Vol. 480 No. 7
It is proposed to take No. 1, Europol Bill, l997, Second Stage (Resumed) and 2a, Children Bill, l997, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.
It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Private Members' business shall be No. 2, Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, l997, Second Stage (Resumed) and that the proceedings on the Second Stage thereof be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. this evening.
Are the arrangements for taking Private Members' business this evening agreed?
Before agreeing to that, what are the Taoiseach's plans for a further tribunal of inquiry?
I cannot allow that now. We are dealing with the arrangements for Private Members' time this evening. The matter referred to by the Deputy does not arise at this stage.
The agreement of my party to any business in this House will be contingent on satisfactory agreements being reached in regard to any tribunal of inquiry ——
We will come to that on the Order of Business but we cannot deal with it at this stage.
To assist me in deciding whether we can agree to the Order of Business this morning, will the Taoiseach inform us of his intentions in regard to a tribunal of inquiry, in particular into the matter of £30,000 having been handed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs?
I cannot allow that matter to be discussed at this stage. The proposal before the House relates to the Deputy's party's Private Members' business this evening which must be disposed of first.
I am not willing to agree to any business until we get satisfactory agreement from the Government on this matter. It did not consult us about the badly drafted terms of reference circulated last night.
I must now put the question: "That the arrangements for dealing with Private Members' time be agreed to."
Under Standing Order 162, I propose the suspension of the Standing Orders of the House to discuss an amendment to the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry to enable it to examine the amount, source and circumstances of the financial donation received in 1989 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
It is not in order to move that motion in Government time.
You will appreciate, a Cheann Comhairle, these are not normal times.
I must abide by Standing Orders.
This House is being brought into disrepute by the refusal of the Taoiseach and the Government to include this matter in the Moriarty tribunal. This House should suspend Standing Orders.
The Chair is governed by Standing Orders. The motion the Deputy proposes to move is out of order in Government time.
I ask the Government to accept a reasonable proposal to include this matter in the Moriarty tribunal.
We are on the Order of Business and must deal with questions relating to it. This motion is out of order and the Chair has no discretion in the matter.
It is important to suspend Standing Orders today so this matter can be taken ——
Such a motion is not in order and cannot be entertained.
——otherwise the disrepute into which the House is being brought will continue. We were promised that this matter would be dealt with today.
If we do not abide by Standing Orders, we will bring the House into further disrepute.
It might help the orderly procedure of the business of the House if the Taoiseach would indicate if the Government Whip will have instructions at the proposed Whips meeting today that in no circumstances can he agree to the inclusion of the payment of £30,000 to the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, as an explicit matter in the terms of reference. Is it the position of the Government that that matter may not be included?
I must point out that the substance of the motion cannot be discussed on the Order of Business; only the arrangements for dealing with the motion can be discussed. However, if the Taoiseach wants to comment he can.
Six thousand £5 notes.
Unfortunately, it was not possible last night for the Whips to finalise the business in order to take this issue today. I accept it was late in the evening when they finally got the terms of reference.
At the same time as the media.
However, I would like to try to resolve the outstanding issues at the meeting today. I heard what the party leaders said here yesterday and on "Morning Ireland". It seems to centre mainly around two issues. I made it clear yesterday the Government believes that in order to deal with this matter expeditiously and efficiently there should be a separate inquiry on the planning matters. That position stands.
Second, I have made it very clear in a number of media interviews and in the House yesterday that it was always the Government's intention, and the wish of the Minister, Deputy Burke, that he should be included in the categories of persons covered by the terms of reference as they were drafted. My legal advice is that he is included in the categories of persons covered by the terms of reference. If people believe that should be strengthened I will certainly listen to amendments which would strengthen it.
I have made it clear that the Minister, Deputy Burke, should not be named in the terms of reference for two reasons. In the case earlier this year of the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, he was not named in the terms of reference, although that was the central issue of that tribunal. It could be argued that if his name had been mentioned the issues in regard to Mr. Haughey would not have been found out.
That is not true.
As I think the party leaders know, the solicitors who commenced most of the debate surrounding this issue, Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly, wrote to me yesterday about matters which had already been stated to me. I do not know if any of it is true. I have already had discussions with Deputy Bruton regarding this matter. They refer to 52 allegations and say that other politicians are involved. Rather than let these issues be drip fed out, I believe they should all be included. However, I would like the party leaders at least to consider agreeing that in the short-term — from now until Christmas — the tribunal should deal upfront with, first, the matters relating to the Minister, Deputy Burke; second, the matters outlined in the letter published last week concerning the 726 acres and the deals between Baileys and JMSE; and third, this and any other letters from Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly. If there are other matters the tribunal can examine them and if not it should not seek them. That is the agreement I will ask the Chief Whip to seek with the party leaders.
If there are any other matters which the party leaders would like to discuss with me I will listen to them. That is a fair way to advance this matter. The timing of the discussions can be discussed with the Whips.
Yesterday's conduct of business was unsatisfactory given that we received the terms of reference at a late hour last night. I take it that it is the Minister's wish and intention to appear before the tribunal. I do not know what other allegations exist and I have no objection to a tribunal with regard to planning matters in Dublin city or county. However, it is important that we get agreement between the Whips and the party leaders if necessary that the issue of the £30,000 payment, Mr. Gogarty and Mr. Bailey should be brought before the tribunal with the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke. We need to reach an understanding and clarity on that matter, perhaps here this morning.
The Taoiseach said he does not want the Minister's name included in the terms of reference. Would he agree to include explicitly the payment of £30,000 on 12 June 1989 at Briargate, Swords? Does the Taoiseach agree that an assurance cannot be given on this matter being prioritised unless it is identified explicitly?
My reply to Deputy Spring is that it is our intention. In response to Deputy Bruton I want the issue dealt with definitively. I have given my reasons, which I consider consistent, for not including the name in the terms of reference. I am advised legally that the other issue needs to be looked at. I am prepared to examine it but I do not want to specify an innocent party who is not, according to unsubstantiated information, the only party involved. I have been told that another Member may be involved but I have no information to that effect. I am told there are 52 allegations among other matters, but I have no reason to believe that.
Was there any money paid?
The letter indicates that allegations concerning the lands which are the subject of the Magill article relate to more than one elected representative. It says that Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly have 52 allegations concerning planning and rezoning around the country but particularly in Dublin. It indicates that some of the allegations are frivolous and that in most cases it seems unlikely that criminal proceedings would be likely to ensue. Nevertheless, most of them appear to have been made in good faith and some seem prima facie to give cause for concern. It says that six have been forwarded to the Garda but that more warrant proper investigation. It further indicated that several of those making allegations made it clear they needed guarantees which neither the clients nor the solicitors were able to provide before they would put the allegations in writing or in the public domain.
What can be guaranteed?
I have no such information. That is a matter for the tribunal. It is the Government's intention that the matters related to the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, should be dealt with up front and clearly. If we can work out, without naming him——
Why not name him?
The Deputy did not name Deputy Lowry.
Why did we not name others in tribunals? The man is innocent. He is prepared to go before a tribunal and to be fully investigated. However, he is innocent. Is the whole matter just about naming him?
Does the Taoiseach recollect that Mr. Ben Dunne's name was mentioned in the terms of reference of the McCracken tribunal and that did not imply any wrongdoing on his part? Naming an individual in the terms of reference of a tribunal does not imply wrongdoing. I do not understand the Taoiseach's reluctance to name the individual who received the money.
Mr. Bailey and Mr. Gogarty are mentioned as Mr. Dunne was mentioned in the other tribunal. We have followed the same logic as for the McCracken tribunal.
Why mention the donor and not the recipient? Surely that is inconsistency. Is the Taoiseach suggesting wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Gogarty?
No. I am not.
The Taoiseach is suggesting Deputy Bruton is inconsistent.
We had a wide ranging debate on this very important matter yesterday and now is not the appropriate time to discuss the substance of the issue. There will be a motion on this matter before the House this week or next week.
On the Order of Business——
I will take final questions strictly on the Order of Business and the arrangements for taking this motion, but we cannot have further discussion on the substance of the motion. That is completely out of order.
There is no consistency.
(Dublin West): On the Order of Business, can the Taoiseach indicate how much time the Government is prepared to set aside for discussion of the proposed tribunal? Can the Taoiseach structure that debate to facilitate amendments as happened with the most recent tribunal? Can the Taoiseach include Deputy Ray Burke and also extend the terms of reference to include other blatant attacks on the green belt in county Dublin and not accede to Fine Gael pressure not to investigate rezoning that has destroyed——
We cannot discuss the substance of the issue. I am taking questions on the arrangements.
The Taoiseach wants to know why Deputy Lowry and Mr. Haughey were not included in the terms of reference of the McCracken Tribunal. That tribunal related specifically to payments to politicians and the inquiry investigated how much, how often and to which politicians Mr. Ben Dunne had made payments. It identified a number of people.
We certainly got a few names.
We now have the Moriarty Tribunal to inquire into matters that arose from the McCracken Tribunal. The terms of reference we now have relate to a letter from Mr. Bailey to Mr. Gogarty about planning. There is no reference in it to payments to Deputy Ray Burke or any other politicians.
Read it.
That is surely the nub of the issue. I do not understand why the Taoiseach is putting his Government at risk by refusing a straightforward and simple procedure that would clear this matter up by including the payment by Mr. Gogarty to Deputy Ray Burke in the preliminary process which Mr. Justice Moriarty will be instituting before proceeding with a full public inquiry. That is the most straightforward way of dealing with this issue, not by establishing a public inquiry which will take, by the Taoiseach's admission, six months at least to conclude its business and which will range across matters that bear perhaps no relationship to the payment by Mr. Gogarty to Deputy Ray Burke.
If the Taoiseach feels there are grounds for an inquiry into the planning processes in north Dublin, let us have one, but it should not become a way of fudging the issue of payments to politicians which gave rise to this matter in the first instance.
It is not in order to discuss the merits and demerits of proposals that may or may not be in the terms of reference.
I disagree.
The terms of reference are not before the House. It is completely out of order to discuss the substance of the issue.
It may be out of order, but the Taoiseach is not prepared to discuss the terms of reference.
The Taoiseach need only deal with the arrangements regarding the taking of this motion.
In relation to this dilemma, I heard some muttering from Fianna Fáil Ministers while Deputy De Rossa was speaking to the effect that there seem to be allegations from this side of the House that other politicians should be named. So be it. Let us amend the terms of reference to include the identity of all recipients of payments made to political parties, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and local authorities by Messrs James Gogarty and Michael Bailey from 1989 to date and the circumstances, considerations and motives thereof. That would effectively include anybody who received any payments from these two gentlemen. If that is acceptable, we might be able to resolve this matter.
It would be a very good idea if the terms of reference were to include any payments made by Messrs Bailey and Gogarty to any politician. I challenge the Taoiseach, who seems to put so much faith in anonymous suggestions and rumours, to say what allegations he and Deputy Dermot Ahern are making about others.
The Deputy will never be satisfied.
Colombo has spoken again.
They should have the courage to voice their allegations if they exist. We have nothing to fear.
The tribunal should look at everything.
How is it possible for the Taoiseach to give a guarantee that the payment of £30,000 to Deputy Burke will be dealt with "upfront", to use his own words, if that payment is not explicitly identified in the terms of reference as a separate matter? How can he maintain his refusal to identify, in the terms of reference, the payment of £30,000 on 12 June at Briargate to Deputy Burke as an explicit and separate matter to be investigated as a matter of priority?
Let me remind Members that the House will have an opportunity to amend the terms of reference proposed by the Government.
I am interested in maintaining order in this House and I would like to respond to some of the comments made. I do not believe that any politician in this House is guilty of anything until proven to be so.
Then the Taoiseach should tell his Ministers to stop whispering. Constant threats are being made.
I would like to think that everyone in this House would stop whispering. Deputy Barrett's own party has been whispering about things all summer.
Deputy Barrett's party are masters at whispering.
I have no anonymous allegations. I have a letter from Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly, solicitors in Newry, County Down ——
That has been known about for the past two years.
——who, as is known to everybody in the public domain, have been investigating this matter with some degree of energy for a period of at least two years. One of the people involved is Mr. Gogarty who drip feeds various letters to several people on a regular basis. I seek to organise that all of these matters, files and records ——
Let Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly name the people involved.
They will do that before the tribunal. Deputy Spring made a fair point which I will look at and try to respond to in advance of the Whips meeting in a short time.
I am anxious to proceed to the next business of the House. I hope that Deputy Bruton's question will be in order.
Will the Taoiseach inquire into the fact that paragraph 5 of the terms of reference, as circulated, seems to be in contravention of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, because it does not refer to a definite matter? A tribunal can only be established to inquire into a definite matter under that Act. This global inquiry into anything and everything which might have happened since 1922 under the planning process is not legal under that Act.
The Deputy is dancing on the head of a pin and is floundering on a legal point.
Deputy Bruton's question is completely out of order.
The Taoiseach mentioned earlier that he was listening to "Morning Ireland" today. The opinion of senior counsel on that programme was that all councillors concerned with these parcels of land are included in the inquiry with the exception of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burke.
That is what it is designed to do.
The Deputy is discussing the contents of the terms of reference which is not in order.
The Deputy must not have heard Vincent Browne last night.
If the Whips meet after the Order of Business, do I take it now that, having regard to the impediment put by the Government Whip on the discussions last night, we may discuss any amendment to the proposed terms of reference except the inclusion of the particular donation that gave rise to this controversy? Is it the case that if the Whips meet, everything is to be negotiated in those terms of reference?
That question is not in order on the Order of Business. We can only discuss the arrangements.
I asked that question earlier. Is everything on the table for the Whips' meeting including the inclusion of the £30,000 payment explicitly in the terms of reference?
When the motion comes before the House Members will have an opportunity to table amendments.
On a point of order, one of the ways in which we are able to have order in this House is that we have Whips' meetings where matters can be discussed and agreed. If the Government has excluded the possibility of including the payment to the Minister, Deputy Burke, from the terms of reference by identifying it explicitly, then the Whips' meeting will not succeed in reaching any agreement. It would be better if we knew that before the Whips' meeting starts, otherwise there is no point in the Opposition parties attending the meeting. If that is not something that can be put on the table, there is no point in having a Whips' meeting. Will the Taoiseach tell me now whether that can be considered at the Whips' meeting?
A Cheann Comhairle, to be helpful to you, perhaps you might ask if there are any other questions before I give a final reply because you have called me five times to give the final reply.
The only questions the Chair can allow are questions that are in order. The Chair cannot allow questions relating to the substance of the motion.
The Leader of the main Opposition party has asked the Taoiseach a question. I suggest he should be able to answer it.
Deputy Bruton is out of order.
On a point of order——
Deputy Bruton is out of order and he is practising rules that he knows will bring this House into disrepute. He knows they are not procedures that were followed in the past. I have already responded to what was the only reasonable amendment constructively put forward this morning from Deputy Spring, to the effect that if all payments are included it would seem to be a way forward. I have already answered clearly that I might be in a position to support such an amendment. I will examine it and discuss it with the Chief Whip before the Whips' meeting. I hope that is a fair way of ending this matter.
On a point of order, may I ask the Taoiseach if he would be prepared to make available to us the details of the investigation carried out by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Dempsey, into this whole matter?
That is not a point of order, Deputy.
It is in connection with the Whips' meeting.
It is not a point of order.
It is relevant to the Whips' meeting.
It is not in order on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach has chosen in the terms of reference to investigate the relationship of any councillor on Dublin County Council over that period with the sites in question. May I ask the Taoiseach if there is any reason the ongoing relationship over those years of Bovale to Dublin County Council in respect of a number of other transactions is not included for inquiry?
The Deputy's question is not in order. We must proceed to the business of the day.
In view of the fact that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been published, when will the Committee of Public Accounts be established to investigate the alarming contents of that report? What is the reason for the delay?
The committees will be set up within the next week or so.
When is it intended to publish the Estimates?
They will be published about the middle of November.
When does the Taoiseach intend to send the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burke, to Iran——
To stay there.
——to reopen the market for livestock? He said in Opposition that the then Minister should be sent to Iran to reopen that market.
This matter is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
I thank Deputy Crawford for his confidence in the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The list of legislation published some days ago includes the Western Commission Bill which, the Taoiseach said, was to update the existing proposals. When outlining the responsibilities of Ministers he said that the Minister for the Environment would have responsibility for the Western Commission but, according to the list, the Minister for Agriculture and Food will deal with it. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to dismantle all the good work done by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, when he had responsibility for the Western Commission?
None of the good work done over many years will be dismantled.
It seems from the programme for the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands that none of the promised seven Bills will be published in 1997. Is it intended to proceed with the broadcasting Bill?
It is intended to proceed with it.
Is it likely to be published during the lifetime of the Dáil, within 12 months or during the Taoiseach's lifetime and mine?
The Deputy will be aware from his time as Minister that a number of the legislative proposals have been around for a long time.
Yes.
The broadcasting Bill, and I hope some other Bills, will be brought forward in the new year.
