's report states that the whole issue can only be said to have devalued the quality of a modern democracy. This is what happened with those individuals and many other individuals, many of whom have not yet been caught. I do not take the high moral ground on this issue. There is nothing wrong in demanding and expecting high standards in our politics, which is crucial to the debate on the Moriarty tribunal report.

Ireland was once known as the land of saints and scholars. However, today it is better known as the land of scandals and tribunals. It is not just politicians. Banking, the church, business, the medical profession and the Garda have all suffered from erosion of public confidence in the wake of an astonishing list of scandals. Moreover Ireland has undergone rapid social economic and political change in the past decade, which has had a profound impact on our value system. Ireland at the start of the 21st century is fairly prosperous, which I welcome. However, difficult decisions need to be made about the distribution of resources and questions need to be asked. How can the tension between the rights of the individuals and the overall good of society be resolved? To whom do we look for guidance? The political elite, the church, the medical and legal profession, and business leaders have all had their credibility damaged, which we must also face up to. I believe these issues are relevant to the debate.

Earlier I heard the Taoiseach say that history would be the final judge of Mr. Haughey. In reality the Taoiseach should come out straight and say it was simply wrong. It is not acceptable for him to ask us to leave it to history. The serious misappropriation of donations intended to assist with the medical treatment of the late Mr. Brian Lenihan was appalling. It was disgraceful that money from a medical treatment fund was taken for personal benefit. It is appalling for something like this to happen in someone's private life or public life. I welcome the sensible Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. There are times when we may feel that some of their requirements are over the top, but nevertheless they exist.

It is not just a question of legislation. It is up to each individual in the House to get on with the job and root out corruption and sleaze in politics. As one of the more recent arrivals to this House, I believe this is something on which we should all unite. I thank Mr. Justice Moriarty for this excellent report and I reiterate that the way forward in Irish politics is through honest politics and hard work.

Mr. Sargent

Thar ceann an Chomhaontais Ghlais, fáiltím roimh an deis seo labhairt ar thuairisc Uí Mhuircheartaigh. It is regrettable that we do not have the opportunity for question and answers on this matter because the response of the Taoiseach to the report is characterised by a word, "surprise". He tells us he was surprised to discover that Mr. Haughey had a darker side. He was surprised to find out about the pilfering, equivalent to €41 million, during his career and he said he was surprised if any party had as high standards as Fianna Fáil in the way it operates its leader's allowance, which indicates a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil type of approach. Parties generally have been ahead of the posse in respect of being accountable for the leader's allowance. In my party, I would be happy to have absolute clarity and transparency because it is important to have that in regard to all public funding.

It is interesting to speculate on "what if". As a correspondent in The Irish Times wrote, the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, regrets that he signed blank cheques for Charles Haughey, but who would be Taoiseach today if he had refused? The RTE programme, “What If”, which Diarmuid Ferriter presents on a Sunday morning, has speculated on a number of “what if” scenarios in Irish history. In terms of modern Irish history, the “what if” in this case would be quite interesting. What if the Taoiseach had refused to sign those cheques? I would certainly like to hear what the Taoiseach would have to say about that if he was present.

The Taoiseach gives the impression that all is well and that things have been put in order, but things are not all well. First, we are down €25 million so far on the cost of this report. The country is down another €215 million in regard to the various tribunals so far. That is money that could have been better spent — €39 million would have given us an extra 1,000 teachers for our classrooms, thus reducing the pupil-teacher ratio, as promised by the Government, while €97 million would have provided medical cards for children under six years of age. We would have been able to get the extra gardaí who might have prevented much of the hyperbole from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which adds to the heartache of crime in society. Given that we are down that money, an apology is due on that score for a start.

Second, there is the continuing temptation put in the way of unscrupulous and seemingly wealthy developers who can exploit a dysfunctional property market to the detriment of everyone else. Those rules have not changed, notwithstanding the indication that they resulted in corruption previously. I have no reason to believe that has all gone away. There is the poverty that results from that for people who are locked into high mortgages, the working-poor as they tend to be called nowadays. There is child poverty caused by great poverty, illness caused by great poverty and also illness caused by great wealth, which is ironic in this country but also in the rest of the western world. Essentially, we have a dysfunctional property market which is at the root of much of that corruption.

The long-standing Justice Kenny report on property and building land of 1973 has been studiously ignored by successive Governments. All the talk about implementing its recommendations has been followed by zilch action. Therein lies another indication of things not being well and in need of being addressed on foot of this report.

The corporate donations scenario has huge billboards appearing like mushrooms all around the country, payment for which comes with the acceptance that those with a lot of money can essentially influence the political system by giving donations. That is what is happening.

Much of the genesis of the tribunals, certainly the beef tribunal, came from not giving factual replies in the House. A change in Standing Orders is needed to force replies to be given. Last week, I referred to an article in The Sunday Tribune and the Taoiseach accused me of writing it. I have a letter here from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which I quoted to the Taoiseach and he accused me — as reported in The Irish Times today — of showing him a bogus letter. There is a need for accountability in the House and if we are not to have that, we are destined for further tribunals, needless expenditure, needless waste and a continuing bad name for politics.

The Irish branch of Transparency International, on foot of the Moriarty tribunal, has called for additional powers for the Standards in Public Office Commission and full disclosure of financial accounts by political parties, covering not just the three weeks coming up to expenditure on an election, but between one election day and the next — total transparency. They acknowledge the benefit of the tribunal in exposing the wrongdoing which facilitated widespread tax evasion, the illegal sale of passports, the theft of charitable and party political funds and the recouping of substantial sums in tax revenue. Further still, they call for anti-corruption measures. The fact that we are not getting that from these statements is the reason we need to return to this report and have questions and answers which, hopefully, would lead to some accountability.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

This report is necessary, timely and extremely clear. It is damning, shocking and forensic. Above all, it is credible. The greatest respect we can give this report is to implement a programme of fundamental reforms to ensure the events outlined in its pages do not recur. We do not need gestures, verbiage or crass political narratives but action, delivery, legislation and follow through, reform on firm foundations, new norms and new demands of us all. Earlier Deputy Finian McGrath said corruption and sleaze in politics is wrong. Of course it is wrong in every part of society. That is the reason we change our laws when we become aware of issues in order to ensure they do not recur.

This House must show a determination that concrete change flows from the events exposed in the 700 pages of this report. Our bottom line is that we must shape a political system which lives up to the values and expectations of ordinary decent people. That is why we introduced the Standards in Public Office Acts.

Deputy Rabbitte referred to whisteblowers. Section 5 of the Act provides immunity for a person who makes a complaint in good faith and protection against any issue surfacing. It provides that where a person in good faith makes a complaint, no cause of action shall lie against that person. We looked at putting the whole issue of whistleblowers into a single Act but the strong advice from those from whom we take it, the Civil Service and the Attorney General, was that rather than put it into one single Act, it should be done on a sectoral basis. That has happened ever since, based on what was in the Standards in Public Office Act.

We introduced statutory codes of practice and guidelines for officeholders and oversight for independent standards in the Standards in Public Office Commission. We introduced electoral Acts which impose high standards regarding political donations and expenditure. Through these reforms we have fundamentally altered, updated and reformed the old procedures. That was the most appropriate response to the events outlined in the Moriarty report. This process of reform, under way before publication of the report, will continue. The report strengthens our resolve in that respect.

The Government has moved comprehensively to deal with the legacy of past reform through financial companies and taxation systems. The fundamental restructuring of the Revenue Commissioners created a dedicated investigations and prosecutions division to drive stronger anti-evasion operations and to bring prosecutions in cases of tax and duty evasion.

Other measures include granting extensive additional statutory powers to Revenue, advancing codes of practice to guard against conflicts of interest, establishing the Financial Regulator as a single financial regulatory authority specifically mandated to protect consumers and better reporting of financial irregularities between State agencies. The Financial Regulator is now empowered to report the suspicious proceeds of tax evasion and all forms of money laundering to the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners. We imposed a proactive obligation on the Financial Regulator to report all suspicious transactions. We introduced an ambitious programme to update and modernise the Companies Act and went ahead with strengthening the prevention of corruption legislation, including in it, as the Taoiseach already mentioned, a presumption of corruption for non-disclosure of a significant political donation in particular circumstances. This sort of programme and these kind of forward-looking and concrete reforms is the appropriate response to the Moriarty report.

Some of the hardest reading in this report relates to the abuse of the party leader's account. The events outlined in this report have brought about a radical overhaul of the party leader's account system. The report acknowledges that it is noteworthy that the Taoiseach has insisted on reforming that system. Within Fianna Fáil, the party auditors must now present the audited accounts of the party to its national trustees, treasurers and senior party officials. This money must be spent for the good of the party. Under Deputy Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach, we have changed the legislation governing such accounts. The old system where party leaders had huge discretion in the use of the account has been changed.

Today, the proper application of the leader's parliamentary allowance is spelled out. We have defined the meaning of expenses arising from parliamentary activities and demand an audited statement of the expenditure from the allowance. We demand that the statement be given to the Standards in Public Office Commission. We have cleared away the previous ambiguities. We did not have to wait for this report. We acted as was proper and on the demand of the people. If further reforms are necessitated by the findings of this report or the final Moriarty report, we stand ready to implement them. The greatest respect we can give to this report is to implement a programme of fundamental reforms to ensure the events outlined in these pages do not recur.

Throughout the 1990s and the early part of this decade, a profound social, economic and cultural modernisation occurred throughout this country. As part of that process, many of the old elites and stratifications have been questioned, weakened and put in their proper place, not by politicians or commentators but by ordinary people. The relationship between the people and the church, politicians, banks and even the paramilitaries has changed utterly. Particular triggers and catalysts, such as the Eamonn Casey affair, the murder of Robert McCartney, the events outlined in this report or the banking scandals, set out profound shifts in the relationship between the public and these groups. These shifts have been overwhelmingly positive and are a sign of a confident, independent people with positive values who are leading, not being led, and are rejecting corruption, hypocrisy and the blind acceptance of authority. Our programme of reform is attempting to create the system to live up to those values and to give the people the standards in public office they expect and deserve from those whose sole purpose, as Deputy Finian McGrath said, is to serve the people.

I do not believe one can contort the complex life and character of Charles Haughey into a single political narrative. Those who have tried have not been credible. The public understand the complexities because he was neither all hero nor all villain, neither all good nor all bad. What the Taoiseach — the president of Fianna Fáil — said at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fhéis in 1997 and at the grave of Mr. Haughey was true, proper and right. People understand the complexities of the man. Let us leave the rest to historians. Let us focus on the future rather than the past, but let us learn from the past on the job of reform and building a system that lives up to the values of decent, ordinary Irish people.

Deputy Kenny was incorrect in saying earlier that my party did not condemn wrongdoing. We did condemn it every time it was proven. I very much look forward to the later report of Mr. Justice Moriarty and hope that, at that stage, we will have further reforming to do in this House.

Mr. O’Dowd

I wish to share time with Deputy Perry.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O’Dowd

History will pass judgment on Mr. Haughey and his work. My father was a Fianna Fáil supporter and thought highly of Mr. Haughey because of certain things he did in his lifetime, particularly in respect of artists and writers. However, he would be very disappointed to read this report, as I was. I suppose the most salutary page to read is the one that reiterates the money he received time and time again. People gave him money and we do not know what happened to it, but we know he received it.

It shows that there was something rotten in Ireland at that time. We have not changed it fully. We have not changed corruption and the opportunity for corruption in significant ways, notwithstanding the changes that have been made with the Standards in Public Office Commission.

The most significant possibility for change is around the law governing rezoning and development plans. Other tribunals have shown that, time and time again, when councillors were about to make decisions on rezoning and development plans, they were visited on their doorsteps, not by people speaking on behalf of the public interest but those speaking on behalf of developers and landowners who pushed and made their way into those people's pockets with cash or cheques.

We must have more transparency about these times. When rezoning and new development plans are up for review, if any member of a local authority meets anybody about these plans, he or she should declare this. A simple register which, for example, could record that a councillor met Johnny Murphy from the residents' association who was making representations about specific rezoning issues or met Joe Murphy, a developer, in connection with his plans for 200 houses, would suffice. There is nothing wrong with discussing things in committees or in public and we should have this forum in a public place, namely, the local authority chamber and nowhere else.

Notwithstanding that, I understand that sometimes communities want to make their points to other people. If we have transparency, openness and accountability about those times and meetings through recording them and making it publicly known that they have taken place, this in itself will help change the system. It is a simple process that I believe will work and make public life more transparent and open when millions are made overnight as a result of councillors' decisions. It will allow us to know exactly who met these councillors, what they spoke about and what the issues were.

Mr. Perry

Last year ended with yet another report critical of aspects of Fianna Fáil political leadership being laid before the House. What I read in the Moriarty report leads me to question what it says for our heritage. It is unsatisfactory that when faced with troublesome past actions and inaction, some can so easily settle for an expedient rationale of mistakes, namely, incompetence, when the core issue is character.

The question of remembering then arises. Forgetfulness is something that can happen to us all. When asked to recall if any alarm bells ever rang and if they ever heard any words of concern about low standards in high places, some claimed they could not remember. They cannot recall if they ever knew anything. Yet, the contradiction is that they can now remember with certainty that whatever happened, it did not happen as stated in the report.

The question becomes what heritage we will bequeath to the following generations. We want the highest standards of law enforcement and justice when it comes to serious and violent crime, drug dealers, the carnage on the roads, the carelessness of young drivers — an important issue which must be dealt with — and in so many other areas of society. We must demand the same high standards of Government. If we ask for the highest standards from others, we must also demand them of ourselves.

I have faith in the commitment of the people to the old-fashioned virtues of integrity and competence. In the past, when times were hard, people believed that prosperity would come from hard work and honesty. Grandparents and parents nurtured ordinary decent values through education, by their words and by their actions. They taught us that honesty, decency, integrity and doing good are simple virtues that matter profoundly. They set a standard for all our actions. The ethical test, like life itself, was simple then. As a country we had our ups and downs. Mistakes were made and those involved can claim that they were all small. Anyway, many minor ethical departures did not make for a major concern. In addition, there was a reluctance to shoulder responsibility for the social consequences of the tough political decisions evaded. The bill was posted to those who accepted that they should pay their taxes.

People shape their own character and, thus, their destiny in the initiatives taken to solve life's tough problems and in the sacrifices made in choosing one path over another. Everything connects together through character. People have distinctive personalities that shape attitudes and behaviour. We must make allowances for a few small flaws on the basis that benefits follow from many other more positive talents. In the past we have been persuaded that the greater the talents, the greater should be our tolerance for a leader's flaws. People understand ordinary human failings and forgiveness is an enduring feature of Christianity. We understood the essential difference between the sinner and the sin and there was a healthy scepticism of those who righteously preached values and virtues, which was endorsed by the occasional spectacle of some falling from their lofty perch. However, as we have grown wiser, the more we understand that the balancing act between private flaws and public duties is unstable for a few powerful people. Like a spider's web, the flaws morph into threads that reach out to bridge the gap between the highest standards of personal integrity and the most minimal legal necessity, and then some more. All who come close are entangled and, after the gale has gone, history and heritage remain. Our heritage defines part of our identity and there is much in our history in which we can take pride.

For those events recorded for posterity in the Moriarty report, there is a requirement to formally mark the end of that era, not only with another report, but with a new Government. The old adage tells us there is a limit to the number of straws the camel can carry. The report is about events and a blind loyalty to silence that we do not wish to be part of our future. Only a new start with a new Government can ensure this happens. This report, which took years to compile, is a damning indictment of the difficulties people encountered throughout the political system. Young people find it very hard to connect with politics. It is a great honour to be elected by the people to represent them in the national Parliament and that involves significant trust, which has been so badly damaged that it has affected the body politic. Clearly, that is why there is much scepticism among young people regarding politicians and their work. They are quite cynical about the political system, even when one visits schools.

The report is critical. The intoxication of power, which was evident during the time under investigation, was the basis of the greatest mistake of all, as people used power for the sake of power and they added considerably to the intoxication. The next generation of politicians will be subject to the ethics in public office legislation, which is commendable. However, when there was no money in the economy in the 1980s and 1990s and there was mass emigration and people paid a standard rate of tax of 28% and high corporation tax while being hammered in every sense, it was totally wrong of those involved to take advantage of power for the sake of it.

Going forward, the country will demand openness, transparency, honesty and integrity of office regardless of the achievements of those in office. The ultimate test will be their ability to uphold old, decent values relating to integrity, competence and accountability and to stand for what they believe in regardless. All one has at the end of the day is one's name. One will be judged on what one speaks honestly about, what one acts upon and how one represents one's constituents. That is the ultimate test. While the duration of the inquiry has been criticised, Mr. Justice Moriarty must be complimented on this extensive report. It is disappointing that a question and answer session on the report has not been facilitated, given the cost involved, the time it took to compile and the searching questions it addressed. Members should have been permitted to seek answers.

I am delighted to have contributed to the debate because the publication of the report represents an important milestone. What happened during these difficult times cannot be repeated in a free country. While it is disappointing that these events took place, at least people are being brought to account for it.

Mr. Ardagh

As the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated, Charlie Haughey was not all hero or all villain and he was not all bad or all good. However, as I read the Moriarty report last night, I was absolutely astounded by the scale and enormity of the payments made between 1979 and the early 1990s. The number of payments and the variety of people who made them are absolutely staggering. Charles Haughey is gone and the reports suggest that in a number of cases the payments influenced actions that were taken. However, it is a tribunal of inquiry and not a court of law.

A huge cloud hung over Charles Haughey during his twilight years when he should have enjoyed days of glory, which is regrettable. At the end of the day, he received in excess of £9 million, which is the equivalent of €45 million today, according to the Taoiseach. It is paradoxical that as a result of these ill gotten moneys, Mr. Haughey only paid €5 million in a tax settlement, which is a relatively small amount. The money he received enabled him to retain and improve his estate in north County Dublin, which expanded significantly during the period in question. At the same time, as I travel around his old constituency, I meet elderly people who point out that he introduced the free travel scheme, provided decent increases in the old age pension and introduced succession rights for women and children. He was also responsible for significant developments in the arts, such as Aosdána, the Irish Museum of Modern Art, as was highlighted during RTE's arts programme last night, as well as the development of Government Buildings, Temple Bar and the IFSC. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs asked, is he all hero or all villain? A balance must be struck in this regard. Deputy Kenny referred to Machiavelli and the princes and an analogy can be drawn between Charles J. Haughey and the princes served by Machiavelli.

The report does not reflect well on the work of the Revenue during this period. The then chief inspector of taxes should be commended for seeking from the Taoiseach of the day his income tax returns from the early 1980s until 1991. The tenacity of the chief inspector — whom I will not name because he still works in Revenue — should be acknowledged. I refer to the issue of tax evasion, which is mentioned in the report. Many people feel it is worthwhile evading tax because if they can invest their money in an enterprise, they can easily afford to pay what they owe when they are caught five or ten years later on the basis of the increase in the value of their assets. I suggest the Minister would put in place a system to ensure some way by which an assessment would be made of the present value of all the moneys, including the gains that are made, rather than the historical value. I commend Mr. Justice Moriarty on the report. Lessons are to be learned and we have much work to do to ensure people think highly of politics, politicians and people in high office. Let us work on that.

Minister for Education and Science (Ms Hanafin)

My maiden speech in this House in September 1997 was on the McCracken report and the foundation of the tribunal we are discussing today. At that time, cosúil leis na Teachtaí eile atá sa Teach anois, bhíomar lán de dhóchas agus an-bhródúil as a bheith anseo, taking our responsibilities from a very free, democratic first Dáil and taking on board our responsibilities to the electorate and those who had put their trust in us.

It was very clear to me then, as it is almost ten years later, that the duties and the way we discharge our duties, the way we perform our work and responsibilities and the obligations we have to our electorate are very legitimate topics for scrutiny by the public. What we have in the Moriarty tribunal is an indepth analysis of those responsibilities and duties of people in the past. It is critically important the public would continue to have confidence in us as Members of the Oireachtas, in the people whom they elect and in their Government. Because if they do not, then the cornerstone of democracy is shaken.

The McCracken report revealed to us for the first time payments that had been made to politicians and leaders which shocked all of us in this House. We probably did not realise ten years ago it would take ten years for us to get to this stage where we are talking about the report of the Moriarty tribunal, but these findings have proven the value of having set up that tribunal ten years ago. The findings for any one of us in this House are truly shocking because they show how public life has been let down, how the public has been let down and how I as a Minister and a member of Fianna Fáil have been let down by a former party leader and a former Taoiseach. What was found in that report was obviously a great tragedy for Mr. Haughey himself, a man who had great potential and did achieve so much, but it also highlighted the wrongs of tax evasion, of gifts received and the misuse of monetary donations. That has done not just himself but the whole of public life a terrible disservice.

In my job as Minister for Education and Science, I am trying to encourage young people to take an interest in the political process, in representative politics, for them to become involved in their communities and to be willing to become leaders in their own right and yet when they look to that report, unfortunately, they tar us all with the same brush. That is why it was critically important legislation and procedures were put in place in recent years to ensure we had the openness, accountability and transparency that is now required of us. The procedures now in place are very strict and rightly so. The demands on us are very strict and rightly so because we have to ensure our conduct is such that it maintains the integrity of this House. In so doing, we are maintaining the integrity of the democratic process.

If we do any of the things our former leaders were found to be doing by the Moriarty tribunal, then we will forfeit the respect of the people. Democracy is so crucial that we cannot afford to lose that respect. The Moriarty tribunal has done us all a great service, even if we did not like to hear of the findings and to read them. We have to make sure the procedures we put in place are protected and strengthened and the shadow that is cast on the entire public service and, unfortunately, on all of us as politicians, is something we can continue to lift to ensure people see us in a different and more positive light.

Even before we set up the tribunals it came to light that Ireland was not the only place where questions were being asked about standards in public life. In his report in 1995 to the British Parliament, Lord Nolan commented on standards in public life. The principles he used then as being required of people in public life and which underpin public life are just as relevant for Ireland. The seven principles he listed were selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. There is no doubt the investigations and the thorough work of Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty and his team have shown up serious deficiencies in a number, if not all of those principles. With that knowledge and with the regulatory framework that is now in place such as the taxation requirements etc., we have to make sure there is no further departure from those principles and that each of us as Members, who again will face the electorate this year, can proudly stand for those self-same principles. If one loses honesty, accountability or selflessness, one is doing a terrible disservice to the public who fought for our democracy and the right to vote for us and who believe in our ability to lead them. That is what leadership is all about.

We have evidence of a past leader who has let us down, as members of Fianna Fáil and Members of this House, and who has let the country down. The only way we can ensure the future respect of the people is for each of us to continue to maintain the highest of standards, not just because the rules, regulations and procedures require that of us, but because people have placed their trust in us. That is a trust we earn but we must also deserve to keep it because the honour bestowed on us should be transferred into making us honourable persons in public life. It is a great privilege to be here. I did not think I would be speaking on the very same topic I spoke on in my maiden speech ten years later. I sincerely hope I will not be talking about the same topic in ten years' time. I hope we can continue to maintain the respect of the people.

Sitting suspended at 1.50 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.