On 10 December last, the Progressive Democrats moved a motion in this House to establish a tribunal to inquire into payments to politicians by Dunnes Stores. Introducing that motion, Deputy Bobby Molloy spoke of the public's right to know and of the need to uphold the integrity of our democratic system. He stated correctly that a tribunal of inquiry was essential if we were to get to the truth. That motion was voted down by the three parties then in Government. The attitude of the rainbow coalition was summed up well by the Leader of Democratic Left, Deputy De Rossa, in his contribution. He stated:
A tribunal of inquiry along the lines proposed by the Progressive Democrats would be a potential disaster. It is a recipe for prolonged hearings, with huge legal bills, and the real prospect of journalists ending up in jail, with no guarantee of satisfactory or complete answers at the end of the process.
I am glad to say that Deputy De Rossa was wrong. Judge McCracken did an excellent job and every voter and taxpayer owes him a great debt of gratitude. We owe a debt of gratitude also to the press, without whose efforts this whole scandal might never have been exposed. Judge McCracken gave us satisfactory answers. The tribunal was not a disaster. We did not have prolonged hearings. Journalists did not go to jail.
Judge McCracken gave us satisfactory answers but he was not always able to give us complete answers. That is the reason we need another tribunal and why the Government parties agreed so readily to the establishment of another tribunal. We were anxious also to reach the maximum amount of agreement with the Opposition parties. Nobody has any morally superior authority in relation to these issues. Later, when we deal with the individual amendments, the Government will be in a position to accept a number of them.
The new tribunal will have to investigate fully the relationship between Dunnes Stores and Deputy Michael Lowry — a relationship described by Judge McCracken as extraordinary, unorthodox and unhealthy. The new tribunal will have to investigate the financial mystery whereby Mr. Charles Haughey apparently managed to sustain a lavish lifestyle, a lifestyle enjoyed only by a landed aristocrat, on the relatively modest salary of an elected politician. We now know that Ben Dunne's largesse paid the bills for three years or so, but who has kept the Kinsealy show on the road for the past 30 years? The new tribunal will also have to investigate decisions made by both of these individuals while they were in Government to ascertain whether or not public favours were sold for private cash.
Tribunals of inquiry got a bad name after the hugely expensive and largely inconclusive beef tribunal. Hopefully, things have now changed. Mr. Justice Finlay showed in the hepatitis C inquiry how a tribunal could work efficiently and effectively to get at the truth with a minimum amount of cost and delay. Mr. Justice McCracken has shown that a tribunal of inquiry can function with equal efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with the complex financial interactions, many of which were specifically structured in such a way as to avoid detection and investigation. Both of these men have restored my faith in tribunals. I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Justice McCracken and his team for the excellent work they did and for the thoroughness and tenacity with which they approached their task. They have done us all in public service a great deal of good.
The McCracken tribunal would have been able to complete its work much more speedily, and at a greatly reduced cost, had Mr. Charles Haughey co-operated with the inquiry instead of engaging in deception and prevarication. I am confident the forthcoming tribunal will follow the lead set by Finlay and McCracken. The taint of sleaze or scandal must be removed once and for all from public life and that can only happen if we bring the highest ethical standards to public office. We must now banish forever the squalid stench of political payola.
We must rescue political life from the ravages of understandable cynicism. We must be able to demonstrate that those who serve in public life are honourable. The people of this Republic deserve no less and they must get it. Confidence in public life demands that elected politicians and public servants be above reproach in the decisions they make. These decisions — which often confer very large benefits and can have the most far-reaching effects — must be made without fear or favour.
For far too long our system of government and public administration was bedevilled by a climate of secrecy. This veil of secrecy has in the past fuelled a culture of nods and winks; government by fiat or fear; government tainted by the corrosiveness of mistrust and misdeed. In other words, bad government, unacceptable government. The era of sneaking regard or resigned acceptance of nods and winks, the fixer and the occupant of the inside track is over. The public has the right to expect integrity from its politicians. Constitutional democracy is based upon the political responsibility of the citizen. In electing Members to Dáil Éireann the citizen effectively delegates part of that responsibility. Those who are so entrusted by the electorate have a clear duty to be worthy of that trust. This is particularly the case in relation to those who hold ministerial office. When this trust is breached it rightly engenders mistrust, cynicism and scandal.
The shroud of mystery, the era of the antihero, involved Charles Haughey, a former distinguished Member of this House, a former Minister and former Taoiseach. By virtue of the office he held he is a member of the Council of State, is in receipt of a State pension and has the benefit of Garda security and a State car. It gives me no great pleasure to rake over the past deeds of Mr. Haughey, particularly as he is not present in the House to respond. However, I must do so as to do otherwise would be a disservice to the public, a travesty of justice and ultimately an abdication of the trust the people have placed in me.
Mr. Haughey masqueraded for almost a generation as the spirit of the nation. It is more fitting to say that he is the spectre of the nation. The report of Judge McCracken unambiguously put flesh on the ghost and the forthcoming tribunal must lay the ghost to rest. The wrongdoings of Mr. Haughey uncovered by the McCracken tribunal are of a most serious order. They are reprehensible and cannot be condoned.
The politics Mr. Haughey practised were a million miles away from the school of transparency and accountability. His were the politics of intimidation and threats. Opposition to his style of leadership was not so much discouraged as ruthlessly snuffed out. Those who dared question his leadership credentials were treated as political pariahs. I remember many days during the early 1980s seeing grown men cry. I also remember seeing a Deputy collapse and being taken to hospital because of the pressure he was under from Mr. Haughey and his friends. I will not forget those days easily. I remember too being summoned to Mr. Haughey's office to be told that if I behaved myself and supported him, if I was a good girl, then I would see preferment at some future date.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s many of us wondered at how he had managed to amass sufficient wealth to pay for a Dublin mansion, a County Kerry island, a yacht and a lifestyle which was lavish in the extreme. We may have had our suspicions but they were only that. The persistent rumours and innuendo about him remained just that until the McCracken tribunal finally shone a light on the awful truth. Charles Haughey was a kept man. We now know that one leading businessman was a generous donor.
It is clear that our knowledge of the financial gifts proffered by Ben Dunne merely scratches the surface of a lifestyle usually the preserve of multimillionaires. At page 73 of his report Judge McCracken put it succinctly when he said:
The possibility that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts, or even be given without being sought, is very high, and if such gifts are permissible, they would inevitably lead in some cases to bribery and corruption.
It is clear that Ben Dunne could have used the threat of disclosure at any stage to secure favours from Mr. Haughey. That no evidence has emerged of any such favours being sought or given does not take away from the fact that Mr. Haughey left himself wide open to possible blackmail or bribery. He compromised himself to such an extent that if pressure had been applied he would have found himself cast in the role of a political puppet. In other words, the holder of the highest Government office, the leader of the Government, was a mere political pawn. His ability to perform his duties was seriously impaired by his acceptance of these gifts.
The McCracken tribunal has raised as many questions as it has answered. There is every reason to believe Mr. Dunne was just one of a number of financial sponsors of Mr. Haughey. It has been estimated the payments uncovered by the tribunal could have sustained Mr. Haughey in his lifestyle for no more that two or three years. This begs the question as to who else made financial contributions to him and for what motives. It is reasonable to assume that other contributions may not have been so apparently benign as those of Mr. Dunne.
Chapter 9 of the report delivers the most damning verdict on Mr. Haughey's treatment of the tribunal. It cites 11 separate instances where he told untruths to the tribunal. The former Taoiseach tried to lead the tribunal team a merry dance. On the eve of the tribunal appearance by Mr. Haughey there was an expectation that he would confirm much of the information that had been uncovered by then. However, those who expected a contrite or expansive Charles Haughey were to be disappointed. Page 58 of the report reveals a most remarkable lapse of memory. While accepting Mr. Ben Dunne's evidence that he was handed three cheques each amounting to £70,000 sterling in November 1991, Mr. Haughey told the tribunal he had no recollection of the meeting and had made no further inquiries. This begs the question, were contributions of more than £200,000 so normal that they could so easily be forgotten? He was given at least 11 separate opportunities to set the record straight but did not avail of any of them. The consequences of this are now a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
There are also alarming issues raised in respect of Mr. Haughey's liability to pay tax. It is inconceivable that he would now escape censure or sanction by the State. If he pays no penalty for his wrongdoing it will send an alarming signal to those who, for much less, have had to face the full rigours of the law.
I will refer to Deputy Lowry who does not seem to understand the concept of compliant taxpaying. If his only income was that received as a Member of this House he would know all about compliance. He would just be another PAYE taxpayer with no room for manoeuvre when it came to evading tax liability. There were no such constraints in his business dealings with Dunnes Stores. Page 32 of the McCracken tribunal report provides us with as much as we need to know about the implications of such tax-dodging for his capacity to carry out his duties as a holder of public office. Judge McCracken found his relationship with Dunnes Stores extremely disturbing. At page 70 of the report he states:
It would be very damaging if there was a public perception that a person in the position of Government Minister and member of Cabinet was able to ignore with impunity, and indeed cynically evade, both taxation and exchange control laws of the State. It is an appalling situation that a Government Minister and Chairman of a Parliamentary Party can be seen to be consistently benefiting from the black economy from shortly after the time he was first elected to Dáil Éireann.
He goes on to state, rightly, that:
If such a person can behave in this way without serious sanctions being imposed, it becomes very difficult to condemn others who similarly flout the law.
Deputy Lowry has done us all a huge disservice, especially in his attempts to explain away his conduct in his personal statement to the Dáil last December. He deliberately sought to mislead us, perhaps thinking that would be the end of the matter.
The behaviour of Deputy Lowry and Mr. Haughey is especially cynical and brings enormous discredit on both of them. No political impropriety has been uncovered but it would be naive in the extreme to think their receipt of such donations and payments did not colour their decision-making capacity.
One of the other serious matters raised by the McCracken report is the number of apparent breaches of the company law code. A dynamic enterprise policy and dynamic economy demand that we have a comprehensive and effective company law code. Business people who pay their taxes are entitled to expect that the system of corporate law under which they operate is vigorously enforced. Foreign companies choose to locate in Ireland because of the stable business environment offered and our strong regulatory regime. The new tribunal is mandated to make whatever recommendations it considers necessary for the reform of company law. We must ensure the law in this area is modern and effective so that corporate fraudsters can be stopped. The apparent breaches of company law brought to light by the McCracken tribunal have to be investigated. It is my responsibility to ensure they are and I am determined to do so.
I wish to inform the House that under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, I have appointed two authorised officers from my Department to examine the books of two of the companies mentioned in the tribunal report. Last Tuesday I appointed Mr. Peter Fisher to examine the books of Garuda Limited, trading as Streamline Enterprises, in Thurles, County Tipperary, and I appointed Mr. Gerard Ryan to examine the books of Celtic Helicopters Limited. The brief of both officers is to establish what evidence is available to show that either the companies, their directors or their auditors breached particular provisions of the Companies Acts. I do not intend to speculate on what specific action might be appropriate on foot of their reports. It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on these matters until I have received and considered these reports in full.
The tribunal report is also revealing in respect of the dealings between Dunnes Stores, Deputy Lowry and Streamline Enterprises. Mr. Justice McCracken goes so far as to describe these as "extraordinary", "unorthodox" and "unhealthy". For my part, I find these dealings deeply disturbing. They require further scrutiny.
The McCracken tribunal has demonstrated that there may very well have been breaches of company law by Dunnes Stores or its subsidiaries. I can assure the House that I am actively pursuing this matter with Dunnes Stores at present. There are a number of different approaches open to me and I expect to be in a position to make a full announcement within a matter of days in relation to this issue.
It is clear Mr. Haughey enjoyed a remarkably lavish lifestyle for a period in excess of 20 years. Ben Dunne's largesse accounts for some of it, but it would seem there were other benefactors and the public is entitled to know who they are. We cannot turn a blind eye as to the possible motives of such donors. We must examine the integrity of certain decisions made during Mr. Haughey's tenure as Taoiseach. We must also establish if the extraordinary modus operandi of Deputy Lowry in relation to his business dealings influenced or had the potential to influence any decisions he made during his term in public office. We must see if any other holders of public office received unusual payments in the relevant periods and if any benefit accrued to any such donors.
The terms of reference drawn up for the new tribunal strike the right balance. On the one hand, we cannot have an inquiry which is openended. We cannot engage in a broadly based fishing expedition, hoping that we will find Pandora's box. On the other hand a tribunal which has a narrow focus on a few specific areas runs the risk of requiring us to come back in a few months' time to establish a third inquiry.
It makes eminent sense that the first task to be undertaken by the tribunal should be the identification of donors. Once we follow the trail of donors we can quickly establish whether that trail leads to policy decisions made in the 18 year period covered by the terms of reference. There is no point in examining every controversial or debatable Government decision over a period of years. Many of them may have been based on bad judgment or have come about as a result of incompetence, but they cannot all be viewed as somehow criminal or improper in character. However, decisions that may have been made under the influence of huge, secret, personal contributions fall into a different category completely, an attempt to subvert the democratic system of Government. Elaborate concealment through offshore accounts and other such devices is a recognition both by the donors and the recipients of the impropriety of what they are doing. Those complex financial webs were obviously woven in order to evade tax.
The task for the new tribunal is to establish if the intention was to hide from view the fact that benefactors of powerful politicians became beneficiaries of Government decisions. The terms of reference proposed for the new tribunal are as comprehensive and well-drafted as they can be. They represent the clear determination of the Government that any wrongdoing will be brought to light in all its detail regardless of who or what is involved. No legislative or Government support required by the new tribunal will be lacking. I hope that the result of these painful, complex and expensive inquiries into the affairs of Mr. Haughey, Deputy Lowry and anyone else involved will be far-reaching in terms of Irish political culture.
This debate is about fundamental values that are the bedrock of democratic politics. It is about integrity, responsibility, obligation and accountability. The subject matter, and the background to it, is scandalous, unpleasant and painful. Elected politicians have been diminished in the eyes of the public by the action of their peers. The people have had their investment in the political process devalued by a very small minority.
If this second tribunal does its work with the efficiency and clarity of McCracken, the body politic and the people that it serves will be rendered a great service. The political pointscoring is irrelevant; any moral superiority, inappropriate. A genuine wish to serve the country and the public good was the motivating force that inspired earlier generations of politicians. It is no different today and must not be any different in the future. The pursuit of power for its own sake has no place in our political system. Self-enrichment has no place in our political culture. We do not need people in politics whose only interest is self-interest.
On behalf of the Government I thank all the Deputies who contributed to this debate. This has been a good debate and there has been an enormous degree of unanimity across the floor of the House. In the session to follow the Government will be accepting some of the amendments from the Opposition. In so far as we can accept amendments, we are prepared to do so.
We made it clear from the outset that we will fully implement the recommendations contained in Mr. Justice McCracken's report. I have some personal reservations about the amendment that proposes a new defined role for the Ombudsman because I believe the Ombudsman's remit is to look after the small man against the State, but the new proposed role is slightly different. The Ombudsman is now being asked to be the policeman of politicians whereas until now the Ombudsman reported to the House. I have reservations about that specific recommendation, but the Government will examine it.
In respect of the other recommendations and breaches or possible breaches of company law identified in the McCracken report, I have acted. The Government will act in so far as it can to make sure that the strong conclusions and unambiguous report of Mr. Justice McCracken and his team, for which we all owe him a great deal of gratitude, are fully respected and implemented. He has done a great service to Irish public life.
In the manner in which we have sought to establish the next tribunal, I hope we can continue to serve the public which is our duty. We want once and for all to end the taint of scandal that has surrounded some political decision-making and some politicians in the recent past. We can all be proud of those who serve in public office, whether in our system of public administration or as Members or Ministers of this House. The activities of a tiny minority of our peers have brought us all into disrepute. We do not deserve that and it is our duty to make sure that we no longer continue to accept it. In so far as the new tribunal will be able to reveal some further matters, I hope it will bring to an end the era of scandal and sleaze and that we will see heavy sanctions taken against Mr. Haughey and Deputy Lowry. That is what the public expect and they expect in so far as we can in our decision-making that we should honour in full the spirit and letter of the law. That is what the Government intends to do.
The Minister for Finance will deal with the various amendments. I hope that for the next hour and a half before we vote at 4.30 p.m., if there is a vote, the debate will be conducted in the spirit in which it has been conducted since it began yesterday.
