Vol. 480 No. 7
12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when it is intended to appoint the person or persons to the tribunal of inquiry arising from the resolution agreed by Dáil Éireann on 11 September 1997; when the tribunal will commence its work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14676/97]
13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to a newspaper report (details supplied) in which it was reported that he received a letter from a person (details supplied) offering to give sworn evidence and provide independent corroboration to a tribunal of inquiry on matters which were the subject of a personal statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 10 September 1997; whether he received the letter; if so, when he received any such letter; the action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take arising from the letter; if he has had or if he has sought a meeting with the person concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14677/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together.
On Friday last, 26 September, I signed the formal order establishing the new tribunal of inquiry consequent on the resolutions passed by this House and the Seanad. Copies of the order have been placed in the Oireachtas Library. The new tribunal will be officially described as — Tribunal of Inquiry (Payments to Messrs. C. J. Haughey and M. Lowry). The order appoints Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty to be sole member of the tribunal and I would like to thank him for so willingly agreeing to accept this appointment.
Deputies will be aware that the tribunal is independent in carrying out its task. I understand, however, that the administrative work involved in the setting up of the tribunal is well advanced. This has been greatly assisted by the Government's decision that the administrative team which so capably assisted Mr. Justice McCracken in his work in the Dunnes payments tribunal should remain in place and serve the new tribunal. The fact that the new tribunal will use the same premises in Dublin Castle should also expedite its commencement. All necessary resources will be provided to enable the tribunal to set about its inquiries and there will be no administrative impediment to it commencing its work.
In relation to the newspaper report raised by Deputy Rabbitte the position is that I did receive a letter from the individual mentioned. This was considered by me in the light of the facts as then known to me and in the light of the fact that the individual had not then and, as I understand it, has still not signed a statement of complaint for the Garda. In these circumstances no action by me was warranted at that time. In the meantime other matters have come into the public domain, particularly the letter from Mr. Michael Bailey of Bovale Developments to Mr. James Gogarty of Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering Ltd. and the letter from Messrs. Donnelly, Neary and
Donnelly, solicitors, to which I referred earlier today in the House. These matters give rise to concern as to the operation of the planning process in north County Dublin over a number of years. It is for this reason that the Government has decided that a new tribunal will be established to investigate all matters relating to the parcels of land referred to in Mr. Bailey's letter and any related matters. The terms of reference have been the subject of discussion between the Whips and the formal motion will be put down for debate when these discussions are completed.
I join the Taoiseach in wishing Mr. Justice Moriarty well in the task he has undertaken. Will the Taoiseach detail whether any additional expertise will be made available to the tribunal, specifically whether any accountancy expertise will be made available to it from a source that would not be conflicted in any way? Does he agree that it has been established over the past 48 hours that there is nothing preventing him reopening the Moriarty tribunal or availing of the mechanism that is there to have included a separate matter and that we have heard expert opinion over the past 24 hours to that effect? I would be glad to know if the Taoiseach accepts that.
On the issue of expert opinion or assistance, one of the considerations I had at the start, which was mentioned by a number of eminent legal people, was that it might have been better to have more than one member so that the issue of accountancy and other investigative matters could be looked at. Following the debate here and having talked to a number of people I decided it was better to have a sole member and that whatever professional taxation or accountancy expertise is necessary should be made available to the inquiry. I believe the tribunal will require such expertise.
On the matters related to the tribunal and Mr. Justice Moriarty's role, I am advised that once the terms of reference and the order for a tribunal are set up, it cannot be amended. It can be stood down and new terms of reference for a tribunal can be drawn up. If that is done in this case, it would cancel the work we did here three weeks ago. It is possible to draw up new terms of reference for a tribunal, but as I indicated yesterday I am of the view that it is better to deal with the matters concerning planning separately. It should not take too long to deal with them, but it could take some time because of other matters that have been in the public domain for some time in regard to their being many other cases. We have a letter from Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly which might focus on them when those gentlemen and Mr. Gogarty go before the tribunal.
The substance of Deputy Rabbitte's question related to what Mr. Jim Gogarty asked in the letter he sent to me, Deputies Bruton, Spring, De Rossa, Sargent, Joseph Higgins, Broughan and Mr. McDowell, SC. He was appealing for the terms of reference to be extended to ensure that issues, such as the ones he outlined in the letter, should come within the remit of the tribunal. At the time I did not see why that should happen because the gentleman concerned, who had been offered immunity and plenty of assistance by the previous Minister for Justice, was not prepared to sign a statement, but now I believe there is more substance to it because the solicitors, who have been involved in this case for some time, seem to indicate there are cases. As I said yesterday and this morning, I have no knowledge as to whether there is any substance to these matters, but it is better that they should be dealt with comprehensively.
The catch all terms will avoid complaints that matters have not been included in the terms of reference. Deputy Bruton made the point about the position of a tribunal being definite. In terms of people being involved in planning corruption, the tribunal will focus on that. I hope there is no substance to these matters, but it is better to put them in a context in which they can be dealt with fully and it is best that is done in the way I outlined.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it is important that every allegation in regard to planning involving every county and every political party is thoroughly investigated and will he accept my support for that proposition in every way possible? Will he further agree that there is an urgency in regard to the allegation in respect of a payment of £30,000 to a serving Minister in the interests of the prosecution of Government business and that matter should be prioritised in any investigation? In light of that will he agree that for it to be prioritised it must be identified? It is not possible to prioritise within the terms of reference something which has not been identified in them. Will he agree that it is necessary, whether Deputy Burke is named or not, that the particular transaction concerning him, the payment of £30,000, be identified separately in the terms of reference of the tribunal so that it can be dealt with as a matter of priority in the interests of the functioning of Government?
Regarding this information which has surfaced, I stated there were a number of other allegations on which I did not have any particular information made by people outside the political system. Those allegations must be comprehensively looked at. As I stated on radio and in this House yesterday and today, I agree that the matters relevant to Mr. Burke must be dealt with quickly and upfront. Some of the other matters might take more time to deal with. Deputy Bruton knows what I said this morning about naming somebody. I do not believe that is fair, appropriate or the usual practice. The Whips had discussions on the framing of this matter. We considered it this morning. I have not had much time, but I have had two separate meetings with the Attorney General to see if we can frame it in such a way that it is clear this issue must be given priority. I would like it to be dealt with speedily. If we could work on this together I would be prepared to take suggestions. While Deputy Bruton considers that section 5 is too open we need it to prevent others saying they have information. If he has any particular proposals or drafts on that issue I would be glad to tie it down.
I ask Deputies to bear with me. We are now two minutes over the time for questions to the Taoiseach. In fairness to Members who submitted questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise, we are now moving on to priority questions.
I am glad the Taoiseach has accepted the point about section 5.
Yesterday morning I may have said something that reflected unfairly on a Minister.
Is the Deputy withdrawing it?
I want to put it right. I inadvertently and unavoidably saw a document prepared for the Minister which did not include reference to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as has since been borne out. I may have given the impression that they were the actual terms of reference or that the Minister concerned had actually shown them to me. I want to make it clear that did not happen and I did not intend any reflection on the Minister in question.
