Private Members' Business. - Inquiry into Alleged Payments by Dunnes Stores Limited: Motion (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (27th Dáil) – Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996

Private Members' Business. - Inquiry into Alleged Payments by Dunnes Stores Limited: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Molloy on 10 December 1996:

That Dáil Éireann,

Bearing in mind:

i. serious public concern arising from newspaper reports concerning alleged payments by, or on behalf of, Dunnes Stores Ltd. and/ or Mr. Ben Dunne to members of the Oireachtas and public officials in the period prior to December 31 1993, and

ii. widespread public concern that the truth or untruth of the aforementioned newspaper reports should be established

Resolves that it is expedient that a Tribunal be established, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, as adapted by or under subsequent enactments, and the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1979, to inquire urgently into, and report and make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit, in relation to the following definite matters of public importance:

i. whether, and in what circumstances, the former Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Michael Lowry, was in receipt of payments or other benefits made available by, or on behalf of Dunnes Stores Ltd. and

ii. whether newspaper reports published between November 25 1996 and December 6 1996, concerning alleged payments by Dunnes Stores Ltd. to, or for the benefit of members and former members of the Oireachtas or members of their immediate families and other public officials, or members of their immediate families, are true in substance, and what the motives and circumstances of any such payments were.

And that the Tribunal be asked to report on an interim basis, not later than the tenth day of any oral hearings to the Taoiseach on the following matters:

the number of parties then represented before the Tribunal;

the progress which has been made in the hearings and the work of the Tribunal;

the likely duration (so far as that may be capable of being estimated at that point in time) of the Tribunal proceedings;

any other matters which the Tribunal believes should be drawn to the attention of the Taoiseach at that stage (including any matter relating to the terms of reference);

and that the Taoiseach should inform the person selected to conduct the Inquiry that it is the desire of the House that the Inquiry 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, and if possible, within 90 days.

Debate resumed on the following amendments:

1. To delete all words after "That" and insert the following:

"Dáil Éireann

(1) notes that the Government has negotiated and signed an Agreement with Dunnes Holding Company in relation to the handing over of the Price Waterhouse Report on Dunnes Stores to an independent person, Mr. John Gerard Buchanan, a former judge of the Circuit Court, who will:

(a) examine it and extract from the report details of any payments made to, or transactions entered into, in relation to Members or former Members of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, or any local authority, health board or other similar body, or employees or board members of public bodies or persons remunerated directly or indirectly out of public funds or to their relatives or to political parties, and

(b) report to the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges and to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges full details of all such payments, transactions and/or references to any such persons or bodies, including in such report full details of any explanations in relation thereto as may be furnished to him by Dunnes Holding Company or such person and any observations or recommendations he may consider appropriate;

(2) awaits the outcome of the consideration by the Dáil and Seanad Committees on Procedure and Privileges, or a sub-committee thereof, of the report from Judge Buchanan;

(3) considers that this method of establishing the facts in relation to the Price Waterhouse Report is the fastest and most efficient possible, and notes that it does not preclude any further investigation, by whatever means is considered necessary by Dáil and Seanad Éireann or by other relevant authorities after publication of the facts in the report; and

(4) welcomes the commitment of the Government to the early enactment of legislation to provide openness and accountability in the funding of the political system.

(Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Mr. J. Higgins).

2. To delete the second paragraph ii and substitute the following:

"ii. whether, and in what circumstances, Members and former Members of the Oireachtas, or members of their immediate families, and other public officials or members of their immediate families, received payments referred to in the Price Waterhouse Report and related documents (and in particular, payments referred to in the report of Judge Buchanan to the Ceann Comhairle) from, or on the part of, Dunnes Stores Ltd."

—(Deputy Callely).

Mr. D. Ahern

Last night I referred to the frequently used phase "who guards the guards?". The Government proposes that the sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges — the housekeeping rules committee of the House — should oversee Members, former Members, Senators and members of their families. That would send out all the wrong signals to members of the public who want the issue thrashed out properly. Fianna Fáil supports the motion as amended by its amendment because justice must be done, and be seen to be done, on this issue.

The Government's proposal would put the former Judge Buchanan, the Ceann Comhairle and members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in an unenviable position. They are being asked to do the impossible, to adjudicate when that is not possible because of the rules of natural justice. They cannot compel people to appear before the committee. It was interesting to note that none of the Government Ministers who contributed last night referred to the compellability of witnesses legislation, which is important for this House. In two weeks after that legislation was published, with the help of one other person, I spent a great deal of time drafting 11 amendments to the Bill, one of which proposed that journalists appearing before a committee of the Oireachtas should have the ability to plead inability to divulge the source of their information. I proposed that they should have the same privilege as Members of the Dáil. I often wondered since if that amendment caused the go-slow in the passing of that legislation. My amendments did not see the light of day, but the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance said yesterday they hoped to publish the Government amendments to that legislation in the near future.

The Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, referred to an agreement signed between the Dunne family and the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government the day before yesterday. Will the Minister or Minister of State who concludes the debate indicate if the Government would be prepared to publish that agreement?

The committee proposed by the Government cannot make findings. This matter was well thrashed out in the 1994 committee, of which I was a member. It sat for many hours and became known as the "Danny Wallace committee", formed as a result of the fall of the last Government. I am sure most Members would accept that committee was reasonably successful. Even though it was hamstrung in that it could not make findings, it put all the facts into the public domain and members of the public made their judgment. While it was a case of Fianna Fáil against the rest, I am sure all its members would accept it ended in a draw.

That committee was successful because everybody who appeared before it co-operated and it dealt only with political issues. In this case serious allegations have been made inside and outside the House about whether people received payments and if they did whether they came with strings attached. If it were not for the participation of politicians and advisers in the 1994 committee, it would not have been so successful.

An advice note tendered to that committee on the legal consequences of the committee making findings referred to the famous Jock Haughey case in which Chief Justice O Dálaigh stated:

...a person whose conduct is impugned as part of the subject matter of the inquiry must be afforded reasonable means of defending himself.

The advice note outlines four minimum protections identified by the Chief Justice as follows:

(1) That the person accused should be furnished with a copy of the evidence which reflected on his good name.

(2) that he should be allowed to cross-examine by counsel his accuser or his accusers.

(3) that he should be allowed to give rebutting evidence.

(4) that he should be permitted to address again by counsel the tribunal in his own defence.

None of those protections was available to the people who appeared before the 1994 committee and that is the main reason the committee was not in a position to make findings of fact. The advice note given to that committee went on to state:

In deciding what should be included in its report to the Dáil I think the sub-committee must bear in mind that if it decides to carry out a fact finding exercise based on the evidence which has been brought before it, then the courts will require it to carry out its functions in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner.

Such requirement includes an obligation to apply fair procedures and to arrive at its conclusions in an unbiased and impartial manner. In regard to the latter requirement it is important to note that the Courts in a number of judgments have interpreted the law to require that not only must justice be done but that it must be seen to be done.

Hence, the committee the Government is suggesting is one which would not allow anyone coming before it those four basic minimum requirements as laid down by Mr. Justice Ó Dálaigh in the Jock Haughey case. That is why I said on more than one occasion it puts not only the committee but Judge Buchanan in an unenviable situation. If he contacted any of the people referred to on this list and said he would expose them at this committee, any of them would be quite entitled to get their solicitor to go to the nearest court to apply for an injunction. I am advised such a person would, as of right, get that injunction on the basis that the committee before which it was proposed he or she would go, would not mirror the requirements of Mr. Justice Ó Dálaigh in the Jock Haughey case. They would be entitled to refuse to come before that committee.

There is a precedent for all of this. In 1975 the Committee on Procedure and Privileges examined allegations made in this House by two Deputies, Deputy Molloy and former Deputy Crinnion, in relation to the Minister for Local Government at that time. The Taoiseach might recall those instances. The Dáil referred those allegations to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but that committee rejected a Garda inquiry into the allegations by a majority decision and decided to investigate whether any breach of privilege had occurred.

The Deputies and the Minister were invited to the committee and agreed to attend but the two Deputies involved refused to participate on the basis that they felt that a doubt hung over the privilege attached to the proceedings of the committee. The committee and the Taoiseach decided that very day to move a motion in the Dáil appointing a tribunal because these Deputies refused to make a statement before the committee.

This precedent is important and we, on this side of the House say that, rather than get bogged down in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and its subcommittee, the Government should have started by appointing a tribunal because that is the only way we will get to the bottom of all this.

The Taoiseach

I found Deputy Dermot Ahern's speech quite interesting and I will return to some of the points he made in the course of my remarks.

The common view in the contributions to this debate, by Deputies from Government and opposition parties, has been that the political process as a whole and the reputations of those who work in it have been tarnished by matters allegedly contained in a report prepared by Price Waterhouse for Dunnes Stores. I am determined everything that can possibly be done will be done to remove that tarnish and establish the facts.

There is only one reason the Government opposes the motion in the name of the Progressive Democrats. We are anxious to deal fully and openly with the allegations made, but in a way which is efficient and effective. The proposal to set up a tribunal now on the basis of newspaper reports would not meet the requirements of efficiency and effectiveness. These reports are extensive, sometimes contradictory, often speculative and generally based on anonymous sources. They do not on their own or in association with an unexplained report, form a reliable basis for the establishment of a tribunal under the tribunals of inquiry legislation. However, the allegations made are damaging and there is an urgent need to have them investigated.

As a first step in that process of investigation, the Government has entered into an agreement with Dunnes Stores and, to ensure that everyone knows exactly what is involved, I will place the full text of the agreement in the Library. In accordance with that agreement, the Price Waterhouse report has been conveyed to an eminent, independent person, Judge Buchanan, who is tasked with making all relevant sections available to committees of the Oireachtas. Nothing in the Buchanan exercise now under way, will inhibit or prevent the Government or the Oireachtas from taking any further action they think fit.

Before going further, it is appropriate that I should place on record my thanks, and that of the Government, to Judge Buchanan. As soon as he was approached he agreed to undertake this task and to do so without delay. His integrity and independence is without question, and his ability is recognised on all sides. While there may be criticism of the process we are using, no one, inside or outside this House, has questioned the suitability of Judge Buchanan for the task. It is important to acknowledge that.

The purpose of the process is clear. It is to bring the relevant information from the Price Waterhouse report into the public domain in a way which does not trespass on the prerogatives of other authorities such as the Revenue Commissioners, protects the names and reputations of persons who have no connections with political or public life, and protects the legitimate legal and commercial interests of Dunnes Stores and others. I acknowledge the cooperation of Dunnes Stores in making this process possible and note its offer to further cooperate with Judge Buchanan as he carries out his task.

What exactly will happen when relevant and reliable information derived from the Price Waterhouse report is put in the public domain cannot be accurately predicted at this stage. We must await the information. What can be predicted is that, on foot of the publication of the information, the Government will take whatever additional steps are necessary, first, to establish any further facts that need to be established and, second, to move to deal with any improprieties that might be brought to light, either on the part of elected representatives or of public servants, subject to the normal processes of law which must be complied with.

The Committee on Procedures and Privileges of this House, and its corresponding committee in Seanad Éireann, is the appropriate body to which to refer allegations involving impropriety on the part of Members of the Oireachtas. If these committees are unable to establish the facts, as Deputy Dermot Ahern suggested might be the case, or to deal with the consequences of them, there are procedures through which any deficiencies can be remedied.

I accept that the privilege and compellability legislation is relevant here. One of the reasons that legislation is being introduced is precisely to remedy the deficiencies to which Deputy Dermot Ahern referred which arose from the in re Haughey case. Admittedly, it has taken us collectively 25 years to deal with that deficiency in the powers of committees of the House which was made manifest in the finding of Mr. Justice Ó Dálaigh in the Haughey case, but we are doing it now. It is too late in some senses but we are doing it; it was not done in any previous Dáil.

I was questioned about this matter this morning on the Order of Business. We took the policy decisions about three weeks ago and the amendments to the Bill are now almost entirely drafted. I think there is one amendment which we must examine again but the work is well advanced and it is receiving high priority in the drafting process.

There are well established legislative and procedural measures for dealing with allegations of impropriety on the part of any person paid out of public funds. These are enforceable, as part of the normal criminal law, with all the requirements of due process inherent in the law.

These measures for dealing with impropriety by any person paid out of public funds are contained in the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1889-1916, as adapted by an Order of the Dáil of 1928. These Acts include a provision whereby any person holding an office remunerated out of the central fund or of moneys provided by the Oireachtas — that includes Deputies, Ministers and public officials — shall be guilty of a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment or fine or both, if he: (a) corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to the affairs or business of his Department, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour in relation to such affairs or business; or (b) corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to the affairs or business of the State, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to the affairs or business of the State; or (c) knowingly uses with intent to deceive the head of his Department any receipt, account or other document in respect of which his Department is interested, and which contains any statement which is false or onerous or defective in any material particular, and which to his acknowledgement is intended to mislead.

That legislation further provides that where it is proved that any money, gift, or other consideration has been received by a person holding an office remunerated out of the central fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas from a person or agent of a person, holding or seeking to obtain a contract from a Government Department, the same shall be deemed to have been received corruptly as such inducement or reward as is mentioned in the Acts, unless the contrary is proved.

It is important to say that I made inquiries of the head of the Attorney General's office as to whether this legislation, which dates in its most recent enactment from 1928, is effective. My advice is that to the best of the knowledge available, it is effective. The legislation is clear. It clearly comprehends any receipt of money.

Miss Harney

Has it ever been used?

The Taoiseach

It has although I cannot give chapter and verse on that. I am advised it is effective and if any moneys were received, as disclosed in the Price Waterhouse report or any other report, for a purpose encompassed by any of the listed factors I mentioned, that would constitute corruption. It would constitute a criminal offence and would be pursued regardless of the status of the individual under the criminal law. It is important also to recognise that the Dáil, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or any other committee of the House is not a court of law. There is separation of powers here and if somebody is to be prosecuted for a criminal offence in an unprejudicial way, that must be done through a court of law, but that is a constraint all who respect the rule of law would welcome, appreciate and understand. We must do everything we can to bring all the facts into the public domain and then the action that needs to be taken can be taken. If it is political action in respect of a matter that is not a criminal offence but which is within the area of political unacceptability, then political steps can be taken. If it is a matter within the area of criminal law, then that must be dealt with through the courts. The Dáil cannot set itself up as a court and the courts cannot set themselves up as a legislature. There is a clear division here and that must be respected.

In addition to the anti-corruption legislation, which covers all persons paid out of public funds, there are specific instructions to civil servants in relation to outside business interests. These are embodied in circulars issued in 1929 and 1936, which are brought to the attention of all civil servants when they join. Essentially, these rules prohibit an officer from engaging in or being connected with any outside business or activity which would in any way conflict with the interests of his or her Department or be inconsistent with his or her official position or tend to impair his or her usefulness as a public servant. Where an officer is in any doubt as to the propriety of undertaking a particular outside business or occupation, he or she is required to consult the head of his or her Department. Where, in the course of his or her duties, a civil servant comes into contact with a matter affecting a business organisation in which he or she has an interest, he or she should immediately disclose the nature of the interest to the head of his or her Department.

A breach of the rules in this area would leave a civil servant open to disciplinary action under the well established procedures of the Civil Service disciplinary code. Depending on the seriousness of the violation, the penalty imposed could include dismissal.

There is also the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, and Statutory Instrument No. 57 of 1996 made under that Act. This requires that Ministers, Members of the Oireachtas and certain established civil servants make annual written statements in respect of personal interests, and those interests of a spouse, child or step-child of which they are aware, which could materially influence them in the performance of their official duties. A gift or gifts totalling £500 or more from anyone other than a relative or friend, if that could materially influence a person in the performance of his or her official duties, is an interest that has to be disclosed.

Those are the legislative provisions, regulations and guidelines covering public servants and politicians. There is no reason to doubt their effectiveness in dealing with any improprieties that might arise when the facts have been established. Again if there are deficiencies, the Government is determined to remedy them.

Any difficulties that might arise are more likely to relate to establishment of the facts rather than to the application of disciplinary procedures which are clear. As I have made clear, the process in which Mr. Justice Buchanan is involved is the first and I believe the most appropriate initial, and I emphasise the word "initial", step to establish the facts. The House can be assured that as soon as the facts as opposed to speculation and innuendo begin to emerge the Government will move swiftly to take whatever further action is appropriate.

I would like to draw public attention to the distinction between legitimate funding for political activity and anything which might involve corrupt practices. By international standards we have in this country a relatively inexpensive political process. It relies mainly on voluntary contributions to political parties and to politicians by individuals and companies. For example, the annual cost of running the political party I lead in a non-election year is about £800,000. In a general election expenditure by individuals and parties varies, but it would be fair to estimate that, averaged out, the cost of putting a candidate forward by the main political parties is in the region of £15,000 to £20,000 per candidate. A general election can cost a minimum of £0.5 million in our case and has cost much more in the past.

I am putting those figures in the public domain for the first time so that there will be a general understanding of the scale of the funding required by parties or individuals. The total contribution today from public funds to all the parties combined is about £650,000 per annum. That is less than the cost I mentioned required to run one party with which I am directly familiar. This is paid by way of allowances to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and the Progressive Democrats. The system is somewhat arbitrary. A party with eight members in the House gets £150,000 a year while one with six members does not get anything.

Mr. D. Ahern

They print their own money.

(Interruptions.)

Miss Harney

At the Forum everybody got the same.

The Taoiseach

The gap between the total cost of running the political process and the subvention received from the State has to be filled in some way. It cannot be entirely met by the funds raised in the normal course of events from annual membership fees from individuals or through local voluntary activity including raffles, sales of work, golf classics and other such events. For some time the main parties have had to make up the balance of ordinary ongoing finance as distinct from finance for elections through voluntary corporate donations. That has been my experience since 1990 when I became responsible for a political party. The party cannot be run on the basis of the ordinary annual income that comes in. Leaving elections aside, it is not possible to provide the type of service at the levels of salary required to be paid to get competent people just to keep the party ticking over out of the ordinary annual income.

It has been necessary every year to look for corporate donations just to run the ordinary day-to-day activities of the party. I have no doubt that is true of some, if not most, of the parties in this House. It is certainly true of mine, the only one with which I have direct familiarity. There is nothing improper about this. It is the norm in democracies worldwide.

Not surprisingly, public disquiet on occasions such as this is greater than it might otherwise be because there are no statutory controls on the amounts political parties and candidates can spend, no ceilings on contributions from companies or individuals and, most importantly, no requirements either on companies, individuals or the political recipients to make public the amounts received. That was never done until recently.

I can say with certainty that no corporate or individual contribution has ever influenced a Fine Gael Minister or a Government of which Fine Gael is or has been a part. The number of Ministers who might be aware of the sources of contributions is very small. For their sakes and that of the integrity of the system, the information is tightly held. Fine Gael has, in exceptional circumstances, returned donations where it was felt they might have been made with a subliminal intention of currying favour in regard to a particular decision. It was felt it would be better not to take the money. I have no doubt that is true of all the other parties in this House. In saying this I am not laying claim to special virtue.

I fully understand, however, the public disquiet. To deal with this, the Government has been considering for some time both the public funding of the political process and the regulations which might govern the private funding of such activities. Details of the decisions taken by the Government at its meeting today were announced this afternoon by the Minister for the Environment.

In summary, the Government has moved on two fronts to deal with the tarnishing of the good name of politics and politicians. I hope in doing so we can allay public concern.

We have taken what we believe are the most effective possible steps to establish the facts arising out of the media allegations about payments to political parties and politicians by Dunnes Stores. We are determined to do everything possible to get to the bottom of the allegations. If, as a last resort, it becomes necessary to establish a tribunal under the relevant legislation, that will be done. It will be done, however, on the basis of the most reliable possible information available and constructed in such a way as to ensure it can do its work quickly with the least possible public expense.

We have decided also to increase the public funding of political activity and will introduce accountability for the private funding of political activity. The necessary legislation will be brought before the House as early as possible in the new year.

I wish to respond to specific questions raised about Deputy Michael Lowry. As the House is aware, Deputy Lowry has asked for time to enable him to give a full response to allegations made against him. He has resigned his post as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to facilitate the preparation of such a response.

The allegations appear to relate to Deputy Lowry's commercial relationship with Dunnes Stores and Mr. Ben Dunne. To my knowledge there is no evidence against him relating to any allegation of political impropriety in the conduct of his public duties either as a Deputy or Minister.

To answer the specific questions put by Deputy Bobby Molloy, to the best of my knowledge neither Mr. Ben Dunne nor any company in which he had or has an interest benefited financially from any decision made by Deputy Lowry during his period as Minister. If Deputy Molloy or anyone else has any information to the contrary and gives it to me, it will be fully investigated immediately. The Minister for Finance has confirmed that, in his time as Minister, he is not aware of any Fine Gael or any political representations seeking changes in the tax law made to him or his Department on behalf of Dunnes Stores or the Dunne family.

Deputy Molloy has put other questions which can be appropriately answered by Deputy Lowry only. I understand it is Deputy Lowry's intention to ask for permission to make a personal statement in the House on 19 December and that he will, if required, subsequently make himself available to answer questions before an appropriate committee or sub-committee of the House.

I have covered most of the questions raised by Deputy Dermot Ahern. On the committee's ability to find facts, in so far as they relate to a revenue matter, the appropriate way to find them is through the Revenue Commissioners. In so far as they relate to an offence contrary to the legislation I have cited, they are a matter for the courts. Where they fall into neither category, in other words, where there is no appropriate legal arrangement and it is primarily a political matter, any deficiency in the powers of the committee to deal with it will be remedied either by the privilege and compellability legislation or separately, as necessary.

This is not an indication that we will allow a committee of the House to do the work of the courts, the Revenue Commissioners or any other duly constituted authority for the enforcement of the law. I do not believe Deputy Ahern would expect me to do so.

Mr. D. Ahern

Will the Taoiseach give way?

The Taoiseach

Yes.

Mr. D. Ahern

Will the Taoiseach accept that any person who appears before a committee will have his or her name impugned by virtue of the fact he or she was asked to appear before it?

The Taoiseach

No. The purpose of the Buchanan process is to allow the information to be sifted through to eliminate from the list those not involved in public affairs, where the payments made are of no concern to the House or public business, and to afford those who fall into the other category an opportunity to furnish an explanation to the judge, be it entirely innocent or otherwise. This will give them an opportunity to clear their names in their own words before the committee receives the report.

Having studied the report, if the committee still feels there are questions to be asked of a particular individual, it may be that he or she would have no difficulty in answering them solely to assist it in its work in respect of somebody else or some other aspect of the inquiry it wished to take up. There will be no pejorative implication in anybody being asked to assist the committee in its work, no more than there will be in any individual being asked to assist any committee of the House in its work. That is reasonable. If there is any illegality involved, the appropriate way to deal with it is through the courts. Deputies trained in law will appreciate that the Dáil cannot set itself up as a court.

We have had a number of tribunals of inquiry in recent history. While history does not teach us exact lessons, it gives us experience which can prove useful. The beef tribunal had extremely widely drawn terms of reference. The kitchen sink was literally thrown in. It cost a huge amount of money and found comparatively little in terms of firm decisions or recommendations. The reason it cost a huge amount of money was that its terms of reference were literally made up on the floor of the House. They were added to literally by the hour as the debate proceeded. As a result, we ended up with a tribunal which cost a mint, in order to get a Government out of difficulty on a particular day in the Dáil. In contrast, in the case of the hepatitis C tribunal it appears the terms of reference were drawn rather more carefully. The preliminary work was done, which did not reveal all the relevant facts but which at least refined the issues down to a point where we knew precisely where the gaps were in the information. The House was, therefore, able to draw the terms of reference of that tribunal much more narrowly and precisely so that we could find out in an effective way the information we wanted.

I would say to Deputies who are anxious to get to the bottom of the matter and who are sceptical, perhaps justly so, as to whether one can get all the information through a normal process of inquiry in the House, it is best to ensure that is done, if a tribunal is necessary, having refined the terms of reference in the most precise fashion possible. The process we are now going through is the quickest, most cost effective way of getting the facts. Although the Opposition will obviously support the motion — I have no quarrel with that — it will see at the end of the day that the approach we are adopting is the best one.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Ba mhaith liom a chuid ama a roinnt le mo chuid comhlachtaithe an Teachta Dála Cullen agus an Teachta Dála Dempsey. When discussing this issue it is as well to remind ourselves once again, lest we forget, that the reason we are having this debate, the reason for the suggestion by the Progressive Democrats of a tribunal, which is supported by our party, is that it has been alleged that a Member of this House, a former member of the Government, received payments in excess of £200,000 for extensions and renovations to his family home. It is important to keep that in our minds because events of the past ten days might well have been put in place to try to cloud that issue. The allegations have never been denied.

I was interested this evening to read the statement of the Northside Seven who, knowing that the former Minister is to make a personal statement next week, decided to pre-empt it and capture the high moral ground. I have always said in this House that the high moral ground is the most dangerous ground to be on because there is only one way to go from there and that is down.

Mr. Cowen

That is it over there. Four green bottles standing on a wall.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should be allowed continue without interruption.

Mr. D. Ahern

We never claimed to be on it, as did the Deputies over there.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I said in 1994 that it was the one place in the world I never wanted to be, and I have no ambition to be on it now.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996

Private Members' Business. - Inquiry into Alleged Payments by Dunnes Stores Limited: Motion (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1996