I take this opportunity to congratulate the Cathaoirleach on his election and to express my sympathy to Members of the Seanad on the loss of Senator Liam Naughten, the former Cathaoirleach.
Speaking in the debate in the Dáil on 11 December, on the motion to set up the Buchanan examination, I noted that the common point in the contributions by Deputies from all sides was the view that the political process as a whole and the reputations of those who work in it had been tarnished by allegations regarding payments to politicians and public servants by Dunnes Stores and/or Mr. Ben Dunne. As I said then, I am determined that everything that can possibly be done will be done to remove that tarnish. I am also determined that it will be done as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible.
The basis for the allegations about payments appears to rest, in the main, on a report dated 12 April 1994, prepared by Price Waterhouse for Dunnes Stores and an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ben Dunne in High Court proceedings. There may, of course, be additional relevant information which is not contained in either document.
The concern arising from the media allegations of last November did not relate to the mere fact of the payments. There is nothing improper in political parties and politicians receiving or seeking donations for the funding of political activity, which is essential to the working of democracy; nor is there anything improper in individuals and companies contributing to politicians and political parties. Without such support, certainly in the past, it would not have been possible to sustain the level of activity required to maintain the political system as we know it.
The public concerns, which we all share, are twofold. First, that the payments may have been made either to influence decisions or as a reward for past decisions which may have benefited the donor. Second, that some of the payments may have been excessive and gone beyond what would be reasonable to support the normal political activity of any individual recipient or even any normal political party.
When the allegations were made, the Government moved with speed to allay public concern. However, we also sought to ensure that any moves made were the right ones. What is the desired result? It is to establish and expose the facts and to ensure that if there is any evidence of impropriety, it will be dealt with in the appropriate way in accordance with the laws of the land. The process in which Judge Buchanan is involved is, as I made clear on 11 December, "the first and, I believe, the most appropriate initial step to establish the facts".
In his interim report, addressed to the Cathaoirleach and to the Ceann Comhairle, Judge Buchanan completed the first stage of this initial step. I speak for all Members when I convey thanks and appreciation to Judge Buchanan and to those who are working with him. They are performing a public service and are doing so with efficiency, skill and speed.
The interim report deals with one of the sources of the allegations, the Price Waterhouse report. It addresses payments covered in that report that were made to Members or ex-Members of the Oireachtas and to the Fine Gael Party. The interim report also notes the limitations of the Price Waterhouse report. That report had been commissioned principally for the purpose of investigating certain transactions which had been undertaken by Mr. Ben Dunne without the knowledge or consent of other members of the board of the relevant company. It deals only with the circumstances of specific transactions selected by Dunnes Stores for inclusion in the report and into the accounting treatment of these transactions in the records of the company.
The Price Waterhouse report was limited from the outset and, in so far as Judge Buchanan's study was limited to the Price Waterhouse report, his report was limited by the limits placed by Dunnes Stores on that report. Anybody who complains that the Buchanan report does not answer every question should recognise that there are, and were, limitations from the outset on that exercise. We are now moving to an exercise which will have less limitations.
I am confident that Judge Buchanan will provide a similar report in respect of public servants as defined in the agreement with Dunnes Holding Company. The definition is broad and includes employees of any organisation which is publicly funded.
The Buchanan process is proving to be a highly cost effective means of clearing the ground and isolating matters that deserve the more serious treatment that only a judicial inquiry can provide. This has been done without getting involved in the expensive, adversarial procedures associated with compulsory disclosure. A tribunal costs about £10,000 or more a day. The cost of the Buchanan exercise so far, including the Judge's salary, pensions and so forth, will total no more than £30,000. It has been a cost effective exercise and the information it has disclosed, because it was disclosed voluntarily under a voluntary agreement, has come into the public arena quicker than would have been the case if one had chosen the compulsory route initially. Now that we are taking the compulsory route, we can do so in a more focused way because we are concentrating on matters that were not voluntarily disclosed. It makes sense in any proceeding in which one is trying to get facts, to get as many as possible voluntarily, thus saving effort, time and dispute, before proceeding in a focused way to pursue the facts one cannot get voluntarily. That is the logical and sensible way we have proceeded.
We are also aware of repeated media allegations involving a very large payment to a political figure. On 3 December last, The Irish Times reported on its front page that a “prominent Fianna Fáil figure is believed to have received more than £1 million from Dunnes Stores in the early 1990s. The money was paid by several cheques with different bank accounts in London on a number of dates”.
On 12 December, The Irish Times further reported that details of these payments were understood to be contained in an affidavit drawn up by Mr. Ben Dunne as part of a legal battle. The newspaper story said that this document “provides his version of where £1.1 million in payments from the company were routed.” That is Mr. Dunne's version. The article continued “It is understood that he”, that is Mr. Dunne, “alleges that the ultimate beneficiary of the money was a Fianna Fáil politician”.
I know that the main Opposition party feels, because of an allegation about an unnamed Fianna Fáil figure, at least in that report, that it has been unfairly put in a position where it is considered suspect. This is not fair to the party in question or its members and it is important that the matter is brought quickly into the open so that all those to whom no guilt can be attached are allowed to clear their names. It is a matter of regret that it has not been brought into the open in the last two months.
There was also an allegation in The Star on 4 December that up to a dozen politicians received more than £5 million. The newspaper went on to state that members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and Labour had all received payments and that, additionally, a current Senator and a top ranking party official were among the beneficiaries.
The terms of reference proposed by the tribunal are designed to establish the amount of payments made to politicians, political parties and, depending on Judge Buchanan's continuing work and a subsequent resolution of this House, public servants. They are also intended, most importantly, to enable the tribunal to inquire, in respect of payments, into "the considerations, motives and circumstances therefor". As I have said earlier, it is not the fact of the payments that is important, it is the suggestion that they may have been made improperly or corruptly to influence politicians and public servants in the conduct of their business as public servants. That is what needs to be established.
I am availing of this debate to respond to some of the points made in the Dáil about the tribunal earlier this afternoon. Those points may be made in this debate and it is better that I anticipate them.
The main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, said that it was especially concerned that the tribunal proceed and report very quickly. It even wanted the Dáil to prescribe when oral hearings would start so that the tribunal would be put under pressure to work exceptionally quickly. I could not agree to this proposal but I do agree that it is urgent that the air be cleared through an early report. The tribunal will work much more quickly if information is volunteered to it rather than if people have to be forced to disclose information.
The Leader of Fianna Fáil made reference to reports in the newspapers of the sum of £1 million being paid to a senior Fianna Fáil person who held high office. According to The Sunday Tribune the money in US dollars, about $2.2 million in all, was paid into an offshore bank account controlled by a prominent accountant who included this senior Fianna Fáil figure among his clients. No suggestion was made in any newspaper report that the figure referred to had severed his connections with Fianna Fáil to date.
In the interests of speeding up the work of the tribunal, and the Leader of Fianna Fáil was most anxious that the work of the tribunal would be speeded up, he should consider going to the figure in his own party who has been named in The Sunday Tribune and in other media, and seek the truth directly from this person. This would not be an unreasonable request for the Leader of Fianna Fáil to make of a party member in view of the fact that he, and his party, have expressed such concern in the Dáil today that the proceedings of the tribunal be allowed to proceed quickly and not be delayed.
After making these inquiries, Deputy Ahern could make the results public, either by public statement or by providing the information directly to the tribunal and saving it a lot of difficulty. Deputy Ahern might also be able to confirm that the person in his party will give his fullest co-operation to the tribunal to deal with all these allegations, including the reports of offshore bank accounts and routes for the cash.
These allegations are in the public arena and everybody has a responsibility to dispel them if they can be dispelled. All should ensure that the public and the tribunal get the full facts. However, the leader of a party about one of whose members the allegations in question have been made, is obviously in a better position to ask that member to put all the facts on the table than is anybody else.
A party president has authority over all his party members, not just those who are members of the Oireachtas. This is clear under the constitution of most political parties. It is a pity that the definitive information was not put in the public arena in the past two months. This would have helped greatly in focusing the work of the tribunal, if indeed a tribunal would have been needed at all if all the facts were put on the table when the allegations were first made. That has not happened.
Now a tribunal has been set up and the main Opposition party is expressing anxiety that it reports speedily and I agree. I suggest that, through its leader, it takes the steps I have suggested to get the facts into the public arena without delay. Otherwise, as both of the Opposition leaders indicated in the Dáil earlier today, a cloud of suspicion will continue to hang over politicians.
Any person who was a collectively responsible member of Government, serving in Cabinet with the Fianna Fáil figure who has been identified, would obviously have a particularly good basis for demanding public answers from a former Cabinet colleague, especially if that colleague is still a member of his party. If the newspaper reports are accurate, Deputy Ahern served in the Cabinet with the person in question and at a time when the moneys were allegedly paid, so he is in a position to ask that question if the person named is the relevant person. He thus has a right and a responsibility to ask questions and get answers. He does not need to leave the job to the tribunal.
In the Dáil today we had a long debate on the Order of Business where the whole focus was on the Leader of Fianna Fáil's anxiety that the tribunal report quickly. If that is his concern then he has a special responsibility to go to any identified member of his party who has information to help the tribunal report quickly. If he does not do that, there is an obligation on him to give us an explanation.
The terms of reference proposed for the tribunal have been carefully crafted and are, I believe, on the basis of the information currently available, the appropriate ones. I would particularly like to highlight the request to the persons selected to conduct the inquiry to note the desire of the Houses that it be completed in as economical a manner as possible, and at the earliest date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it.
No one can guarantee that the inquiry which we are now embarking on will provide the perfect solution or will necessarily provide conclusive answers to every question. It is an expensive process and it can be time consuming but it is the most effective one available.
We are dealing with fundamental matters of great public importance. To meet them we initiated a sensible, independent, sifting process directed by Judge Buchanan. Now we are moving to the next phase by bringing into play the most powerful and best tested weapon in the investigative armoury of the State, namely the independent, judicial sworn inquiry, to ensure that these matters of importance and public concern are given the fullest and fairest possible consideration.
