Tribunal of Inquiry: Motion.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move:

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say whether the following allegations made in Dáil Éireann by Deputy Robert Molloy and confirmed by Deputy Brendan Crinion on the 2nd July, 1975, affecting the Minister for Local Government are true:—

1. That the Minister for Local Government has a business connection with a builder referred to as Robert Farrelly (otherwise James Farrell) of Rockfield Road, Kells, Co. Meath.

2. That the said Robert Farrelly (otherwise James Farrell) had an account with the Northern Bank in Kells to which cheques issued from the Minister for Local Government from his account in a Drogheda bank.

3. That such a cheque was issued every Thursday for payment of staff employed by Robert Farrelly (otherwise James Farrell) and was signed personally by the Minister for Local Government.

4. That some time after the 12th December, 1974, the said account of the said Robert Farrelly (otherwise James Farrell) was changed and that thereafter money paid by the Minister for Local Government was sent to the Ulster Bank, Athboy, Co. Meath.

The Taoiseach

I regret that the need arose to recall the Seanad to meet today. The Government regard it as being of the greatest importance that the allegations made against the Minister for Local Government should be investigated with the least possible delay. Members of the House will be aware that the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to which the matter had been referred reported that the Deputies who made the allegations would not produce evidence to substantiate them and that the Committee could not properly investigate the matter.

The matter could not be permitted to rest there. The Minister has emphatically denied that there is any truth in the allegations made against him. These allegations so seriously affect the Minister in the performance of his duties as a member of the Government that it is essential that they should be thoroughly investigated. The Minister himself is anxious that this should be done and, indeed, it is in the interest of the Government, of our parliamentary institutions and in the public interest generally that the matter should be resolved as quickly as possible. As the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges were unable to resolve it, the Government, at the request of the Minister for Local Government, decided that a judicial inquiry should be sought.

A motion in terms similar to that which has just now been moved by the Leader of this House has already been passed by Dáil Éireann. If it is passed by this House, it is the intention to appoint a tribunal of inquiry pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. The tribunal will have the powers of the High Court in enforcing the attendance of witnesses, examining them on oath and in compelling the production of documents. The proceedings will be public unless, in the opinion of the tribunal, it is in the public interest thought expedient to bar the public for reasons connected with the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty about having all the proceedings in public in this case.

I should add that at 2.40 p.m. the Opposition Chief Whip in the Dáil informed the Government Chief Whip that the Deputies who made the allegations, Deputies Molloy and Crinion, proposed to offer an apology in the Dáil to the Minister for Local Government. Unfortunately, the Minister for Local Government had left the precincts of the House. He was on his way down the country to a public engagement and it was not possible to get in touch with him. In the circumstances, and in view of the short notice given, it was not possible to consider the full implications of the terms of the apology. I mention that for the information of the Seanad. I propose to proceed with this motion and ask the Seanad to consider and pass it and subsequently the matter can be considered further in the light of what has happened this afternoon.

Mr. Lenihan

I understand—my information is the same as the Taoiseach's —that statements have been made by Deputies Molloy and Crinion withdrawing allegations made in this matter. In view of that surely it would be appropriate at this stage not to proceed with the motion as such but to adjourn it to the next sitting day, Tuesday next, when the matter can have been considered in the meantime by the Government and by the Minister for Local Government. It does seem superfluous at this stage to proceed with the motion in view of the very latest developments. I agree they have come a bit late but they are developments that affect the motion. It would surely seem redundant to go through the procedure of establishing a tribunal if in effect the need for its establishment now appears to have gone.

The Taoiseach

I suggest that we proceed to pass the motion because under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 both Houses have to pass a motion of this kind and the Dáil has done so already. In view of what has happened this afternoon any stay of execution can be left to rest with the Government and myself. At this stage the proper procedure is to pass the motion.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 4 Jul 1975