Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008

Vol. 645 No. 1

Tribunals of Inquiry: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Mahon tribunal, and its belief that the tribunal is acting independently, without bias and within the remit contained in the terms of reference set by the Oireachtas.

I wish to share time with Deputies O'Dowd and Varadkar.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

We are debating this motion because of a sinister and orchestrated attack on the integrity of the Mahon tribunal mounted by the Fianna Fáil Party just before Christmas. One by one, Fianna Fáil Ministers were queuing up to go on the airwaves to attack the way in which the Mahon tribunal was doing its work. I will get to some of the specific comments later but terms such as "bias", "unfair" and "acting outside its remit" were thrown at the tribunal in a desperate bid to distract the public from the evidence which was being given and to discredit the work of the tribunal.

I must ask that the noise in the Public Gallery cease while there is a debate in the House. It cannot be accepted.

It appears that campaign, that series of interviews, was organised and orchestrated not by the Fianna Fáil press office but by the Government press secretary, whose job and whose official function is to act as a spokesperson for the Taoiseach and Government. This is not what one would expect from Ministers in a democratically elected Parliament in this country.

The purpose of the attacks by Fianna Fáil Ministers was perfectly clear. It was a diversionary tactic to persuade people not to look at the evidence, at the crumbling credibility of the Taoiseach or at the complete absence of any credible paper trail for his stories of large cash lodgements to personal accounts. Instead, they wanted people to look at the mud they were throwing. What I would have liked to have heard from the Fianna Fáil Ministers is the answer to a simple question. Do they believe the Taoiseach's accounts that he is giving under oath in the tribunal? These courageous broadcasters will never answer that particular question.

Of course this campaign could not happen by accident. The Taoiseach has sought to undermine the tribunal, including accusations that it was trying to "stitch him up". He has complained on the public airwaves that he does not get the same fair hearing as other witnesses at the tribunal. The situation got so farcical that Fianna Fáil Ministers now want to dictate to the tribunal what questions it should ask and what it should not ask. That approach represents a blatant attempt to intimidate the work of the tribunal and should be rejected by all right-minded supporters of democracy in this House.

Time and again, the tribunal has had to remind the Taoiseach why it was investigating his finances and why it had to examine him in public about these issues. On 20 December the chairman, Judge Mahon, laid it out clearly and I quote his words:

I'll try and explain it. The evidence the tribunal has from Mr. Gilmartin is that he was told by Mr. O'Callaghan that sums of £30,000 and £50,000 had been paid to you [the Taoiseach]. Mr. O'Callaghan denies saying it and he denies paying it and you deny receiving it. But that prompted necessarily the tribunal, as it has done in similar instances involving other witnesses, in this and other modules.

It necessarily prompted the tribunal to look at your personal finances. When the tribunal looked at your personal finances it sees the lodgements that we're talking about. And that necessitates the inquiry and the level of inquiry that has been conducted since. That is the basis for the probing of your finances.

Despite this very clear explanation, a series of Fianna Fáil Ministers queued up to go on the airwaves to attack the work and method of work of the tribunal.

Where are they now?

These included the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who said he was "astounded" by what the tribunal was doing. The Minister, Deputy Brennan, complained about a lack of fairness. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said that Ministers had criticised the tribunal out of a sense of political loyalty, a case of putting party interests before the national interest. However, not to be left out, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, capped them all. In an outrageous attack he accused the tribunal counsel of being "petty, personal and provocative". He accused it of asking questions which were "quite unacceptable", he referred to unfair procedures, "unacceptable in a civilised society", "appalling treatment" and said that the tribunal was "badgering" the Taoiseach.

Following these attacks, on the morning of 21 December 2007, Judge Mahon gave a summary of the tribunal's approach to the Taoiseach's cross-examination. It is important to read his comments into the record of this House so that no Member can be under any illusion or any misunderstanding about what the tribunal is doing. He said:

A tribunal of inquiry is inquisitorial in nature and it approaches its work — especially the taking of evidence in public — on this basis. It does not make allegations or promote any particular view or predetermine any matter. Evidence given in public hearings, including documentary evidence, can be true or false, or be partly true or be partly false. False or inaccurate evidence can be given accidentally or innocently, or more seriously can be given intentionally and designed to mislead the inquiry.

It would be a useless and meaningless exercise for a tribunal to merely put every witness into the witness box and simply record his or her evidence without question or where appropriate without challenge. . .

It is the role and duty of counsel to the tribunal to probe and test the evidence of witnesses and of documentary evidence in a manner which will ensure that the tribunal will have at the end of the day the fullest possible picture of the evidence so that it will be in a position to determine the accuracy and effect of that evidence, especially in those circumstances where there is apparent conflict between the testimony of witnesses or with documentary evidence.

Importantly he concluded:

Cross-examination of a witness where there is a significant absence of supporting documentary evidence, which it has to be said is not an indication of anything improper, is lengthy, complex and at times tedious. In so far as any of these descriptions might be deemed to apply to the cross-examination of the Taoiseach, the tribunal is satisfied that such detailed cross-examination is necessary and appropriate if the tribunal is to be placed in a position where it can ultimately, properly and fairly adjudicate on the issues arising. In no way is Mr. Ahern being treated any differently to any other witnesses in this regard.

Those are the clarifying words of the chairman the morning after these attacks. Judge Mahon does not have the facility of going on the public airwaves to defend the work of his tribunal. So it is appropriate that his words be put on the record of the House for everybody to read. I have taken time to put Judge Mahon's words on the record of this House so that anyone who speaks on this debate and who wants to repeat the accusations they made of bias, unfairness, astounding questions, prying, prurient questions, stitching people up, having an agenda or acting illegally will make those comments in the full knowledge of what Judge Mahon said.

Tonight the Government has put before this House a cobbled-together amendment to try to hold together the strings of a rag-bag of an exhausted Government for which the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility has gone out the window. I will explain to the House why Fine Gael will not accept the Government amendment. It drops references to bias and independence which were the claims made by Fianna Fáil Ministers. It proposes the enactment of a Bill which would allow the Government to close down the Mahon tribunal and it virtually invites Ministers to criticise the tribunal's procedures and welcomes opportunities to discuss procedures.

The Government motion is a clear defeat for the absent Progressive Democrats and the absent Green Party——

And an absent Fianna Fáil.

And the absent junior Ministers.

They could have had no disagreement with the Fine Gael motion which was clear, direct and simple.

My God, I see the Minister is here with his programme.

What we have here is an absent Government.

They have allowed themselves to be bullied by these Fianna Fáil Ministers. This intimidatory behaviour of Fianna Fáil Ministers is something that will not surprise many Irish people. However, the silence of the lambs from those who are there to watch the activities of the big party in Government is now deafening. The Progressive Democrats and the Green Party have rolled over once again——

They are yellow.

——to protect their little spaces on their fine leather seats. When it suits the Green Party it puts on the veil of collective responsibility as a shield. Nowhere is this more true than the European reform treaty where the Green Party Ministers are happy to be included in the yes camp on the basis that a collective Cabinet decision has been made to endorse the treaty. However, when the same Ministers go out and publicly and repeatedly attack a tribunal of inquiry set up by this House, accusing it of "acting outside its remit", we get only silence from the Green Party. Truth, standards and integrity no longer exist in this green tunnel.

Last September when this House debated a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach, I set out the reasons he should step down. I asked if the Taoiseach was correct to take large sums of money for personal use. My view was that he was wrong. I asked if the Taoiseach fully and freely co-operated with the Mahon tribunal. My view was that he did not. I asked if the Taoiseach told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to the people, the Dáil and the tribunal. My view is that he has not.

In the debate the Taoiseach said "The House established the tribunal and Members should let it get on with its work." Does the Taoiseach consider a Minister accusing the tribunal of "bias", "astounding questions", "acting outside its remit" and being "unfair" is allowing the tribunal to get on with its work? Far from censoring such Ministers about their comments, I have no doubt that the Taoiseach actively encouraged those comments.

For months we have seen the Taoiseach portray himself time and again as a victim. Before he appeared at the Mahon tribunal, he assured us all that he could not wait to go before the judges and give a full and categorical explanation for his finances. Now after six days of hearings, he is complaining that he has been victimised in some way and treated differently from other witnesses.

The Taoiseach seems to have forgotten that, as with Mr. Ray Burke, the late Mr. Liam Lawlor, Mr. George Redmond and Mr. Frank Dunlop, the tribunal is merely following the money trail, a tried, tested and successful method for tribunals of inquiry. The Taoiseach stated in the Dáil in September 1997 "following the money trail is the most efficient and effective way to progress this type of inquiry". Perhaps the reason for this extraordinary attack by Fianna Fáil on the tribunal is that the tribunal is progressing its inquiry in a way which is not to the liking of the Fianna Fáil Ministers surrounding this Taoiseach.

One hundred and fifty people have been investigated or interviewed in the Quarryvale module of the tribunal and overall approximately 600 people have been interviewed. In only one case has there been an outcry from Fianna Fáil Ministers about the tribunal acting outside its remit or acting illegally or unfairly.

This afternoon in reply to a question from Deputy Gilmore, we heard the Taoiseach with his latest U-turn explaining his personal finances. His new statement about the Revenue position on his tax affairs has directly contradicted his public statement of last week. If it is indeed the position that Revenue can finalise his tax affairs at any time. I would hope that he can now pay the amounts outstanding and obtain a valid tax clearance certificate. It is not a healthy situation for the prime minister of this country to stand up in the United States and address the Congress and the Senate when he does not have a tax clearance certificate in his own country.

I remind the Taoiseach that on 27 September 2006 he told this House that he "had checked the matter with the tax authorities long ago". He had not checked. On 26 September 2007, one year later, I asked him if he would make a personal statement correcting the record of the House and he told me he had not misled the House in any way. Even though we now know that the Taoiseach had not checked with the tax authorities, he still has not come before this House and corrected the record.

In his contribution on the motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste made a great virtue of political loyalty. He said "political loyalty is a virtue and that loyalty will be maintained by the Government for the Taoiseach." It is obvious that for him, political loyalty is paramount and more important than loyalty to the institutions of the State; the integrity of this House and the credibility of the Office of the Taoiseach.

The truth is that the Fianna Fáil Ministers are more interested in protecting their own political careers and the fortunes of the Fianna Fáil Party and in preventing the people from finding out the truth.

We have witnessed a new complacency, a new arrogance, a new smugness from a Government that has crawled back into office. It shows a new disdain for the House when misleading statements are left uncorrected and no new legislation is brought forward. There is a new smugness, a new self-satisfaction. As the country faces a range of serious economic and social challenges, these are the issues which the House should be discussing. I refer to the fact that a businessman pays €100,000 for an operation for a young child in County Cork when there is a National Treatment Purchase Fund that should be dealing with such a case. I refer to the fact that a young man was savagely attacked and died at the hands of an unfortunate person who had sought psychiatric treatment on three separate occasions and was not admitted to hospital, resulting in the death of a young man.

When people all over the country are losing confidence in the ability of the Government to deal with their daily concerns, we must resort to using the valuable time of this House because the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, has not been in a position to provide a credible answer and a credible series of answers to questions about the movement of significant amounts of money — up to €300,000 in today's terms — through personal accounts which he held. In the 1990s, for whatever reason, bags of money landed on the desk in Drumcondra. That is not the way to do business and that has been underlined in the terms of setting up the tribunal and in comments made by people since then. That is not the way to do business on behalf of the public and it is the root cause of all this energy, all this paperwork, all this cost, because the truth is not coming out.

The Mahon tribunal is doing its duty independently, without bias and within its terms of reference as decided by this House. If those Ministers on the other side of the House wish to speak on this motion, they will have the opportunity to deal with the lack of bias, independence and fairness within the remit. We will give them that opportunity when they come in here to speak.

This motion is clear, simple and direct. The Government amendment is cobbled together and does not deal with those three central issues of the independence of the tribunal, its acting without bias and its acting within its remit. I commend the motion to the House.

Where are the honourable men of the so-called Government who are afraid to come in here tonight——

They are in hiding.

——who fear what will be said about them? Where are the Green Party? Is it getting ready to put up the tent in Ballybrit? Where are the Progressive Democrats? Where are the men who stood by the Republic who cannot even stand up and come into the Dáil and exercise their franchise? This debate is about two Irelands. It is about the Ireland of the ordinary people who are tax compliant. It is about taxi drivers who look for tax clearance certificates so they can get to their place of employment. It is about publicans who must have their tax clearance certificates. It is about the small builder who must and is obliged to present his tax clearance certificate to the county council before he can get money for the grant to build an extension for a disabled person. It is about the plasterer——

——the window cleaner, the person who cleans the Taoiseach's office, the contract cleaner who cleans the windows every day. They have to have tax clearance certificates while inside that building sits a Taoiseach who does not have one. The reason he does not have one goes back to the 1990s. That is the nub of this question and that is what this country is left with and what we are here to debate. That is why we are present and why Members on the other side are absent. The truth is the Mahon tribunal has been inquiring into planning and political corruption for the past ten years.

When we look around this House we see images of the men of 1916 who brought about the revolution that set up this State. I read over Christmas the historic debates in this House on all sides, that included contributions from the likes of William Cosgrave, Eamon de Valera and Tom Johnson who came here, argued and fought and eventually worked together for a true, clean and proper democracy, who built up and handed to us, through our parents an honest and decent Government of all sides. That is what they gave us but that is not what we have had from this Fianna Fáil Party.

We have had Charles Haughey, a Taoiseach for many years, about whom a tribunal outlined line after line and page after page of donations, none of which was declared, all to maintain and sustain a lifestyle which was totally and absolutely unacceptable and anathema to those people who voted for him. We now have a Government led by a Taoiseach who does not have a tax clearance certificate. That is what this is all about.

Who is supporting this Government? Who are the peg-holders of the tent in Ballybrit who are showing the green sign on the road to the tent in Ballybrit in Galway? None but the Green Party. When the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Sargent, was leader of the Green Party the information about his life in politics included the information that when he was given £100 by a builder in north County Dublin he went into the chamber of Dublin County Council and when he raised the issue he was attacked from all sides. Sadly, that note has now disappeared from Deputy Sargent's CV. I do not know where it is gone but it certainly was not there tonight when I went looking for it.

Fianna Fáil took it.

The Green Party has been bought very cheaply. In the ten years following his election, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, stood on this side of the House and berated Fianna Fáil for low standards in high places. Unfortunately, he is not present tonight. Now, emasculated by the aura of office, he insults our intelligence and those who voted for him by attempting to justify his support for a dishonest amendment drawn up by a sleazy Government led by a Taoiseach who is not tax compliant and who has tested the patience of the people.

I take no satisfaction at all in saying this. I always thought the Green Party was a force for good. It evolved from a mixture of thinkers of different sorts in terms of alternative lifestyles into an efficient political party. Many people on all sides of the political spectrum believed the party would make a worthy addition to Government and then we witnessed the events of the past eight months; Green Party capitulation after capitulation, defeat after defeat, U-turn after U-turn. Green politics is now roll over and lie down politics.

I remind the Minister, Deputy Gormley, that the people who elected him in Dublin South-East are watching what is happening in this House. They do not take kindly to having him on the airwaves week after week attempting to explain that what he is saying now is exactly the same as what he said then, even though it sounds like the complete opposite. I remind the House also that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is only in the Dáil because Deputy Creighton asked her supporters to transfer votes to him. I also remind him that his presence in Government is a reality because the Taoiseach reckoned the Green Party would be a convenient alibi for his troubles with the tribunal.

When I searched the Oireachtas website today for references to "John Gormley" and "Mahon tribunal" I found 36 references. One of the references I came across was his speech on the Green Party website when he spoke about "Planet Bertie". That is the place he now inhabits. He is the man who opens the door currently to "Planet Bertie". He is the man who stands with the sign saying, "Bertie, whatever you want, we will do it, just give us our little jobs in Cabinet". Despite being the Minister with responsibility for planning matters and being the leader of his party, Deputy Gormley seems to think he has no responsibility to hold the Taoiseach to account even when it appears the Taoiseach has not paid his taxes.

I want to make it crystal clear what the Green Party, as well as the Progressive Democrats and the Independents, are supporting today if they back Fianna Fáil. When asked by the tribunal that if he were to attend an Irish function similar to the famous Manchester dinner, an event which it now looks likely never even happened, and someone were to offer him an envelope with a large sum of money, whether he would accept it——

Would he what?

——the Taoiseach did not say, "absolutely not", he did not say that would be wrong or that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to do so. His reply was, "Now you can't".

He might get a receipt.

He continued, "I might have then. If there were similar circumstances then before all the new rules I probably would have." That is the ethical standard that the Green Party sees fit to support. It is not the belief that it is wrong to take money that is stopping him accepting wads of cash in brown envelopes, it is the rules.

Prior to his election the Minister, Deputy Gormley, told his party conference that on "Planet Bertie" one can get loans from people that one does not have to repay and spend £50,000 without a bank account. It seems that in 2008 one can do exactly the same on "Planet John". That is the reality.

To give him his due, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has been less than willing to be a party to the Fianna Fáil mantra. On Newstalk last week he said the Green Party consistently had confidence in the Mahon tribunal. He went on to say that he had always said the tribunal was, is and should act independently and without bias. It was set up by the Oireachtas to do exactly that. I was perplexed then that he did not see fit to support Fine Gael's motion today but then I remembered that he is a member of the Green Party and he does what Fianna Fáil tells him. The man who once would be President is now reduced to a political slave.

Both Green Party Cabinet Ministers continually harp on about letting the tribunals do their work. This line was first uttered by the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent who, as soon as he was ensconced in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had a Pauline conversion in his attitude to the Taoiseach's finances. In September, Deputy Sargent asked Fine Gael what had changed since the general election that brought us to move a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach. Let me tell him. In mid-May, around the time Deputy Sargent was describing the Taoiseach as a dead man walking, the Taoiseach said he had co-operated fully with the tribunal and given it all the explanations it needed. We now know that was not true. We also know now that the sum of money we are dealing with is not £48,000 but in today's terms is much closer to €300,000. We are now aware the tribunal threatened the Taoiseach with a summons due to his failure to give it the information it requested.

I say to Deputy Sargent that this is pretty important stuff. I am sorry he is not in the Chamber to hear me. Now it is time to ask him a question. Is Deputy Sargent happy? Is the Green Party happy with the position the country is now in? Is the Green Party happy to be the bulwark of Fianna Fáil? Is it the mudguard of Fianna Fáil? Is it the Green mudguard of this Government? The truth of the matter is that the Green Party has failed utterly in all of its principles. The Green Party betrayed everything it said on this side of the House once it went over there.

I put it to the 16 absent Ministers, the two Ministers of State who are present, to the absent members of the Green Party and to the Progressive Democrats, and in the presence of the great "dog days of Mahon" himself, Deputy Finian McGrath, who must have blown his whistle because they are afraid to come in, that the country deserves better Government than what we have. It is not acceptable in a democracy for the Taoiseach, the leader of the country, not to be tax compliant. In Britain Peter Hain resigned. Around the world in every single democracy we can think of it is not acceptable that a leader would do what the Taoiseach has done and treat the tribunal the way in which he has treated it. Let everybody support the Fine Gael motion.

It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity to support this motion and to demonstrate my support and the support of my party for the good work being done in Dublin Castle by the Mahon tribunal and, in particular, to demonstrate our revulsion at and to reject the attacks made by Ministers and Government Deputies on the tribunal and the work it has done.

The tribunal was set up to investigate certain planning irregularities that occurred in this city. It is important to understand — we often forget this in these debates — that the planning and other corruption that occurred in the State over the past 20 years has not been a victimless crime. Constituents such as mine spend two hours a day commuting to work on a regular basis. Children in many parishes in my constituency do not have schools to which to go. This is as a direct result of the kind of corruption practised by former Deputies Liam Lawlor and Ray Burke, and various members of the party opposite, and also the kind of activities which were condoned and to which a blind eye was turned by the Taoiseach. That is why it is so important that we have these tribunals. It is not just about accounts and money. It is about how this really impacts on people's lives.

The tribunal, during its investigations, discovered a money trail relating to unusual lodgements to the Taoiseach's accounts. The Taoiseach could not explain — in writing, in private interview or in public session — the source of these lodgements.

This approach — the following of the money trail — is one that was endorsed by the Taoiseach in 1997, where he stated clearly in this Chamber that the Government considers that following the money trail is the most efficient and effective way to progress this type of inquiry. I am pleased that this is exactly what the tribunals are doing.

If the truth be told, the only reason the Members and Ministers opposite have insisted on attacking the tribunal is because the tribunal is getting too close to the truth. It is starting to shine a light into dark corners of Irish politics that have remained obscured to us for the past 20 years and every time there is a bad news day for the Taoiseach in the castle, Ministers are wheeled out, one after another, to attack the tribunal and to move the focus away from the truths that have been revealed there. Minister after Minister, in a campaign orchestrated by the Government press secretary, has come out to tell us that the tribunal has an agenda, that it is biased, that the questions are prurient, prying and personal, that it is a soap opera and, in the case of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, that it is corrosive cruelty dressed up as a principled inquiry. Last night, we even had one member of the Government parties tell us that it was not even a legal process.

This is a far cry from the Fianna Fáil, and from the principles, that were promised to us in 1997. In his Ard-Fheis speech before he became Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern told us:

Fianna Fáil will enforce a new set of standards for all its members. We will not tolerate any deviation from the benchmarks of honour at local level or in Leinster House, be it in the past, the present or the future. No one — no one — is welcome in this party if they betray the public trust.

Yet no one has betrayed the public trust more than the Taoiseach.

Where do the Ministers stand in this affair? We have Ministers who, essentially, have almost nothing to say about the Taoiseach's activities. All they will speak about is the tribunal. The Tánaiste, Deputy Cowen's only defence of his actions is to claim that he is motivated by loyalty. There was somebody else who was motivated by loyalty, namely the Taoiseach, the man who was Charles Haughey's Chief Whip, bagman and protégé, and who signed his blank cheques. The scale may be different but the principle is the same — somebody using loyalty as an excuse to advance their own political aims, somebody who is too afraid to stand up for what is right because they may not have their ambitions satisfied in due course.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has nothing to say about the attacks on the tribunals or the injustices that have occurred as a result of this corruption. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Mary Hanafin, who is supposed to set an example for young people, stated she does not see anything wrong with somebody receiving large amounts of money in dark rooms for personal use. The Ministers, Deputies Ó Cuív and O'Dea, go out of their way to show how independent and principled they are when it comes to voting against European treaties or to standing up for local interests such as Shannon, taxi drivers or whatever. Where is their independence, their honour and their ability to take a brave stand when it comes to standing up for what is right in our society?

Deputy Varadkar would not know much about honour.

The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, would not learn about it in the pubs of Limerick anyway.

Like all the Members in this House, I share some concerns about the tribunals. I share concerns about the costs and the time taken. However, the reason the costs have escalated is because of the non co-operation by various Members opposite with the tribunal and the failure of the Government to limit the legal fees. The same applies to the time taken.

Like everyone in Ireland, I want to move on from this issue. I do not want to spend the first week in every Dáil session speaking about tribunals and having confidence debates. Ireland has changed phenomenally in the past 20 years and, with a few exceptions, it has changed for the better. However, there is one aspect of Ireland that has not changed and that is more or less the same, namely, our politics. There is still the same cute hoorism, the same clientelism, the same hypocrisy, the same corruption and the same favouritism that has existed for several decades.

I want to move on from this era. I want to move on from this Haughey, Lawlor, Burke and Ahern era of politics, but if the Taoiseach survives this, it makes useless all the tribunals, all the ethics Acts and everything through which we have gone for the past ten years. If the Taoiseach survives this, the message goes out to an entirely new generation of politicians that this is okay, one can get away with this, one's colleagues will back you up, the public will not vote you out, it does not matter really, and all this matter of ethics is just for show. That is why it is so important that the tribunal continues its work and that the Taoiseach should not be allowed to get away with these low standards. It is important so that we create a clean break in our society and move on to a different form of politics to reflect the modern Ireland in which we now live. We cannot move on so long as Ministers attack the tribunal and continue to support the Taoiseach. We cannot move on so long as Deputies opposite continue to defend a Taoiseach who they know to be unfit for office.

Responsibility falls particularly on the Cabinet in this matter, and particularly on the Tánaiste. The time has now come for those colleagues to put aside loyalty and planned defences and to go to the Taoiseach in the same way as Thatcher's Ministers had to go to her when she had gone too far, in the same way as former Taoiseach Haughey's Ministers had to go to him when he had gone too far and in the same way as former Taoiseach Reynold's Ministers had to go to him and state that they had crossed the line, it was too far and it was time to go.

The famous and over-quoted phrase of a man who was a member of the preceding Parliament of this, whose statue now faces Trinity College on College Green, is that all that is needed for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. Perhaps today we are not far off that in many ways in the succeeding Parliament to that Parliament which sat in College Green. All that is needed for corruption to triumph, all that is needed for wrongdoing to prosper and all that is needed for the truth to be hidden is for the Tánaiste to do nothing.

And for Deputy Kenny to overturn Deputy Noonan's ban on political donations.

(Interruptions).

A Deputy

The mudguard has got dirty.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

affirms its confidence in the Mahon tribunal and believes it will fulfil the tribunal's mandate pursuant to the amended terms of reference established by the Oireachtas;

notes that the tribunal was established to inquire urgently into certain planning matters and report to the Clerk of the Dáil and make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit;

notes the rulings of the Supreme Court in relation to the tribunal of inquiry's terms of reference;

notes the projected cost of this tribunal of inquiry, urges the tribunal to continue its work and looks forward to receiving the report of the tribunal expeditiously, in order that the Dáil may debate and deliberate on its findings;

urges the early consideration and enactment by the Oireachtas of the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 to underpin the confidence of the public and the Oireachtas in any future tribunals and to address matters of procedure and practice in the conduct of any such tribunals;

welcomes the opportunity to discuss the procedures and practices involved in investigating matters mandated by Oireachtas Éireann; and

condemns the leaking of tribunal documents as a breach of confidentiality as established by law, and an infringement on the rights of those affected, and supports appropriate actions to investigate such leaks, and further reaffirms the right to confidentiality to which each citizen is entitled in their correspondence with the tribunal."

I am sharing time with Deputy O'Dea.

Our amendment is clear and unambiguous. We are expressing confidence in the members, mandate and process of the Mahon tribunal. I have been at pains to point out that the Green Party has always had confidence in the Mahon tribunal.

The Opposition motion is a transparent attempt to cast doubt on the bona fides of this Government with regard to the operation of the planning tribunal and to suggest the Government does not consider the tribunal is acting appropriately within its terms of reference.

The Government is fully committed to supporting the tribunal in bringing its inquiries to a successful and speedy conclusion, and looks forward to the publication, as soon as possible, of its report, in order that the Dáil may debate and deliberate on what, hopefully, will be substantive findings and recommendations.

Over the past decade, successive Governments, led by the current Taoiseach, have responded positively to all requests from the tribunal for action to support its work, whether through the appointment of additional members, the amendment of its terms of reference, the provision of additional resources or the continuation of funding arrangements and fee scales beyond the tribunal's intended conclusion date.

What about the provision of evidence?

Legislation was introduced on several occasions to underpin and facilitate the operation of this and other tribunals.

I remind the House of the facts. The planning tribunal was established in 1997 by the Government and the Oireachtas as a response to suspicions of corrupt acts in the planning process, particularly in the Dublin area. I should also remind the House of the pivotal role that my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent, played in highlighting corrupt practices in Dublin County Council.

It is not on his website any more. It is gone.

The tribunal was mandated to examine certain specific activities and also to investigate any other matters that came to its attention that could amount to corrupt acts in the period since June 1985.

Two Acts from 1998 allowed for the changing of a tribunal's terms of reference, at the request of the tribunal or following consultation between the tribunal and the Attorney General on behalf of a Minister. Subsequently, in July 1998, at the request of the planning tribunal, its terms of reference were further expanded to give it a mandate to investigate any allegation of corruption associated with the planning process.

In June 2001, the then sole member of the tribunal, Justice Flood, in anticipation of extensive future public inquiries, requested the appointment of further members to the tribunal. The Government responded to this request by making provision in a 2002 Act that enabled additional members to be appointed to a tribunal. On foot of this, two additional members were appointed to the planning tribunal in October 2002, one of them the current chairman, Judge Mahon. It was necessary to introduce a further Act in 2004 to ensure that Judge Mahon, as the then new chairperson of the tribunal, could make orders regarding applications for costs incurred during the tenure of the preceding chairman. A separate Act in May 2004 provided, among other things, that a tribunal consisting of more than one member might act in divisions.

Notwithstanding the fact that the tribunal was expanded to comprise three members, its subsequent work, based on its terms of reference, proved very unwieldy. The tribunal published a fourth interim report in June 2004, which gave a broad overview of the work then on hand and indicated that there remained a large volume of work in respect of which public hearings had not yet begun. The tribunal indicated that it could see this work carrying on until 2014 or 2015. Accordingly, it requested changes to its terms of reference to allow it more discretion in the issues that it investigated or chose not to pursue, so as to shorten the anticipated duration of its work.

In November 2004, the tribunal's terms of reference were amended accordingly, in agreement with the tribunal, and an Act was brought forward to give necessary legal backing to the wider discretion being granted to it.

Why then could the Government not agree that the tribunal was working without bias? It could not agree to that statement in the motion.

At that time, the Government also approved the provision of additional resources to the tribunal and a significant increase in the size of its internal legal team.

Earlier, in July 2004, the Government decided on a new reduced scale of fees for new and existing tribunals' legal teams. Following discussion between the Attorney General and the planning tribunal, it was agreed that, with the benefit of the changed terms of reference, the tribunal would seek to complete its work by end-March 2007. It was agreed that the revised fee rates would apply to its legal team in respect of any subsequent period.

In anticipation of the March 2007 deadline, the chairman of the tribunal wrote in December 2006 to my predecessor, Deputy Dick Roche, to the effect that the tribunal's public hearings would not be completed by 31 March 2007, principally due to a number of legal challenges which had delayed its work. The chairman anticipated that public hearings for the remaining modules which the tribunal intended to conduct would extend until the end of 2007 and possibly into the first months of 2008. He requested that existing funding arrangements and fee scales would continue to apply for 2007.

Does the Minister have any view on the capital funds spent on the tribunal?

Conscious, on the advice of the chairman, that the imposition of a reduced fee structure for the tribunal's legal team might cause delay and interfere with its capacity to complete its work within the time schedule outlined by the chairman, the Government agreed in March 2007 that the existing rates for the tribunal's legal team would continue to apply pro tem. That remains the position.

I should also remind the House that, beyond providing support to the planning tribunal in its specific inquiries, there have been significant developments over the past decade in the legislative and regulatory framework governing the conduct of public representatives and public servants generally, aimed at reinforcing public confidence in the standards by which the country is governed. The Planning and Development Act 2000 extended the existing rules relating to ethics for planning authority staff. The Local Government Act 2001 provides a comprehensive ethics framework for local government employees and councillors. It updated and developed the previous law, taking account of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, and came into effect in 2003. As its starting principle, the Act provides that it is the duty of every councillor and employee to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest.

Will the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, deliver the same speech or something qualitatively different?

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 strengthened the law on corruption as it relates to persons in public office, with a view to making prosecution in respect of corrupt payments easier. The types of decision covered by this legislation specifically include decisions on planning matters.

The Standards in Public Office Act 2001 provided for the establishment of the Standards in Public Office Commission, with wide powers to monitor, investigate and regulate the conduct of those elected to public office or employed in the public service, to ensure the maintenance of proper ethical standards.

It is evident from the foregoing that successive Governments have made significant efforts both to support the planning tribunal in carrying out the specific investigations mandated by the Oireachtas in its terms of reference——

Why has the Taoiseach given six different versions to the tribunal?

——and more generally to enhance the interests of justice, probity, ethics and public accountability throughout the public service and political system.

There are legitimate concerns about the duration and cost of tribunals generally — Deputy Varadkar referred to this — and of the planning tribunal in particular, which has now entered its tenth year.

Does the Minister have any concerns with regard to the different stories told to the tribunal?

The Minister, without interruption please.

In October last, the chairman, in a communication to the Clerk of the Dáil, indicated that subject to unforeseen circumstances or delays, the tribunal anticipated that its public hearings would be completed by late summer 2008. Thereafter, it would commence the preparation of its report or reports, and such recommendations, as it deems appropriate. This will be a major undertaking, which might be expected to take a considerable number of months to complete.

On the issue of overall costs, the chairman has informed the Clerk of the Dáil that the total costs arising from the tribunal should not exceed €300 million, and may well be less than this figure. The timescale of the tribunal is lengthy and the costs are significant. Nevertheless, we must be conscious of the fact that the planning tribunal has conducted its business within the current statutory framework governing tribunals, and the specific remit imposed under its terms of reference. We have confidence that it has done, and continues to do, its duty properly, effectively and efficiently and has discharged its responsibilities within this context.

Then support our motion.

With the prospect of a reasonably imminent conclusion of the tribunal's public hearings, and conscious that the bulk of its ultimate costs have already been incurred, the focus of the House should be to recognise and respond to the lessons that may be adduced from the experience with this and other recent tribunals. For that reason, the Government's amendment urges the early consideration and enactment of the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, which is currently at Second Stage in the House.

I am aware of the Opposition suggestion that a provision of this Bill that would empower a Government, with the approval of the Oireachtas, by order to dissolve a tribunal, is intended to apply to the planning tribunal. This is emphatically not the case. In bringing the Bill before the house last November, my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was explicit in this regard. He stated clearly:

The purpose of this legislation is not in any way to interfere with the current tribunals. Its purpose is to reassure the public that were the Oireachtas to resolve to establish tribunals in the future, they would perform under a modern code of legislation which regulated their operations.

Does the Minister believe that? Does he think it is true?

The Bill does no more than make explicit the existing implicit entitlement of the Oireachtas by resolution to dissolve a tribunal that it had established. The Tribunals of Inquiry Bill is based to a significant extent on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, which carried out a comprehensive examination of tribunal legislation and in May 2005 published its report on public inquiries, including tribunals of inquiry. The report provides a well reasoned and well informed basis for recommendations for reform. There are over 50 recommendations which are designed to ensure the efficient and effective management of tribunals and cover areas ranging from the establishment of tribunals, the setting of terms of reference for tribunals, membership of tribunals, procedures at tribunals, preparation and publication of reports of tribunals and, of course, an issue of major concern to the Government, namely, the costs, particularly the legal costs, of tribunals.

The Bill represents a comprehensive reform of the tribunal legislation. In summary, it contains the following significant features: the process for setting and amending terms of reference of a tribunal is clarified; within three months of its establishment, a tribunal will be required to produce a statement of estimated costs and duration of the tribunal which must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas — this statement must be subsequently amended after significant developments; the Government, for stated reasons and following a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, will be able to suspend or dissolve a tribunal; provisions governing the taking of evidence, including a provision regarding the "reading-in" of evidence already available in written form and not disputed; the position with regard to the granting of legal representation before a tribunal is clarified to the effect that a relevant person must apply for representation and the tribunal will only grant the application where the person's legal or constitutional rights are likely to be significantly affected by the proceedings; the tribunal will state its opinion as to the numbers of the representation to be retained by a person that it will certify as being recoverable from the State; the responsible Minister will be able to request an interim report on the general progress of an inquiry, or of a particular aspect of an inquiry, from the tribunal——

This is a total cop-out.

——tribunal reports will be admissible in civil cases — the findings of facts in a report or the opinions expressed therein are prima facie evidence unless the contrary is shown; the position with regard to award of costs by a tribunal is clarified and co-operation with the tribunal remains the key determinant for an award of costs; and regulations, to be made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, will set out maximum amounts of legal costs recoverable.

In particular, Part 5 of the Bill contains many new provisions dealing with the proceedings of tribunals, which should have the effect of making them speedier and by extension less costly. Section 18 requires a tribunal to carry out its functions as efficiently, effectively and expeditiously as practicable having regard to its terms of reference.

The Minister is simply reading the explanatory memorandum.

Furthermore, a tribunal would be precluded from inquiring into a relevant matter unless it is satisfied the cost and duration of that inquiry are likely to be justified by the importance of the facts that are likely to be established in consequence of the inquiry.

What relevance has this to the Taoiseach's conduct or the conduct of members of the Cabinet attacking the tribunal for which the Minister is responsible?

The Minister without interruption.

I am happy to proceed. Overall, the proposed Bill will contribute positively to a more effective future operation of public inquiries. It provides for a comprehensive statutory framework governing all aspects of a tribunal, from the time of its establishment to the publication of its final report, and its enactment will further the public interest and public accountability, and underpin the confidence of the public and the Oireachtas in any future tribunals.

The genesis and justification for the planning tribunal are well known. Allegations of acts of bribery and corruption in the planning process and unlawful payments being made to secure votes on rezoning decisions must become things of the past. Good planning is a necessity and not an option when it comes to the future development of this country. Decisions must be made openly and transparently and be taken in the best interests of the public. As Minister, I will insist that this happens.

I will examine whether changes are required to strengthen the decision making process by local authorities in the zoning of land so that decisions are clearly arrived at, are evidence based and secure the necessary economic, environmental and social benefits for local communities. I will further strengthen the planning system so that the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, development plans and local area planning are fully aligned in practice so the huge Exchequer funding committed by this Government under the national development plan to water, sewerage, public transport and roads will see them delivered in the right places and in a co-ordinated and timely manner. I will continue to work closely with my colleagues in Government so that fast growing areas are provided with the schools, public transport, open spaces, play areas and other community facilities they need in parallel with housing development and not as an afterthought. I will ensure, through the local government reform process, that any further steps required to strengthen the ethics regime in the local government system are taken.

I conclude by reiterating that successive Governments over the past decade have supported and facilitated the planning tribunal in every respect as it pursues its very detailed and comprehensive investigations——

Except its members will not co-operate with it and try to undermine it.

——and this Government will continue so to do. We look forward with anticipation to the publication of the tribunal's final report at the earliest possible date and to its subsequent consideration by the Oireachtas. In the meantime, as it is generally acknowledged that there is a need to comprehensively update and modernise the law on public inquiries, we should proceed to a constructive and considered examination of the Tribunal of Inquiries Bill that is before the House.

I wish to respond to some of the jibes made by the Opposition. I managed to hear one from Deputy O'Dowd. The Green Party has higher ethical standards than Fine Gael——

The Green Party is emasculated.

We have always had higher ethical standards than Fine Gael.

This has to be the worst speech ever presented in the House.

We have never had a member of the party before a tribunal. We have never accepted a penny from a bank or a builder——

The Minister would not know how to spell the word "ethics".

——unlike that party. Fine Gael should withdraw some of the stupid remarks its Members made tonight.

I call the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea.

The Minister, Deputy Gormley, is leaving the House. Come back, Minister.

I welcome Deputy Kenny's promise earlier that there would be no interruption of speakers on this side of the House. I hope he will keep to that.

The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, has driven the Minister, Deputy Gormley, from the House.

Why does the Minister not return to hear Willie?

He is afraid to hear what Willie will say.

The time for the debate is limited. Please allow the Minister to speak.

It is over ten years since this House resolved, on 7 October 1997, to establish a tribunal to inquire urgently into and to make findings and recommendations on definite matters of urgent public importance. If a week is a long time in politics, ten years is a lifetime. Over the course of that decade the tribunal has published four interim reports. It has conducted countless hours in public session and even longer in private sittings. The tribunal has the terms of reference, expertise, experience, resources, legal guidance and all the components necessary to enable it to discharge the task the Dáil set for it. Over those ten years the tribunal has had the support of the Dáil and it will continue to have that support.

According to its own timetable, the tribunal is now nearing a point where it can report to the House and complete the task we set for it. This it should do, unhindered by any political manoeuvrings. The tribunals was established to ‘‘inquire urgently" into matters of "urgent public importance". The word "urgent" was used twice deliberately in the first few lines of the tribunal's terms of reference. It has been alleged by some that we are expected to accept some extraordinary things arising from the proceedings of the tribunal. I submit, however, that the most extraordinary thing we are expected to accept is that an investigation which is now in its 11th year is being conducted urgently. While much of the delay was due to the actions of others——

Co-operate with it.

——the tribunal itself is also not without blame. Fortunately for public life in this country, the Government did not sit back awaiting the final report of the tribunal and proceeded to take action by introducing a number of significant reforms in the areas where the tribunal will make further recommendations.

The purpose and terms of reference, as set out by Dáil Éireann, were clear and unambiguous. Yet, when Members of the House, as opposed to just about everybody else, dare to voice the not unreasonable concern that the tribunal appears, at times, to be straying into areas outside its remit and not conducting its business as efficiently and expeditiously as this House intended and directed, we are accused of intimidating and undermining the tribunal and questioning the process. To make reference to the fact that the tribunal has made mistakes does not equate to undermining the tribunal.

Do the Opposition Deputies believe that Miss Justice Denham was attempting to torpedo, thwart, undermine or intimidate the tribunal when she said on 4 July 2007, in the case of O'Callaghan v. Mahon: “The fact that the tribunal is still inquiring ten years later is the antithesis of an urgent public inquiry”? Do they think this was the intent of Mr. Justice O’Neill’s High Court ruling, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in March 2005, that the tribunal’s actions: “amounts to a failure by the [Tribunal] to observe and protect... [certain parties’]... rights to fair procedures and to natural and constitutional justice”? The tribunal had been in operation and doing that for seven years, according to the Supreme Court. Do they believe this was what motivated Mr. Justice Hardiman’s criticisms of the tribunal in his judgment of 30 March 2007? Not only did he find that the tribunal’s procedures were “extraordinarily unfair”, but he also observed “that it is a reasonable inference [from the withholding of the material of certain people before the tribunal] that the Tribunal have indeed prejudged certain vital issues”. That is a very serious charge from a Supreme Court judge. Mr. Justice Hardiman went on to conclude that the tribunal had “suppressed” certain material and referred to “the profoundly flawed nature of this Tribunal’s procedures and the insensitivity to the requirements of justice for [certain parties] which that produced”.

Does the Minister have confidence in the tribunal?

Perhaps the Members opposite imagine that those who have dared to criticise the tribunal, including Cabinet Ministers, Supreme Court judges, High Court judges, political commentators and legal experts, are involved in a gigantic conspiracy. However, I do not think they would accuse the tribunal of trying to undermine itself.

The Minister should get to the bottom line — does he have confidence in the tribunal?

According to Mr. Justice Hardiman, the tribunal accepted, in a classic piece of self-criticism, that "the approach which it took to the disclosure of documents prior to the decision in O'Callaghan v. Mahon Tribunal was incorrect”. That approach was maintained for seven years. The distinguished jurist, former Fine Gael Minister and former Attorney General, the late Professor John M. Kelly, argued in his authoritative work, The Irish Constitution, that “criticism of the Courts is permissible”. That quotation can be found on page 933 of the latest edition of that book. Professor Kelly quoted various legal cases and judgments in support of his proposition not only that people should be allowed to criticise the courts but also that it should be welcomed.

A tribunal is not a court.

We are talking about a tribunal.

This is Willie's logic.

If it is permissible to criticise the courts without undermining their authority, then it is certainly permissible to make fair and reasoned observations on the work of a tribunal, even though a tribunal is not a court, which is a point that is often lost on Opposition Deputies.

The Minister writes better than he speaks.

While it is rare that I find myself agreeing with Vincent Browne, I believe he analysed the Opposition's tactics correctly when he wrote in The Sunday Business Post on 20 January last:

Fine Gael has no idea whether the Tribunal deserves a vote of confidence or not, and doesn't care. The whole point of its motion is to embarrass Fianna Fáil.

He is a disappointed politician.

The Opposition is mounting a charade. It tabled a motion endorsing the tribunal in an attempt to convince the public of the fiction that they and they alone fully support the tribunal and want it to complete its work. I submit that the Opposition's show of support tonight is a sham. This motion is motivated by the Opposition's sole ambition, which is to damage the Government.

Does the Minister have a more genuine motive?

Nothing uttered by me or any of my colleagues over the past weeks and months has had the intent or the effect of hampering the work of the tribunal in any way. We have raised valid questions and tried to reflect fairly what the courts have said. Our observations have been largely concerned with a number of specific areas — the costs, the discovery of material, the nature of some questioning and the leaks of confidential material. I have already referred to the discovery issue. There are legitimate concerns that the impression is being given that the tribunal's counsel is pursuing a prosecutorial agenda, rather than an investigative one, in the questioning of the Taoiseach.

Does the Minister support the tribunal's counsel?

The motive for many of Fine Gael's more lurid statements is to reinforce such an impression. Fine Gael is seeking to portray the questions posed by the tribunal's counsel, which are based on allegations made by Mr. Gilmartin, as evidence in themselves. When the tribunal's counsel asks a question, Fine Gael quotes it as a tribunal finding. The exhaustive and repetitive nature of some of the counsel's questioning, which seems to be a departure from the methodology employed by the tribunal in its earlier stages, is compounding this impression.

I take it that the Minister does not support the counsel.

In his interim report, Mr. Justice Flood observed that he was "unable to resolve conflicts of evidence". He acknowledged the need for urgency. When he formed the opinion that continued questioning would not resolve conflicts of evidence, he said so and moved on.

What does the Minister think?

It is curious to note that despite his many hours of testimony, the Taoiseach has yet to be asked a direct question about whether he received money from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan, as alleged by Mr. Gilmartin.

What about an answer?

What does the Minister think?

Another aspect of this matter that should concern all of us is the constant leaking of tribunal information. The tribunal pointed out in a statement earlier this month that the "unauthorised disclosure of confidential information in advance of public hearings . . . . . may also be perceived . . . . . as potentially damaging the reputation and integrity of the tribunal". These are the tribunal's words, rather than my words, but I wholeheartedly agree with them. The leaking of such material, and its misuse by members of the main Opposition party in pursuit of their personal vendetta, has done more to damage the reputation and integrity of the tribunal than any comment from anyone on this side of the House.

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

There is a considerable volume of jurisprudence, in Ireland and overseas, on how tribunals should conduct their business. As Mr. Justice Moriarty, who knows something about such matters, said in a recent judgment:

It cannot be emphasised too often that tribunal proceedings are not adversarial but inquisitorial. They are not a means of establishing criminal or civil liability.

He went on to quote Mr. Justice Hardiman in O'Callaghan v. Mahon:

A Tribunal in the end of the day merely reports its opinions and makes recommendations. It does not make binding findings of fact.

He also quoted from the comments of Mr. Justice Cory, speaking as a member of the Canadian Supreme Court, in a landmark decision about tribunals:

The Inquiry's roles of investigation and education of the public are of great importance. Yet those roles should not be fulfilled at the expense of the denial of the rights of those being investigated. This means that no matter how important the work of an Inquiry may be, it cannot be achieved at the expense of the fundamental right of each citizen to be treated fairly.

It is abundantly clear from the plethora of press releases produced by the Opposition parties that they are prepared to jettison the fundamental right of each citizen to be treated fairly as long as it gives them an opportunity to pillory or defame their political opponents. Fine Gael has been spewing out press releases and statements. Initially it asked for issues to be dealt with publicly by the Taoiseach before the tribunal completed its report. More recently, however, its statements have descended into nasty personal invective.

The Minister knows all about that.

He is some man to talk about it.

A number of official Fine Gael spokespeople have asserted——

It takes one to know one.

——that the Taoiseach has lied and perjured himself at the tribunal.

The Minister has a fair neck to do that.

These attempts to disrupt the tribunal process are not random acts by errant members. They are part of a concerted and co-ordinated effort endorsed and now fronted by the Fine Gael leadership.

Does the Minister support the tribunal?

That was not always the case.

That is disgraceful.

The Minister's remarks should be withdrawn.

When Deputy Kenny answered a question from a journalist——

Does the Minister support the tribunal?

Deputy Kenny quoted——

The Minister is a disgrace to the House.

——the Taoiseach earlier, but now I wish to quote him.

The Minister should put on his boxing gloves and go back to Limerick.

The Minister is not in a public house in Limerick now.

On 17 April 2007, Deputy Kenny answered a journalist's question about whether he saw things descending into a bitter personal battle between himself and the Taoiseach.

The Minister is a disgrace to the House.

The noble Deputy Kenny replied——

Does the Minister support the tribunal? That is the bottom line.

The Deputies Opposite will not shout me down.

The Minister is a disgrace to the House, that is what he is.

The Minister, without interruption.

I want to read Deputy Kenny's words into the record of the House. His colleagues should listen to their leader's words.

The Minister either supports the tribunal or he does not.

Deputy Kenny said approximately nine months ago:

Let me give you this guarantee. I have never involved myself, in 32 years in public life, in personal animosity or personal degradation of any candidate, irrespective of who they represent, all parties and none.

It is not correct.

I have never been involved in it in my life.

That was before the election.

During the same interview, Deputy Kenny also said:

I have no interest in the personal affairs of Bertie Ahern. I have no interest in his personal finances. It is none of my business. I read the allegations on Sunday's papers as well. These allegations have been with a tribunal set up by this State for quite some time.

Does the Minister support the tribunal?

It would be tempting to wonder about how much has changed over the past nine months, if it were not for the fact that Deputy Kenny did not take nine months to change his position. On the same morning, 17 April 2007, Deputy Kenny was seen loitering in the vicinity of a certain café in Ballsbridge, where he encountered the editor of a major national newspaper.

This is ridiculous.

When speaking about a story to be published by the newspaper in question the following day, arising from——

That is pathetic.

——a tribunal leak, Deputy Kenny said "this is going to be big".

Whoever wrote the Minister's speech for him is a disgrace.

Deputy Kenny's remarks and general attitude led the editor of the newspaper to conclude——

The Minister is really scratching now.

——not only that the Deputy knew about the story, but also that he approved of it and saw it as being to Fine Gael's political advantage.

Does the Minister support the tribunal or not?

The following day, Fine Gael denied any foreknowledge of the story and any association with the leak of material from the tribunal.

On a point of order——

This pattern of behaviour continues today.

Deputy Kenny met the editor in this House.

It has descended to new lows.

On a point of order——

I ask the Minister to yield for a point of order.

You met him in the House, Enda, and his wife.

That is what the editor said about Deputy Kenny.

It is a tradition in this House that if someone has an interest in a matter, they should make a declaration of interest. Given that the newspaper to which the Minister is referring apparently pays him a regular wage for writing articles, the least he should do is identify it and make a declaration of interest.

Okay. The Deputy has curried favour with his leader. I make the declaration.

The Minister can tell us next Sunday whether he supports the tribunal.

The motion proposed by Fine Gael and Labour is not about fair procedures or treatment.

Does the Minister get an extra bonus for advertising the newspaper in this House?

It is not about the expeditious conduct of the tribunal's business — it is about political invective. Fine Gael is using and abusing the tribunal process to do what it could not achieve by electoral or political means. The motion the Opposition has proposed this evening is a sham.

Does the Minister support it?

The Deputies on this side of the House want the tribunal to finish the work it was asked to do. We want it to hear the evidence fairly and to report back to the House.

The sooner the tribunal is finished, the better for Fianna Fáil because it wants to close it down.

The tribunal enjoys the support and encouragement of this side of the House in performing those tasks. We have given the tribunal the time, the support and the additional resources it has sought.

Does the Minister support the tribunal?

The courts have examined the tribunal's processes and made their rulings. All we have ever asked is that the tribunal fairly and diligently discharge the task we set it over ten years ago.

The Minister supports the tribunal as he supported Shannon.

The Dáil has given the tribunal a job to do. It should now put an end to the political posturing that underpins tonight's Opposition motion——

If the Minister says he supports the tribunal that will be that.

——and let the tribunal get on with its work. Enough time has been wasted. We do not need to waste any more.

(Interruptions).

We will never get an answer. Good luck.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:

To delete paragraphs 4 to 7 and substitute the following:

shares the public concern about the potential costs of the tribunal and, having regard to the comments made by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Charlie McCreevy, in which he described the legal fees as "astronomical" and "a gravy train", deplores the failure of the Government to take action to reduce the level of legal fees for tribunals generally;

urges the further postponement by the Oireachtas of the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, pending the completion of the work of the tribunal;

welcomes the opportunity to discuss the procedures and practices involved in investigating matters mandated by Oireachtas Éireann; and

condemns the leaking of tribunal documents by whatever parties or persons may be responsible as an infringement of the rights of those affected, notes the strong denial by the tribunal that it was responsible for any such leaks, and supports appropriate action to investigate such leaks, and further confirms the right to confidentiality to which each citizen is entitled in their correspondence with the tribunal.

The motion being debated by the House is very simple: "That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Mahon tribunal, and its belief that the tribunal is acting independently, without bias and within the remit contained in the terms of reference set by the Oireachtas." The Government has decided to submit an amendment deleting the reference to the tribunal's acting independently and to the House's belief that the tribunal is acting without bias. The Labour Party has proposed an amendment to the Government amendment.

The Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, had a lot to say about motives and ascribed motives to the proposers of the motion. He talked about the costs of the tribunal and its procedures and method of operation. What I find remarkable about the contribution of the Minister and those of many Ministers in the past couple of months is that they have only belatedly become concerned about costs. The costs of the tribunal were agreed and the legal fees were set by the Government. The Government intended to reduce the legal fees of the tribunals and the then Minister for Finance, former Deputy McCreevy, announced a new and reduced set of legal fees as far back as 2004, but the Government of which the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, is a member decided to ditch that and continue the existing scale of legal fees. It is cant and hypocrisy for Ministers to start belly-aching now about the cost of the tribunals when they agreed the legal fees.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

This Government has been responsible for the conduct of the tribunal and for its terms of reference for the entire ten years of its existence. On occasion, the Government takes credit for having brought the terms of reference and modus operandi of the tribunals before the House. Again, the timing is interesting. After ten years during which many witnesses have appeared before the tribunal and it has faced many legal challenges, when do Ministers suddenly become concerned about its procedures and practices? It is when their Taoiseach is before the tribunal and finds himself getting deeper and deeper into a hole.

Let us be clear about what has been happening for the past couple of months. The Government, or at least its Fianna Fáil element, has decided to mount an attack on the flank of the tribunal in order, at the very least, to distract attention from the Taoiseach's appearances before it and possibly to cause a collapse of the tribunal, and certainly to take away public confidence in its work and in the importance of what it is doing. In doing so, it is engaging in a profoundly political act, at the centre of which is the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern.

It is unacceptable that the financial affairs of one man, even if he is the Taoiseach, should paralyse the politics of this country and leave the affairs of the Irish people neglected. I am sick of the twists and turns, half-explanations, half-truths and untruths, and I am tired of the fairy tales, crocodile tears, red herrings and manufactured outrage. I am sick and tired of it, but I cannot ignore it. As an Opposition party in a parliamentary democracy, we cannot ignore the fact that the Taoiseach has not provided a credible account of his affairs to a tribunal of inquiry set up by the Dáil. We cannot ignore the fact that he cannot produce a tax clearance certificate as required by law or that he and his Ministers are engaged in a concerted campaign to undermine the tribunal.

We cannot ignore the fact that the Progressive Democrats and Green Party Ministers, with manifest and breathtaking hypocrisy, have abandoned their duty to democracy and, like the three monkeys, decided to see, hear and speak no evil. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who is the line Minister responsible for the tribunal, gave one of the most pathetic speeches I have heard in a long time. The political leader and Minister who has been a champion of good planning and integrity in politics, rather than contributing to the debate or giving a speech that meant anything, was reduced to reading out the explanatory memorandum of a Bill that he said when he was in opposition he would oppose to the last. I do not believe it is a case of the Green Party having changed its political colour since it went into Government, although there is growing evidence of a tinge of yellow around the edges, I just think it is not up to the job. Fianna Fáil is running rings around the Green Party and for those of us who have some respect for that party, its politics and what it stands for, it is a pathetic sight to see a Minister come in here to be walked on and then cut and run after he has delivered his speech.

This motion and the controversy that prompted it are entirely of the Taoiseach's making. We are talking about this issue again because of the actions of the Taoiseach and his Ministers. We would not be here if the Taoiseach had done what he has always professed to do, co-operate fully with the tribunal and give a credible explanation for the substantial sums of money he received in the early 1990s. We would of course be much better occupied in dealing with the problems arising from the turmoil in the financial markets, the job losses in Arklow, the problems in the health service and the rising crime levels.

It is extraordinary that the Opposition must introduce a motion reaffirming confidence in a tribunal of inquiry established by the Oireachtas on the basis of a resolution originally introduced by the Government. We find ourselves in this unique position because of the attacks launched by a succession of Ministers on the independence and impartiality of the tribunal and, by implication, the integrity of the members of the tribunal and the legal staff working for it. The attacks commenced last September after the Taoiseach's first uncomfortable session in the witness box and built up into a crescendo of accusations, vituperation and common abuse in a series of media appearances by senior Government personnel following the Taoiseach's pre-Christmas appearances in Dublin Castle.

Let us recall some of the comments and accusations made by Ministers. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, described the questioning of the Taoiseach as petty, personal, prurient and voyeuristic, and accused the tribunal of trampling on the Taoiseach's rights. According to the Minister of State, the way in which the tribunal conducted its business was unacceptable in a democratic society. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was "astonished" at the line of questioning of the Taoiseach, while the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, who is always willing to go the extra mile, complained about "invasive questioning" and said he expected the tribunal any day soon to question the Taoiseach about his Communion money. Just before Christmas, radio stations and news programmes found themselves in an extraordinary situation in which Government press representatives were ringing them up and offering representation from senior Ministers who wanted to have a go at the tribunal. It is surely unprecedented in any democratic society that a succession of Ministers would try to destroy a tribunal of inquiry established under law by the national Parliament.

These attacks on the tribunal also represent a significant change of approach by Fianna Fáil. Since the first disclosures in the autumn of 2006 about the receipt of large sums of money by the Taoiseach from a number of wealthy businessmen at a time when he held the sensitive post of Minister for Finance, the Greek chorus from the Cabinet said with one voice that we should leave all these matters to the tribunal and judgment should be deferred until the report is published. However, when they found the Taoiseach floundering and unconvincing in the witness box, producing a series of contradictory accounts of the sources and purpose of the various moneys he received, and particularly when they found that the public was totally unconvinced by the accounts given by their leader, their approach changed. It was no longer good enough to leave matters to the tribunal. The tribunal had to be attacked and undermined. It was a classic case of the best form of defence being attack.

After the Taoiseach's appearance before the Mahon tribunal at the end of September, I said that I had not found his evidence credible. The majority of the country agrees with that assessment. After two further days in the witness box, the Taoiseach's credibility has not improved. The cracks that have emerged in his account of the various "dig-outs" and loans grow into gaping holes. As a result, the Taoiseach's credibility is increasingly eroded and his authority to govern is increasingly undermined.

The fact is that the Taoiseach is being treated no differently by the tribunal from any other politician at local or national level who had to appear before it. If an allegation is made against a politician that a corrupt payment was made and received, the tribunal looks at the politician's finances to see whether there is any evidence of such a payment. If, as in the Taoiseach's case, there is evidence that large sums of money were received by him during the directly relevant period, then the politician must account for them.

With all the questioning on why the tribunal is asking the Taoiseach about personal money and his marriage, matters nobody wants to go into, let us understand what is happening. A witness at the tribunal claimed that Deputy Bertie Ahern took a bribe of £80,000. That is the allegation. The tribunal must examine his accounts and it does this for everybody against whom an accusation is made. If it finds, as in this case, that at the time in question the Taoiseach received large sums of money from wherever, which coincidentally amount to £80,000, it asks where he got it. The Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, has offered as an explanation a combination of "dig-out" money from friends, money from Manchester and the money Mr. Mick Wall brought in a suitcase and put on his table in the Drumcondra office. To put it mildly, the tribunal is having difficulty believing this and, therefore, it has put him on the stand and asked him questions to probe his account. He is not being treated any differently from anybody else.

I remember a young woman who had to go into that tribunal and explain a wedding gift she received because her father was a member of Dublin County Council at the time when somebody had alleged he had received money. I felt sorry for the people involved. He told the tribunal the money was a wedding gift for his daughter and she was brought in and made to answer questions. There is no doubt that this is all very invasive, but that is the job this House gave the tribunal because up to that point in time nobody could crack the allegations of corruption in the planning process.

Over the years, there were allegations again and again that the planning process, particularly in Dublin, was being corrupted. In the 1970s, a journalist named Mr. Joe McAnthony wrote a series of articles in which he named some of the people, who subsequently went to prison over it, as being involved in corruption. He was effectively driven out of the country to seek a living abroad. In the late 1980s, a similar round of allegations was made and there were two sets of Garda inquiries, one of which brought a senior planning official before the courts. There was no conviction and a second Garda investigation similarly ran into the sand.

One of the interesting pieces of evidence Mr. Frank Dunlop gave and repeated a number of times recently was that when the planning tribunal was originally set up, all the great worthies thought it would go nowhere and that they could waffle their way in front of it. Only when the tribunal, using the powers this House gave it, examined the accounts did Mr. Dunlop come before it and give his explanation. The tribunal produced his accounts, his "war chest", and there was the famous day when he went out, became ill and eventually came in and told what he had to tell. These invasive powers, which this House gave the tribunal, caused it to crack open for the first time the extent to which bribery and corruption was involved in planning in County Dublin.

This is not a vague exercise going on in Dublin Castle which only people involved in planning, local Government or public administration understand. This is about people's quality of lives, the length of time it takes them to get to work in this city because of the sprawls created around its edges without adequate transport. This is about the problem parents have in September when they cannot get their children in to a school because housing estates were built for the benefit of property developers and the lands rezoned for the benefit of landowners rather than the interests of the wider public who would inhabit them.

It may have taken ten years, but the public domain would never have cracked the practice of corruption and bribery at the heart of planning in Dublin and perhaps wider were it not for the powers given to the tribunal. These are the powers the Taoiseach complains are unfair to him and Ministers say are too invasive and go into areas they should not. The reason the tribunal is pursuing a line of questioning with the Taoiseach about his personal finances and affairs 15 years ago is because he has not to date been able to explain where he got money around the same time that another witness alleges he took a bribe in connection with a planning matter.

The tribunal is following the money trail, an approach recommended by the Taoiseach when the planning tribunal was established in 1997. Moving the Dáil motion for the establishment of the tribunal on 10 September 1997, the Taoiseach said:

The Government considers that following the money trail is the most efficient and effective way to progress this type of inquiry as witnessed by the great success of the Dunnes payment tribunal which adopted this approach.

The terms of reference of the new tribunal are geared towards following the "money trail" rather than examining particular allegations concerning specific public, ministerial or Government decisions, so that we do not necessarily drag in innocent third parties or, on the other hand, omit decisions that may turn out to have been tainted.

The concerted attack on the tribunal by Fianna Fáil must not be allowed to divert attention from the central issue. The fact is that the Taoiseach has been unable to come up with a credible explanation for the huge sums of cash he received at a time when he held the key post of Minister for Finance. More recent revelations in a Sunday newspaper regarding the Taoiseach's tax affairs raise new and extremely serious issues for him. If these reports are correct — despite his own gloss on events, the Taoiseach seems to concede they largely are — it becomes very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Dáil was seriously misled by the Taoiseach on the status of his tax affairs, particularly when he made a statement to the House in September 2006.

The Taoiseach has effectively confirmed that, in a letter sent on his behalf by his tax adviser in the autumn of 2006, he asked that his reply to Revenue queries should be treated as a "voluntary disclosure" of his tax liabilities. A request to Revenue to be treated as having made a voluntary disclosure immediately raises the question: a disclosure of what? One does not seek to make a voluntary disclosure to the Revenue unless one believes some tax liability might arise. A fully compliant taxpayer need not seek the sort of protections that arise when Revenue grants voluntary disclosure status. A compliant taxpayer does not need protection from being named as a defaulter, to seek mitigation of penalties liable to be imposed on him or her, to seek a monetary settlement in lieu of prosecution or to seek an assurance that any statements made by him or her in connection with the disclosure would not be used in evidence against him or her in any subsequent criminal prosecution. These are the assurances given by the Revenue when a voluntary disclosure is made. This request can only be read as an indication that the Taoiseach, or somebody acting on his behalf, had — at the very least — apprehensions that he was not fully tax compliant.

A central question facing the Taoiseach is how he could have been seeking in 2006 to make a voluntary disclosure about tax affairs dating back to 1992 when during the interim period, specifically in 2002, he made a formal statutory declaration that his affairs were in order and that he was entitled to a tax clearance certificate. Last week, the Taoiseach was quoted as saying "I made a voluntary disclosure and I think that the Revenue have accepted that position". This claim, that the letter from his tax adviser had in fact been accepted by the Revenue Commissioners as a voluntary disclosure, was heavily qualified by him in the House earlier today.

In conclusion, the Labour Party supports the motion before the House. We are astonished at the amendment which has been submitted by the Government, which is why we have tabled an amendment to it, in turn.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share