Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Jul 1975

Vol. 283 No. 3

Financial Resolutions, 1975. - Statement by Taoiseach and Motion re Tribunal of Inquiry.

The Taoiseach

The substance of the report laid before the House by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is that the committee has been unable properly to investigate the matter before it. Deputies Molloy and Crinion would not produce evidence to substantiate their allegations against the Minister for Local Government made by them in the House this week. The Minister for Local Government made a personal statement in the House yesterday in which he emphatically denied the veracity of the allegations made against him by Deputy Molloy. Deputy Molloy repeated the allegations again and in this was supported by Deputy Crinion. The matter was then referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Minister for Local Government indicated his willingness to submit all relevant material to the committee which might help it in its task.

The nature of the allegations directly affects the Minister for Local Government in the performance of his duties as Minister and the matter cannot be left unresolved. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges has been unable to fulfil its task for the reason I have stated. So, the question of the veracity of the allegations remains unresolved.

We have a duty to ensure that the people are left in no doubt as to the veracity of these allegations. If the Dáil cannot resolve this matter one way or the other, then the Government, acting in the public interest, must ensure that the facts are fully established. Such allegations if left unchecked and unanswered must take from the authority of this House and damage the standing of a member of the Government elected by the people. Accordingly, at the request of the Minister for Local Government the Government have agreed that a judicial inquiry should be held in accordance with the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 and, accordingly, I move the following motion:

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 four:

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, County 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.

There is one typographical error in what I read out in the beginning after the words "the Minister for Local Government are" I used the word "four". It should be "true". I think it is a misprint.

When this motion is passed by both Houses it is my 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 to enforce the attendance of witnesses, examining them on oath. The proceedings will be public unless in the opinion of the tribunal in the public interest it is thought expedient to bar the public for reasons connected with the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given. I doubt if that will be necessary in this case. I imagine there should be no difficulty about having all the proceedings in public.

It is of the greatest importance that the tribunal be set up as quickly as possible. I hope, therefore, it will be possible to conclude this motion tonight so that the Seanad which will be sitting tomorrow can also debate the terms of reference and pass the necessary resolutions.

Mr. J. Lynch

In so far as the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was inconclusive, I think it is only right that there should be a tribunal of inquiry established in order to ascertain the facts of these allegations. The Taoiseach has moved under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. In the course of his statement he states four specific matters of urgent public importance that should be inquired into. Not being in possession of the Dáil Debates my only query at this stage is whether the terms of reference are comprehensive enough. It seems to me at first sight that they are not, that there may have been other allegations contained in the Dáil Report which are not included. I am making no specific point other than that I would like to be sure that all matters touching on these allegations will be inquired into.

If the allegations can be substantiated, then they should be and if they cannot be substantiated, then the Minister should be vindicated in the interests of justice and in the interests of the good name of this House.

I want just to make a short comment on the preamble which the Taoiseach read to the formal motion in which he said that neither Deputy Molloy nor Deputy Crinion produced evidence in support of their allegations. Of course, that is technically true but it ought to be pointed out that the Deputies asked when they were called before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges whether any statement they made would be covered by the privilege which attaches to proceedings in this Chamber and that you, Sir, stated that it was not certain that such privilege would attach. I am pointing out that as a matter of record.

The Taoiseach mentioned one typographical error and substituted the word "true" for the word "four" at the end of the first paragraph. There is another typographical error in paragraph 3. Again, it is only a technical matter but in so far as we are dealing with a judicial tribunal it should be specific and clear. The copy I have reads at paragraph 3:

That such a cheques was issued every Thursday for payment of staff,

et cetera

and was signed personally by the Minister for Local Government.

May I inquire whether we are dealing in this paragraph with a cheque or cheques?

The Taoiseach

A cheque.

Mr. J. Lynch

It is well to clear up that matter. There is one other matter I want to refer to. The 1921 Act refers to a tribunal which would have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court. It goes on to say:

A witness before any such tribunal shall be entitled to the same immunity and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court or the Court of Sessions as in the case of Scotland.

May I inquire from the Taoiseach whether, in fact, it will be a member of the High Court who will be comprising the tribunal or will be chairman of the tribunal if it consists of more than one person?

The Taoiseach

My intention is to ask a judge of the High Court to preside, to follow the procedure that has been the practice in the past.

Mr. J. Lynch

We are not opposing the Taoiseach's motion.

Motion, as amended by the substitution of "true" for "four" at line 5 and "cheque" for "cheques" in the first line of paragraph 3, put and agreed to.