Deputy Quinn was in possession and had two minutes left. I understand Deputy Howlin is taking that time.
Private Members' Business. - Ansbacher Accounts: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy John Bruton on Wednesday, 29 September 1999:
That Dáil Éireann:
noting the contents of the affidavit presented to the High Court on Wednesday, 22 September by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment;
conscious of the public outrage caused by the revelations that systematic tax evasion occurred with intent to defraud the Revenue Commissioners through the use of Ansbacher accounts;
conscious that breaches of exchange controls and company and banking law also occurred through the use of the same accounts;
recognising that the recent revelations may jeopardise the achievement of a new national agreement, essential to national competitiveness and social progress;
aware that the names of account holders are being made public on a select basis and recognising that the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Minister for Finance either have already seen or have been appraised of the list of the account holders,
calls on the Government to ensure that names of all persons who held Ansbacher accounts are made public via a Dáil committee and resolves that it will support the Government in amending section 21 of the Companies Act, 1990, to enable such publication to a committee of the Dáil.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann:
–approves of the actions of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in seeking the appointment under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990 of Inspectors to undertake a wide-ranging investigation of the Irish business of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd.;
–endorses the remit given to the Inspectors which requires theminter alia to establish whether the company's business was conducted with intent to defraud the Revenue Commissioners or any other party or otherwise for a fraudulent and unlawful purpose, and if so, to identify the statutory provisions involved and the persons in default in each case;
–expresses confidence that the very wide powers given to Inspectors under the Companies Act, 1990 will enable them to complete their assignment successfully;
–notes that section 11 of that Act permits the printing and publication of any reports made to the High Court by the Inspectors in fulfilment of their remit;
–acknowledges that it is not possible in the interim to disclose additional information on the company's affairs because of the prohibitions on disclos ure contained in section 21 of the Companies Act, 1990 and in the Order of the High Court of 22 September, 1999.".
(Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment)
Two minutes is a confined period in which to make a worthwhile contribution on this most important issue that has focused the attention of most of the nation. I wish simply to focus on one aspect of the facts put before the House last night by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn. On 13 January 1998, the Tánaiste appointed an authorised officer. On 28 January 1998, Deputy Quinn stated in the House "I welcome the Tánaiste's investigation and I hope it bears fruit but we have no guarantee that the report of that investigation will be published". Throughout the intervening period we have sought, through Priority Questions in the name of my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, to have the names of those involved put in the public domain. The Tánaiste twice gave assurances in the House that that was her intention also, but, despite the fact that she gained much publicity at the end of 1998 when she received the report for exposing major corruption and a golden circle, we have still had nothing but a series of leaked names. We do not know whether they are on any list and it is incumbent on the Government to put an end to this farce, accede to this motion and allow the names to enter the public domain in a structured and orderly way.
Last night in her contribution the Tánaiste mumbled that there had been interference throughout in the matter. It is vital that the Government – and, hopefully, the Tánaiste will do so at the conclusion of the debate – will indicate who sought to interfere with her and her inspectors in getting at the truth of this matter. She cannot glibly put a comment such as that on the record of the House without putting the full facts in the public domain. There is much to be found out in this matter. I look forward, I hope, to a majority at 12.30 p.m. when the vote is called agreeing the motion and allowing the will of the people to be vindicated.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Roche and Hanafin. Will you please indicate when I have used approximately ten minutes, a Cheann Comhairle?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I support the amendment. However, I agree with a number of Opposition Members and, indeed, the Tánaiste that there is tremendous public anger at what is being revealed in terms of the Ansbacher accounts, the DIRT inquiry, etc.. Anybody who was involved in politics or who tried to eke out a living in the 1980s is well aware of what the economic climate was like then. I recall attending meetings regularly when the cutbacks in pupil-teacher ratios were announced due to lack of funding. At that time 40,000 to 50,000 young people emigrated annually, interest rates were at an all-time high and people were losing their homes. The people who are under investigation were defrauding the State at the same time and the money involved would have made life a little more bearable for those who lost their homes or the chance to reach their full potential because of cutbacks in the education system.
The point at which I part company with the Opposition is that the public's anger is focused and it is not simply screaming for a list of names to be published. People who visited my clinic at the weekend and other politicians to whom I have spoken are saying they are angry but they want to get even and see this investigation and the DIRT inquiry result in the jailing of people. Sight was lost of that during this debate last night and I hope that does not happen today. I do not have any wisdom or knowledge in regard to this issue, but I listened carefully to the debate last night to try to understand why publishing 120 names would result in the public getting even. I am not convinced and I still do not understand how that would occur.
The main thrust of the Fine Gael leader's contribution dealt with retrospective legislation. He said that the Opposition had proved the Government wrong after it said that it could not deal with this issue retrospectively and, therefore, he was right and the Government was not. One can concede that point and that it is wonderful, but I do not know if that would help in terms of this investigation. I totally accept people's anger in regard to selective leaking. This side of the House has suffered much from such activity in regard to other inquiries and issues. People found that they had to defend their positions because their names appeared in Sunday newspapers.
However, I do not understand how listing 120 other people will vindicate those whose names were printed in The Irish Times during the week unless, of course, they do not appear on the list. If they appear, how does that vindicate them? How does it vindicate the people whom the Tánaiste indicated may not have a criminal case to answer? How does adding to the list of names in the public arena help those have not done any wrong? However, more importantly, the reason I oppose the motion is, as the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have indicated, that it would put in jeopardy the possibility of achieving the public's objective, which is to jail these cheats and confiscate their money.
I do not understand how anybody feels that naming and shaming will affect people who deliberately defrauded the State over a long period and dreamed up this scheme, which I still do not fully understand. What they did amounted to rob bing money from the pockets of compliant taxpayers and then claiming a tax rebate on it. Does anybody believe that such people, who presumably do not even live in Ireland, will be shamed or dreadfully hurt as a result of the publication of their names in The Sunday Times, The Sunday Tribune or The Sunday Business Post? It is ludicrous to suggest that.
We will be found guilty unless we achieve the public's objective. Deputy Quinn mentioned that during the DIRT inquiry he asked the Revenue Commissioners why there were not any high profile, Lester Piggot-type jailings. Many people have said to me that it is very strange that tax evaders and white collar criminals have not been jailed. We can do that now. However, I believe absolutely and categorically that if the names are published, that will be put in jeopardy.
The Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and, indeed, other members of Government have been accused of leaking the names. I do not know whether the leader of the Opposition read the Tánaiste's statement. However, the affidavit was sent to the High Court. I do not know that the High Court is renowned for being watertight. Every story printed in the Phoenix seems to emerge from what it describes as “The Four Goldmines”. It would not be impossible for information to emanate from that source. The affidavit was also sent to the six directors of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. and to the company's legal advisers.
Yesterday the Tánaiste asked who could benefit from these leaks and it is obvious who would. I do not like to suggest, as has been suggested, that Deputy Bruton tabled this motion and wanted this list to be put into the public domain so that these people would go scot-free. It would totally suit the people I have just mentioned if something were to go wrong and these people could not be pursued to the doors of Mountjoy.
We have had numerous instances of tax loopholes. If we do what is required by or requested in this motion today we will not be creating a loophole, rather we will be knitting a quilt with substantial holes for this and future inquiries. The Tánaiste has made it very clear that future inquiries and the powers of inspectors in the future would be put in jeopardy if we were to do what is being requested in this motion.
I have encountered criticism and anger among my constituents in regard to this matter but I have not encountered any criticism, good, bad or indifferent, of the manner in which the Tánaiste, her staff and the inspectors have dealt with this issue from start to finish. I have heard many complaints about other tribunals and the manner in which they are carrying out their work but I have not heard anybody complain about or criticise the manner in which the inspectorate, the Minister and her Department have gone about their work in the McCracken, Moriarty or Ansbacher investigations. As far as I am concerned, it has been faultless. We must ensure that it continues to be faultless and that we can bring these people to the courts. When criminal proceedings are brought against these people, their names can and should be published at that point.
Yesterday evening, a former Fine Gael Minister for Finance admitted on radio that until now – not last year or the year before – under this Taoiseach, this Government and its Ministers, there was not the political will to go after tax evaders. That speaks volumes about what happened in the past for which everyone is perhaps culpable and liable. It also speaks volumes about what this Government intends to do in terms of pursuing tax evaders. For the Opposition to frustrate, or make more difficult, the possibility of securing convictions highlights precisely the comments made by the former Fine Gael Minister for Finance, namely, that the political will to tackle this issue did not exist until now. We now have the political will and ask the Opposition to support the Government in what it is attempting to do. We are witnessing the zeal of the convert but I would ask Opposition Members to keep it in check in order that we can jail those who shamefully defrauded the State of income due to it and made compliant taxpayers and families in the 1980s suffer in a manner they should not have had to.
I wish to share time with Deputy Hanafin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are many reasons I, as a Member of this side of the House and as a compliant taxpayer, would like to see those who have been involved in tax evasion, and criminal activity in this case, brought to justice quickly. There are many reasons I would like to see these people publicly named and shamed. I have been a PAYE taxpayer all my working life. Like all other PAYE taxpayers, I have not been in a position, even if I so desired, to take action to avoid paying my full and fair share of tax. Like other taxpayers, I had to meet the tax bill of the 1980s. As a compliant taxpayer, I believe that the tax cheats in this country should be forced to face the full rigours of the law. Some of those involved in this particular scam undoubtedly deserve custodial sentences on the basis of the information we have to date. A sense of justice for all taxpayers and an understandable desire for retribution is, therefore, the first reason I would like to see the names in public. However, vengeance is not always the best reason for taking a particular course of action.
There is a second reason which I would advance for the publication of the names and it relates to the political connections of these high profile business people. All of the evidence to date suggests that the tax cheats in question come from a particular part of the business elite of this State. Moreover, I believe they come from a part of the business elite that one is much more likely to find gracing meetings of the Opposition party than a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. That may be hurt ful but if the boot were on the other foot, Members of the Opposition would sink it in deep.
It is not hurtful, it is farcical.
If I may digress on this point, every conceivable Fianna Fáil connection with those who were involved in any part of this scandal is rightly and properly explored in the newspapers and on the airwaves. It is interesting, to take just one example, that the political pedigree of a former bank chairman – a bank which, more than most businesses in this country, appears in the headlines in connection with every scandal in the State – is somehow avoided in all political reportage. However, political spite or personal vendettas do not constitute good reasons for publishing the names at this particular time.
The political temptation to grab any immediate headlines in this case should be avoided. If we were to go the route proposed by the Opposition we would damage the ultimate opportunity to bring these people and others on the list to full justice. Neither political spite nor the righteous and understandable anger of compliant taxpayers is sufficient reason to suggest that we should cast aside the ideal of due process on this or any other occasion. Even tax cheats and fraudulent hypocrites are entitled, in a civilised state, to have their day in court. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
In addition to the general principles of due process, there are other important reasons which have, by and large, been ignored in much of the debate to date on this issue and which, in my view, explain why it is important not to succumb to the initial temptation to immediately name and shame those involved in this affair.
First, there is the fact that the High Court appointed the three inspectors to investigate the report of Ansbacher Limited. I believe that the inspectorate should be allowed to get on with their job and complete their work as quickly as possible without any political or other interference. Second, there is the reality that disclosure of the names in question would, in all probability, be illegal. The leader of the Opposition charged the Tánaiste, who has been exemplary in every regard in this matter, with criminal irresponsibility because some names were leaked. He did not have a shred of evidence before he made a political charge against her; that is the reality of the way the Opposition behaves in all political debates.
The Deputy should look in the mirror.
Section 21(1) of the Companies Act specifically prohibits the disclosure or publication of information or of documents except to a competent authority unless such disclosure or publication is required for legal purposes which are set out in the Act. The Members on the Opposition benches are well aware of that. Moreover, section 21(2) specifically makes it a criminal offence to make a disclosure or to cause material to be put into the public domain. In addition to the fact that it would be wrong in every sense to set aside due process, as the Opposition and Deputy Bruton, in particular, are demanding, it would be a criminal offence to do so under the existing law of this State.
The actions of Fine Gael and the leadership of that party represent cynicism of the highest order in my view.
We do not take money in paper bags.
Deputy John Bruton has served in a number of high offices in this land—
With distinction.
—granted without any great distinction but he is aware of the distinction between right and wrong. He is well aware that what he is suggesting in this motion is illegal.
Deputy Roche has not been in high office himself.
Given the Deputy's track record in ministerial office, I would not point the finger at anyone.
I have an excellent track record; there are many people behind bars now because of actions I took while in office.
I read the Cromien report to a group of students yesterday and they share my amazement that Deputy Owen is still in this House.
The Deputy shall address his remarks to the Chair.
How dare the Deputy be so offensive.
Deputy Bruton knows full well that the actions which they are proposing are illegal. They know, moreover, that the proposal, if carried into effect, would have the risk of providing the tax cheats and the lawbreakers involved in this case with a defence—
That is not true and the Deputy knows it. How can he make an idiotic statement like that?
—which will mean that it will be even easier for them to avoid their responsibilities in this issue. Can this possibly be the motivation? Could it possibly be that a senior politician in this House could be so irresponsible as to construct a shield for tax cheats? I do not know what the motivation is but I know what the effect of the Opposition's action would be.
The Deputy was not here last night to hear his speech.
There are plenty of tax cheats in his own party.
Another aspect of Deputy Bruton's behaviour in this case is difficult to understand. Not so long ago he was an advocate of institutional reform, particularly of Dáil reform. In a very worthwhile document which he published he gave us all good advice as to how we should avoid falling into political traps in political debate yet, time and again, Deputy Bruton fails to follow his own good advice in this regard. This is one of those occasions where he is crassly guilty of ignoring the advice he has offered the rest of us. In addition to ignoring the law, the Opposition is also proposing retrospective change in legislation in this case. The arguments against retrospective legislation in this and virtually every other case have been well rehearsed and I do not wish, therefore, to go over them again. Retrospective legislation, in a case where people may face very serious criminal charges, is a perilous course of action.
What about Ken Rohan not paying his tax? He was retrospectively cleared by Deputy Bertie Ahern as Minister.
All bluster.
It is a dangerous course of action because everyone on the Opposition benches knows that introducing retrospective legislation in this regard could well stymie action against cheats.
Over the last ten or 15 years, Dáil Éireann has, time and again, allowed events outside this House to determine the manner in which we operate. As a result, the Dáil has failed on many occasions to follow through on major issues. Instead of fulfilling its responsibilities the Dáil has set them aside in order to become embroiled in headline grabbing. This is one of those occasions. I give one example which is germane to this debate and to the excellent work being done currently by the Committee of Public Accounts. I refer to the sale of land to Roadstone at Glending. We debated this issue on four occasions here and in the other House. On each occasion there was a good deal of political hand wringing and a considerable amount of concern was put on the public record. Sadly, that is as far as it went – politicians postured and played to the gallery but they failed to take effective action. The failure of Dáil Éireann in that case is evidenced by the fact that nine months later and after the production of an excellent report by the Committee of Public Accounts the Dáil has not debated the report.
I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that there is now ten minutes remaining.
When the Deputy has finished praising himself he can stop. Self praise is no praise.
(Dublin West): Your Taoiseach appointed the man concerned.
We spend our time grabbing headlines. That is not our constitutional responsibility. Our responsibility in this action is to make sure that the cheats, irrespective of their political connections are brought to justice.
It is the duty of this legislature to uphold the Constitution and it is our duty to uphold the rule of law. There are times when that might not be the expedient thing to do but there are never times when it is the wrong thing to do. The Constitution states that we have a duty to protect and vindicate the good name of every citizen. The Article states, "The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen". It is the job of the Legislature to protect those people and their good names. Every person is entitled to his good name until he is deprived of it by due process of law. All we are asking is that due process of law be carried out in this event. We cannot deny that due process.
It has already been stated that the law specifically prevents the publication of the list of names. The Companies Act and the High Court order state that it cannot be published. Indeed, the motion put down by the Opposition acknowledges this. We must ask why this law was enacted – it was passed only in this decade. It was enacted to ensure that, for example in this case, the authorised officer under the procedure of the 1990 Act, can permit a speedy and comparatively inexpensive examination of the affairs of a company. It is all very well to shout about tribunals but had this matter been sent to a tribunal two years ago it would now be buried so deep in procedure that we would never have got the results achieved to date.
The authorised officer made his report but the powers given to him do not purport to include the investigation of individuals. He did not purport to make any findings in relation to individuals, only in relation to the company. The list of Ansbacher account holders – the 120 names – is just a list of names which came to his attention in the course of investigating a company. It is now, therefore, appropriate that those names should be investigated by the inspectors, an investigation which should be allowed to take place unhindered, and it is important that we take no steps which might compromise or endanger any of the steps currently under way.
Why leak the names then?
We cannot take a reckless gamble which would collapse the inspectorate or which would prejudice any possible criminal prosecution. Of course people are interested in the names. People want to know who has evaded tax but until we can prove that these people have done wrong and have committed a criminal offence, and due process has allowed them to defend their good names, the list of names should not be published. We cannot sacrifice the prospect of a prosecution to satisfy curiosity and we certainly cannot sacrifice constitutional rights simply because the public are interested.
The Supreme Court has stated that the right to a fair trial is superior to the right of the people to prosecute. I am not willing to take any risks, as other Members of this House and, indeed, leaders of parties did over the weekend. One Member referred to the names on the list as criminals and another said that the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty does not apply in this case. That principle applies in every case and is at the basis of our judicial system and our democracy. Any pre-trial publicity could jeopardise the case, as we have seen happen in previous cases. Mr. Justice Flood, for example, refused to extradite a person to England on a murder charge because his name and photograph had appeared in the English papers and it was felt that he could not get a fair trial for that reason. The X case, by contrast, was allowed go ahead because, although there had been considerable publicity, the name had not been mentioned. The circumstances in that case, in terms of publicity, are similar to what we face here. It was also said by Mr. Justice Flood that what the public are interested in does not equate with the public interest. We should ensure that we are not taking a gamble with our justice system because I, as a PAYE worker speaking on behalf of many people who are annoyed by this, want to ensure that justice is done.
We have spoken about retrospective legislation. Yes, laws have been changed but they have never been changed in circumstances where they would have a direct effect of affecting someone's good name or the direct intention to do so. They have never been changed in a way which might potentially prejudice criminal trials. Those are the matters we should consider in recommending that legislation be changed. I am determined, as a member of Fianna Fáil and as a Member of this House, to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. I want to ensure that the Constitution is enforced equally for all persons. If we agree to the amendment before us, we will dash the hopes of many of the Ansbacher account holders who hope to evade justice. If we allow the system to proceed in the very efficient manner in which it has been going, through the authorised officer and by the inspector, we can ensure that justice is done and that not only will our curiosity be satisfied but results will come at the end.
The procedure which has been adopted is right. It gives due process and it upholds people's good names. I want to see answers. I want to see the Revenue investigating the matter. I want to see taxes, interest and penalties paid. I want to see the Garda investigating this matter and taking criminal prosecutions, if necessary. I want to see the Criminal Assets Bureau moving in with its extensive powers. A multi-agency approach is needed but that is all part of due process. Let us work in a calm, responsible manner, which will not jeopardise prosecution or the system but will ensure that justice is done. As they say, "Let justice be done though the heavens may fall".
I wish to share my time with Deputies Boylan, McGahon, Gormley, Ó Caoláin and Joe Higgins.
That is agreed.
There are two main issues in this debate. The first is whether to publish the full list of Ansbacher names and the second is the responsibility for the selective leaking of some of those names to date. These issues are interlinked. The names were published by responsible journalists in The Sunday Times, The Irish Times and the Sunday Independent. They did not invent these names but got them from somewhere. They did not have the full list of names, so there was a selective leaking. Names were selected by somebody – some person or persons presently unknown – and given to these journalists.
An old Fine Gael tradition.
I would love to hear the Deputy's contribution to the debate if one of his own was on it. If his name was on it, he would know what it is like.
To consider this more closely, some of the names arose from the reference to the affidavit to the CRH board and I will return to this point. They were identifiable. The other distinguishing feature of some of the names is that names were mentioned – household names – but it turned out subsequently that they could not have been involved in tax evasion of any kind because they were not resident and, therefore, not liable to any tax in the first place. Why were those names put into the public domain and by whom?
Another distinguishing feature is that there are a certain number of prominent Fine Gael names. It was clear subsequently that they were entirely innocent and had no deposits. In fact, it appears that they had no information that they were on the list. Why were those names selectively leaked? I do not know the answer to that. I can only adduce that they were put into the public domain as a shield or protection for the main list in the hope that the issue would be obscured and clouded and that when the main list is ultimately produced, as inevitably it will be, that they will be able to identify with those who, clearly, are innocent. That may be so, but I am not sure about that. It is clear that there was no due process or prior notification in respect of the names of those which have been selectively leaked.
That is right.
Deputy Hanafin talked about the protection of the Constitution and the vindication of people's good names, but there was no such consideration nor was there anybody to vindicate their good names.
On the question of political responsibility, from a legal point of view, the Tánaiste has a case to answer. She authorised the inclusion of a reference to the board of CRH in the affidavit that went before the court. That took the cork off the bottle—
That is right.
—because this was a clearly identifiable, small group. Why was that identification included in the affidavit? It was entirely unnecessary. It took the cork off the bottle. The Tánaiste said, in her statement, that it was necessary to give a sample of evidence and it was the minimum legally required to support the appointment of the inspectors. I do not accept that. That was a mistake of judgment on her part. Having said that, the report was in her hands for a year and, I have to say, there were no leaks during that time. It is fair to put that on the record as well. I am trying to be fair, honest and reasonable with everybody.
The other person who has a case to answer is the Taoiseach. It is clear from the Tánaiste's statement that a copy of the report was sent to the Taoiseach in July. What happened that report? With whom did the Taoiseach discuss it? Did anybody in his office take copies of it? Who saw that report?
Was it locked in the safe?
There is a case to answer there. The Taoiseach should come to the House and explain exactly what became of that report in his office. The way to deal with this issue is that suggested by Deputy Bruton – the issue should be referred to the Garda Commissioner. I do not accept the response of the Tánaiste in this regard when she prevaricated to a degree that she might do it, she might take advice and might come to a decision. There is a clear case for referring this issue to the Garda Commissioner who could follow up the questions I have only touched on here. When doing that, she could also ask the Garda Commissioner to deal with what appears to have been an attempt to spike the investigation. She refers, in her statement, to the fact that there were people who made several attempts to close down this matter during the past 18 months. That is an allegation of a criminal offence. That issue and those names should also be referred to the Garda Commissioner and I urge the Tánaiste to do that.
The next main issue, coupled to that issue, is the question of full disclosure. It is now time to put in place a proper procedure for full disclosure. I was not in favour of selective leaking and I am not in favour of breaking the law. I am in favour of changing the law so that full disclosure can take place under circumstances which allow those who are on the list advance notification so they can vindicate their rights and are not put in the position of those whose names were selectively leaked. That is the way to do it. We have a ludicrous position that the names of those who are clearly innocent are in the public domain, yet those about whom there are major suspicions of guilt are hiding behind this cloak of secrecy. Why is the Government presiding over that approach? It is the wrong approach.
While I would not favour publishing the report now because that would be in breach of section 21, I propose a simple amendment to section 21, which would facilitate the putting in place of a proper procedure whereby people could be notified, given an opportunity to prepare their defence, if they have one, and then the list could be published.
There is so much public outrage over this issue that fingers of suspicion will be pointed, perhaps wrongly, at a Government that presides over the shielding and the cover up of this. The voice of Parliament should prevail. The reasoned debate here should be taken into account by the Government. Let us at this stage ensure that a fair and proper procedure is put in place rather than that which has taken place during the past few weeks. I do not think anybody on the Government side would say that what took place during the past week is a fair way to deal with the matter, yet the Government has presided over it and has attempted to justify closing the issue at this stage on the basis that it would be unfair to publish the full list.
I remember reading The Trial by Kafka and what has happened, in many instances, in the past week has been Kafkaesque. People have been put on trial without any notification or knowledge of what they are being accused and that has been done in a manner which the Government has refused to have properly investigated. What we must do now, and quickly, is to put in place proper procedures. There is no case for suggesting, as mentioned by an earlier speaker, that one would be in breach of the Constitution by so doing. Article 15.5 of the Constitution merely states “The Oireachtas shall not declare acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission”. Clearly, we are not precluded by Article 15.5 from putting in place proper procedures. It is the right and proper thing to do and we should do it straight away so that the full list of Ansbacher names can be put into the public domain.
I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy McGahon.
During the years the magician, Paul Daniels, provided great entertainment, he could make things disappear before one's eyes but he could not hold a candle to the late Des Traynor who apparently had the ability to make £1 million disappear before one's eyes only for it to reappear later whenever the donor asked for it back. It is amazing that the names of those who availed of the so-called skills of Des Traynor are on a list which has not been made public. The question honest and decent people are asking is why was it necessary to circulate 15 copies of this document, one of the most sensitive documents compiled since the foundation of the State and which contains 120 names? Let us suppose a serious crime is committed – a murder – and the Garda Síochána, for whom I have great respect, has its suspicions and prepares a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Can one imagine 15 copies being distributed to suspects so that they could cover their tracks? In this instance some of the 15 copies have been distributed to suspects.
Why was it necessary to circulate four copies of the document to senior members of the Government – the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance – and the Attorney General, Mr. McDowell? Are the people concerned not on speaking terms? Why was one copy not placed in the Tánaiste's office for their perusal and safe keeping? Were any conditions attached? Were the people concerned allowed to bring the document home to their wives, girl friends or partners for their perusal? We do not know.
What ordinary decent people cannot understand is why copies were sent to four directors of Ansbacher Bank. These are crooked people with a crooked bank. They were prepared to accept and find a home for this hot, stolen money. It is unbelievable, outrageous and unacceptable that they should receive copies of this very sensitive document. They are prepared to cover their tracks by any means possible, including leaks and the naming of names to try to muddy the waters.
It is said regularly on "Crimeline" by the Garda Síochána that if people were not prepared to purchase stolen goods there would be fewer robberies. If the bank in question was not prepared to find a home for the money involved, the people concerned – pillars of society, big businessmen – would not have been able to participate in this unbelievable scam.
Same as the DIRT.
I have absolutely no idea who they are but every person who has succeeded in this country is now being fingered as one of the Ansbacher boys. Members opposite know who they are.
We do not.
It is their duty to publish the list and clear the air once and for all.
The political world is losing respect quicker than the Catholic Church in this country. We are now at a crossroads. The small people of Ireland who are paying their taxes are watching this Assembly. Despite the bluster of Deputy Roche—
The Deputy would know a fair amount about bluster.
—they expect—
They expect due process. They expect better from the Deputy.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Roche has made his speech. Deputy McGahon must be allowed to make his.
On Monday the Irish Independent and The Irish Times published a list of tax offenders who have offended this year. That being so, these fat cats who have money in offshore accounts must be exposed. While everybody is entitled to due process – I do not believe in lynching parties – when the investigation takes place the names of the people concerned must be published. They have been portrayed by Deputy Roche and the other lady as patriots with their money in another country but I point the finger at the political system.
I did not refer to them as "patriots"; I referred to them as "crooks".
It has been known for many years that there is a form of corrupt banking. All Governments, lawyers and accountants turned a blind eye to the offshore facilities that were available – it was a nudge and a wink philosophy. The Pandora's box is now being opened revealing the awful corruption in Irish life, politics and the banking system. I demand that the names be published in the interests of the small people of Ireland who have to pay their taxes.
It has been mentioned that people may be innocent. What innocent people have money in the Ansbacher accounts? There are no innocent people involved, just greedy people. There is a large element of greed in Irish society. The people concerned are not innocent. There were no innocents abroad. They had their money in offshore accounts because of greed – the biggest illness in Irish society. Following due process their names must be published. Stalling and bluster will not do Fianna Fail any good. It must stand up for the small people of Ireland, not the fat cats who have their money abroad. They are greedy people, not patriots.
We all knew what was happening. It is very easy to kick defenceless and grovelling bankers in the teeth. Why did the policital system not draw back the veil on what was happening? The Irish banking system is corrupt and many of those involved should have been removed by Government action for their actions against the people in recent years.
On behalf of the Green Party, I support the motion. It is obvious that if the political will is there the names can be published. Previous speakers referred to the outrage and anger felt by ordinary people. This is slightly incorrect. Anger is an external emotion, it is expressed. People will not come to Leinster House and tear the gates down. There is however a deep sense of frustration. People are depressed and this despondency will be reflected in the polls at the next election when the turnout will be very low. The corrosive effects of scandal after scandal on the political system are incalculable.
As elected representatives, we must address that problem.
It has also been said that those who are guilty are quaking in their boots. I do not believe that either. There is a certain mild embarrassment but, as they go to the Horseshoe Bar or Patrick Guilbaud's and sip their vintage wines, they do not appear embarrassed. It is part of the whole state of play for these elite circles – something they did at the time. It seems that everyone in those wealthy circles was at it, and evading tax was not seen as evading one's civic responsibility. That is how I, the Green Party and many Deputies see the situation. Paying tax is part of one's duty as a citizen and a member of society. However, these people do not believe in society but go along with the Thatcherite dictum that there is no such thing as society, there are only individuals. I hope that, through this process, we will punish the Thatcherites. We must punish them and they must be seen to be punished. Deputy Roche said that this demands a custodial sentence. However, more than that, the real punishment demands that their wealth be taken from them. They survive on and have influence through their wealth – that is how the golden circle operates.
There is a perception that the golden circle cannot operate without political influence. So much is thrown at our door because political parties receive donations from companies like CRH and AIB. It is time for corporate donations to cease because there must be a separation between big business and the State.
I agree with Deputy Roche that CRH must be investigated. However, regrettably, the appointment of Justice Moriarty meant that this was precluded from the investigation. We must investigate how this came about. My colleague, Patricia McKenna MEP, asked the former Attorney General, David Byrne, if he ever had shares in CRH. He replied: "I don't have shares in CRH". The Public Accounts Committee report must be debated in the House. We must have a full investigation. I would like to refer to the disgraceful tax amnesty but I do not have sufficient time to go into that issue.
On my behalf and on behalf of Sinn Féin I wish to put of the record that I support the motion. In doing so I am conscious of the need to do nothing to jeopardise the possibility of prosecutions. In the past few days we have been subjected to a barrage of conflicting legal opinion on this matter. On balance, I feel the course set down in this motion is a viable one. It is also consistent with the stand I took in the House two years ago when some of us on the Opposition benches urged that the Ansbacher issue be included in the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal. Interestingly, Fine Gael, the proposer of this motion, abstained on that occasion.
The Ansbacher deposit holders should be named. Anyone who held one of these accounts has, at least, very serious questions to answer. By the nature of these accounts we already know that most, if not all of them, were involved in massive tax evasion. The Ansbacher system of diverting money through a maze of offshore accounts was described by High Court Justice McCracken as "ingenious". Some of the biggest names in Irish business and politics were involved and the late Des Traynor presided at this elite club for tax evaders. The system was geared, in his own words, "to minimising the footprints".
This golden circle defrauded their fellow citizens of massive sums due in taxation and thus deprived children of proper education and the sick of adequate health care. In one two year period during the 1980s when the Ansbacher accounts were operating, 20 per cent of hospital beds were closed because of cutbacks imposed by the party whose election slogan was "health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped".
The revelations from the Ansbacher investigation, the tribunals and the DIRT inquiry have uncovered a culture of fraud among the wealthy and privileged in society. Many of the names are in the open and their activities have come as no surprise to most citizens. However, what causes most anger is the fact that these fraudsters have operated with absolute impunity. The current investigations reveal the complete failure of the Department of Finance, the Revenue Commissioners, the Director of Public Prosecutions and, above all, successive Governments to confront those who use their positions of privilege to defraud their fellow citizens.
Banks and other financial institutions actively encouraged wealthy depositors to evade tax. There was intense competition within and between banks to secure such custom, but what was the State's reaction? We can see that the reaction ranged from inefficiency in combating this abuse to deliberately turning a blind eye to indulgence. This culminated in the notorious tax amnesties – surely among the most shameful measures introduced by any Government in the history of the State.
If I have one reservation about this motion it is its reference to a new national agreement, by which it means the partnership agreement coming to an end. The Ansbacher revelations and the daily reports from the tribunals and the DIRT inquiry reveal what a misnomer the so-called partnership really is. Where was the sharing which partnership implies when some of the wealthiest in our society, many of them leading employers, were doing everything in their power to evade tax? While PAYE workers were urged to observe pay restraint and to continue to suffer an unjust taxation system which over-burdened them, particularly the lowest paid, those most able to carry the burden were contemptuous of their obligations to society.
There has been a suggestion from Deputy Quinn that revenue recovered as a result of the current investigations should be ring-fenced and returned to taxpayers. I strongly believe that this is a flawed suggestion and misses the point. The Ansbacher abuses were not an aberration. They were entirely consistent with our fundamentally unequal economic system which rewards greed and creates need. What is required is fundamental tax reform and the allocation of resources, not to tax cuts or special once-off bonuses, but to the provision of real health and education care and the range of essential services which our citizens need.
It is time to name and shame those who profited from the misery of so many. It is also time to learn the lessons of the Ansbacher and other financial scandals brought to public attention in the recent past. We will be looking to Government in the forthcoming budget to put these lessons to the test and into practice.
(Dublin West): I will be voting for the motion, despite my reservations about the reference to a national wage agreement. This debate has been dominated by the selective leaking to the press of some names allegedly associated with the Ansbacher accounts. That is a pity because it has diverted attention from the real meaning of the revelation concerning Ansbacher. This was not an operation involving a few, errant or rotten individuals. This involved a substantial circle of the capitalist establishment, captains of industry and leaders of commerce whose tentacles spread into all areas of society, including semi-State companies, banks and so on. Described in a Sunday newspaper as “the unacceptable face of Irish capitalism” it is, in fact, the inevitable face of Irish capitalism – a system built on greed and exploitation of the many by a few.
The political establishment carries serious culpability. What was the 1993 tax amnesty except an endorsement of the fact that a powerful, wealthy minority, who had defrauded the tax system, could do so with impunity? When the Leader of the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil backbenchers denounce Ansbacher they should remind themselves that if Ansbacher people declared under the tax amnesty there is nothing that could be done – they would go scot free. At the time of the amnesty, compliant and hard pressed PAYE taxpayers were being hounded and had, for example, their water cut off if they objected to an unfair double taxation by way of water charges. We have had a deluge of scandals involving business and sections of the political establishment. Somebody should do a chronicle and put them all together – tax fraud in the banks, bribery in the planning process and building industry, crookery in the beef industry and land deals involving semi-State companies.
If I had time I would write a chronicle called "A day in the life of Ansbacher man" which would involve breakfast with Des Traynor where one would discuss the Ansbacher account and getting a loan which could be written off against one's taxes. This might be followed by morning coffee with the bank manager to discuss a few bogus non-resident accounts – Ansbacher man being prudent not to keep all the golden eggs in one basket, that is if Ansbacher man was not a director of the bank himself and had all the information to hand. Ansbacher man may then be a guest speaker at a prestigious business lunch attended by the Minister for Finance where he would dwell on two themes, namely, the need to drastically cut public spending and the absolute requirement for workers' wages to be held down. The Minister of Finance would probably flatter Ansbacher man with an eye to the generous political contribution he hopes his political party will get on foot of an obsequious letter sent by his general secretary to Ansbacher man and his firm. Ansbacher man would wheel and deal perhaps in the afternoon and may then head to the Bahamas for the weekend where he would join some of his other Irish millionaire friends who do not spend as much time in Ireland because their sense of patriotism is such that they are tax exiles from the country. No doubt their conversation would revolve around the forthcoming national wage agreement and the absolute priority of hammering wages down to the very minimum and increasing productivity. The system is rotten to the core and it is time these people were exposed.
Cement Roadstone Holdings comes up again and again in this context. Ansbacher was run from its offices, a majority of its directors had associations with it and its chairman was the bagman for a former Taoiseach. The purchase by it of State lands for a song with no public tender must be investigated. Deputy Roche has a brass neck to castigate the Dáil when he himself voted against motions tabled by me and others that it be investigated by the Moriarty tribunal. The Taoiseach, the leader of the Deputy's party, appointed a chairman to that tribunal who had £500,000 in CRH. The system is rotten to the core and it is high time it was exposed. The names should be published and the chips allowed to fall where they will.
The examination by officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment of the books and documents of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, is certainly the most valuable preliminary investigation undertaken in the scale and character of the wrongdoing which has apparently been uncovered. I want to acknowledge in particular the remarkable work which Mr. Gerard Ryan and his team has put into this investigation and into his other investigations, many of which are nearing completion.
The circumstances outlined in my Department's affidavit presented to the High Court last Wednesday suggest that Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. systematically flouted Irish banking, taxation and company law over a period of 20 years. It also appears that some of its clients may also have been a party to a number of these breaches. Having examined Mr. Ryan's report and taken legal advice, the Tánaiste was fully satisfied that the appointment of High Court inspectors was necessary to get to the bottom of what was revealed in the report. I believe there is widespread support for her continuing determination to uncover the practices which appear to have been the norm with this company.
The inspectors have been required by the High Court to investigate the scale and character of Ansbacher's Irish business, to name those involved in the Ansbacher operation, to identify what Irish laws have been breached and the persons responsible in each case. It was suggested to the High Court last week that companies associated with Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. may themselves have breached companies or other legislation. The remit of the inspectors is a comprehensive one which permits them to investigate related issues. It is my belief that the High Court has given the inspectors substantial discretion which will allow full information on this very complex affair to be disclosed to the High Court in due course.
What has been disclosed to date is based principally on a limited amount of documents made available to Mr. Ryan for the purposes of his investigations. He has necessarily had to rely on the books and documents of Guinness & Mahon (Ireland) Ltd. and Irish Intercontinental Bank Ltd. to which Mr. Ryan is also appointed to gather information on Ansbacher's business over the last 20 years. No original documentation of Ansbacher books and documents was made available to Mr. Ryan and he received no co-operation from Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. Under section 19(4) of the 1990 Act, an authorised officer is only permitted to require past or present officers of the companies being examined by him or persons in possession of company documentation to attend for interview. Such interviews as were held were restricted under section 19(4)(a)(ii) to require an explanation of whatever limited documentation was available.
Despite the astonishing revelations in my Department's affidavit, we are a long way short as things stand of reaching definitive conclusions on Ansbacher's Irish business and on breaches of Irish law by the company and others. The statutory powers conferred on inspectors in the Companies Act, 1990, are very wide and will remove a number of the handicaps suffered by Mr. Ryan in his assignment. For instance, the inspectors may require under section 10 of the 1990 Act the production of all books and documents of, or relating to, the company from its officers and agents, from clients of Ansbacher and from other third parties such as banks who may be in possession of information concerning its affairs. The inspectors may interview each of these parties under oath and the Act requires that all reasonable assistance be given to the inspectors in connection with their investigation. In addition, the inspectors may seek the assistance of the High Court at any time. This may result in the giving of such directions as the court thinks fit, whether to the inspector or otherwise, with a view to ensuring that the inquiry is carried out as quickly and as inexpensively as possible.
In summary, therefore, the inspectors have all the necessary powers to expand considerably our level of knowledge about Ansbacher's operations and we can be confident, therefore, that the inspectors will be able to complete successfully the assignment which they have been given and which they have pursued with dedication, vigour and tremendous professionalism thus far.
Once the inspectors' report has been completed, the High Court has wide powers to take appropriate action on foot of its contents. An example is the disqualification of any persons named in the report from acting as directors or auditors of a company or from managing any company for whatever period the court deems fit. However, the focus of public attention in recent days has been on publication of the report, and section 11 of the Companies Act, 1990, gives the court this power. I want to make it clear that the Government fully supports publication of the report and the Tánaiste intends to make the necessary representations to the court in favour of publication on its completion.
In so far as the authorised officer's report is concerned, information relating to Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. or any other companies examined under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990 is subject to strict confidentiality restraints and we must all live within the law. The key elements of section 21(1) of the 1990 Act states
No information . relating to a body which has been obtained under section 19 . shall, without the previous consent in writing of that body, be published or disclosed, except to a competent authority .
Section 21(2) clearly provides that:
A person who publishes or discloses any information, book or document in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
A breach of this section constitutes a criminal offence resulting in fines and/or imprisonment. In addition, the High Court ordered on 22 September last:
And it is ordered that the restrictions on the disclosure of the exhibits referred to in the said affidavit of Paul Appleby sworn on the 26th day of July 1999 be continued, save for those opened and read in open court on this day.
Only two of the 36 exhibits were read in open court last Wednesday and neither contained the list of Ansbacher clients which Opposition parties are seeking to have disclosed. In the circumstances, it is clear that it would be illegal for the Government under section 21 of the 1990 Act to publish any names and we would also be acting in contempt of the High Court order made on 22 September 1999 to do so. However, the Tánaiste has availed of the opportunities provided in section 21(3) of the Act to make information on the company available to the newly appointed inspectors to Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd., to the Minister for Finance, to certain persons authorised by him in the Revenue Commissioners and to the Central Bank. I believe the inspectors and the other parties should now be given the space to investigate fully the business activities of Ansbacher (Cayman) Ltd. in Ireland so that appropriate action can be taken against the parties involved in due course.
The Fine Gael motion and the Labour Party's Companies (Amendment) (No. 4) Bill, 1999, are both seeking to widen the circumstances in which disclosure of section 19 material may take place. In particular, both are seeking publication of the identities of Ansbacher account holders via the device of disclosure to a Dáil committee. We have recognised for some time the limitations of section 21, and during the debate on Committee Stage of the Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1999, last July, I tabled an amendment to section 21(3) to broaden the list of competent authorities who may be given section 19 information on a confidential basis. This amendment was accepted by the House, and I also undertook to consider a Labour Party amendment which would extend further the list of competent authorities to include "either House of the Oireachtas or a Committee appointed by either or both of such Houses".
We are still considering the matter, and it will no doubt be dealt with on Report Stage of the No. 2 Bill later in this session. However, the preliminary legal advice made available to the Government suggests that it would not be per missible to use this device to allow the report to be made public in this way for a number of reasons. The report of the authorised officer, in so far as it contains findings of fact or conclusions, was not prepared with a view to publication. The State owes its citizens a duty to uphold their constitutional rights, and if such reports were to be publishable, persons named in the report would have to be given the prior right to see its contents relating to them and the opportunity to challenge them so that they could defend their reputations. A deliberate preliminary policy of name and shame would be wholly inconsistent with due process and might, I am advised, result in immunity from subsequent prosecution.
The balance which is struck in section 21 preserves commercial confidentiality unless the information is relevant to the conduct by responsible competent authorities of their statutory responsibilities. The ban on needless disclosure is clearly helpful in securing the initial co-operation of a company to the examination of its books and records. Based on our experience, we must continue to be able to offer a real assurance that the confidentiality of a company's commercial affairs will be statutorily protected.
If we fail to do so section 19 will become unworkable because any initiatives on our part to commence confidential preliminary examinations of company books and documents in appropriate cases will result in non co-operation from the target companies. The examinations will therefore become bogged down in lengthy judicial review proceedings. We have already seen from the Ansbacher case how valuable section 19 can be in exposing apparent illegality on a cost effective basis. Therefore, I would be very wary of taking any initiative which would jeopardise the value of this mechanism in rooting out possible wrongdoing where circumstances suggesting fraud or other unlawful conduct in the conduct of companies appear to have taken place. Neither am I prepared to undermine the work which is still ongoing on the present section 19 assignments.
Publication of such material at this time will only assist those who may be guilty of fraudulent conduct. I do not want to see anyone "beating the rap" because of a sudden rush of blood in this one case. As leaders of our society, politicians must act responsibly. As guardians of the legislative process – and we are all legislators – we must respect the rule of law and due process. We should not allow ourselves to be equated with those associated with Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited. who appear to have disregarded the law for their own ends. We must accordingly uphold section 21 as it stands which we, as legislators, adopted in the Oireachtas, and we should respect established legal processes and constitutional safeguards.
Last week's disclosures have rightly caused public outrage and, as the Fine Gael motion recognises, they do not assist in creating the climate for the achievement of a new national agreement. The naming of names of itself will not resolve this problem. It may in fact only com pound it. If such illegal disclosures were to result in those who may be culpable of offences walking away scot free, more serious consequences would follow. The damage to the social fabric of our society and to respect for the rule of law could be far more serious in the longer term.
Disclosures since the McCracken tribunal report have opened all our eyes to the scope for profit from white collar crime. As more information has become available on corporate malpractice, my Department has met the challenge by undertaking an unprecedented number of company law investigations, by initiating record numbers of prosecutions and by securing convictions for offences which have never previously been prosecuted under the Companies Acts.
A simplistic approach to a complex issue is not going to resolve this problem. The only way that will be done is to ensure that the laws of this State are operated to the full.
I am a sister of Mary Bannotti, one of the names leaked as one of the alleged club of 120. I reiterate what Mary Bannotti has said publicly – she never has banked with Guinness and Mahon, never had any kind of account in Ansbacher Cayman and had never heard of college trusts until she read about them in the newspaper in the last few days.
I am not impressed by the bleating and crocodile tears of the Government parties about the need for natural justice and due process, saying that we cannot make these names available because we might damage someone's good reputation. What about the names that are already out in the public arena? What about their right to due process and to fair procedures? I can tell at first hand how painful this has been to at least one of the names and the family of my late colleague, Hugh Coveney, has also suffered immeasurably. People's houses are being staked out; the media has a job to do and will continue to try to get these names, to blacken more names and to put names of the guilty into the public arena in an unstructured fashion unless this Government wakes up to its responsibilities. I am sick to the stomach when I hear people such as Deputy Roche talking about due process and natural justice. What about the natural justice for the people whose names have already been leaked?
This motion is predicated on the fact that we want to ensure that the names of the people who have been systematically evading tax are brought into the public arena and successful prosecutions are carried out. I object to the allegation made by the Tánaiste and others that this motion and the Labour Party amendment to the Companies Bill are about curiosity. How dare the Tánaiste accuse elected parliamentarians of using the parliamentary system to bring forward amendments to legislation? We are not asking for the names to be published without a change to section 21 so the names can published once those involved have been informed. Does the Minister understand the pain of someone waking up and the first she knows about £840 of cheques is when she reads it in The Irish Times? The people who have given these names are reputable journalists so someone is giving them sight of this report or parts of it.
I did a trawl of the Tánaiste's affidavit to the court last night and she has already named at least 40 companies or individuals with some involvement in Ansbacher. The labyrinthine system which was set up is devastating in its complexity and is devastating to all compliant taxpayers, both PAYE and self-employed business people – and there is a small coterie of self-employed who run businesses and are compliant with their taxes. The Tánaiste has already said, as did the Minister today, that she has not identified the client list but she has identified that eight out of 15 people who are directors of CRH had Ansbacher deposit accounts. It does not take much deduction to work out who the eight were.
The Tánaiste in her affidavit had to give some evidence to the courts and I can understand why she had to do that. It is interesting that not one of the names in The Irish Times was among those mentioned in the affidavit. In other words, whatever the basis for their names being on a list, if they are on it – and we do not know that – or on any kind of list, it was not mentioned in the affidavit. I can understand the anger of those people and I do not understand why the Government claims, as the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, said, that the release of those names would be a breach of law. If the Tánaiste and the Government accept it is a breach of law, why have they done nothing to prevent further names appearing in the paper?
I reiterate what Deputy John Bruton said last night, that they should go to the Garda Commissioner, authorise him as an officer, let him decide whether there have been leaks and, if so, commence a prosecution. The penalties are £1,000 fine or 12 months in jail. If somebody has knowingly given out names, which are either right or wrong, they deserve to be in jail, because it is they who will be complicit in a failed prosecution if the publishing of the names, in the way they have been published, is used by a good lawyer in court to prevent a prosecution. That is why Fine Gael is calling for a structured way of releasing the names. Surely the Ministers can see that the surreptitious leaking of the names, in a non-structured way, is precisely what may be used in court by a good barrister to say, "Your Honour, my client had no idea their name was going to appear, they had no forewarning, they had no chance to defend themselves, they were not even asked for anything before their name appeared in the paper." It is much more likely that the release of the names in a proper way will allow a judge to say, "Yes, the name was in the paper but I am satisfied that your client was not in any way damaged by the release of their name." That would give them a chance to say they were not guilty, or that they had an account or that they knew nothing about it. That is the best way of ensuring a fair prosecution. As sure as night follows day, this weekend and probably the follow ing weekend and the weekend after, more names will be found. People's houses are being staked out – somebody will say something they should not say.
I turn to the Tánaiste's robust defence of the decision not to change the law. She said she cannot do it. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, when we spent about seven hours in the committee room discussing the Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, on Committee Stage, said his Department had been worried for some time about the extent of the competent authorities, yet the Bill was published only last March and this amendment was not in it. The amendment appeared on the list on 21 July. It is clear the Government only copped on to the need for extending the competent bodies after the report had been submitted to the Minister on 22 June.
I read what the Minister said last night and I listened to her. It is fair to say the Minister got the report first and her Department had it until the end of July without anybody else being authorised to have it and no leaks occurred. Is it not very interesting that the leaks only began to occur when the list of authorised people was extended? I am very suspicious about that. I believe the Tánaiste when she said she kept her copy of the report close to her chest, as did her officials. We did not even know she had it from 22 June until she informed us in her contribution last night. I did not know she had it that long. It was not until the end of July, when she went to the court to seek the appointment of an inspector, that she gave it to the Taoiseach. From that time onwards the information has been coming out, and more recently in the past few days when the list was widened yet again. I accept the Tánaiste's word that she has not leaked it, but neither she nor the Taoiseach said at any stage who in their Departments, whether it was advisers or others, had sight of it. Was this report left on a desk or was it constantly locked in a safe? I know as a former Minister for Justice that many documents I had went straight into a safe when I knew they should not be seen by anybody, not even my private secretary or the Secretary General. If I was told that documents were for my eyes only they went into my safe and I opened it when I wanted that document. We need to know what happened to these documents.
Last night I reread the order from the High Court dated 22 September. The Minister has said she cannot change the law, she cannot extend the list of competent authorities to include a Dáil committee, she cannot change the rule about restricting publication of any of the documentation, her hands are tied and she cannot legislate retrospectively. Will the Minister of State explain why the following section is in the court order from the judge who heads this case?
It is ordered that the applicant is at liberty to furnish to the sole chairman of the tribunal of inquiry payments to Mr. Michael Lowry the exhibits referred to at paragraph 16 of the affidavit of Paul Appleby sworn on the 26th day of July, 1999.
At the time the Minister went into court and the report was published and given to her on 22 June and all through Mr. Ryan's examination – I com mend him for the work he has done – a tribunal of inquiry was not a competent authority. We know the Government accepts that because it has put in an amendment which is not yet law to change the competent authority list to include a tribunal of inquiry. Yet on 22 September, no doubt at the Minister's request to the court, the court has changed the law and added in a tribunal of inquiry as a competent authority. What is different and why is that all right? The courts have every right to do this but why is it all right when the Minister says she cannot change the law to add to a competent authority list? I want an explanation for this because the judge has extended the law retrospectively.
Mr. Ryan when questioning the exhibits of Mr. Dunne – Chapter 16 is about Mr. Dunne – did not know, but his lawyers would have told him, that this would not be going to a tribunal of inquiry. Yet the Minister has not said that such an order by the court is negating Mr. Ryan's work. This court order further goes on to say:
And it is ordered that the restriction on the disclosure [and it is mentioned by the Minister in her amendment] of the exhibits referred to in the said affidavit of Paul Appleby sworn on the 26th day of July be continued, save those opened and read to open court on this day.
Why did the court need to do that if the law says there was a restriction? If the court took on to itself the competency to reiterate the restriction on the non-disclosure of these documents, the court can equally, with a case properly made by the Minister, go back on that particular order and say, "In view of the fact that some names have been leaked out, that some people's reputations are being tarnished, that some people who are guilty, whose names might be out in the open, will be able to use this as a stick to beat a future court case .". Why did the judge feel he had to reiterate the restriction on the order? Why cannot the Minister, if she is not willing to accept our proposal, go back into the court and say, "In view of what has transpired since 22 September, I now believe it is right that you lift the restriction of silence under certain circumstances so I can publish the names to allow people's good names to be vindicated". Nobody has referred to this throughout the debate. I read the Minister's speech today and it is interesting that not once did either Minister refer to the fact that they requested the judge to extend the law, as it currently exists, before the enactment of the new companies Bill.
I ask the Minister to take Deputy John Bruton's advice and send this report to the Garda Commissioner. If not – he is absolutely certain that whoever has leaked this report has breached the law – the Minister and the Government may be complicit in a failed prosecution of some of these people whose names may or may not yet be in the public arena. I urge the Government not to leave itself open to that charge and to send this report to the Garda Commissioner.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gildea, Thomas.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDaid, James.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Currie, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerard.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Wall, Jack.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe. |
Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Coveney, Simon.Currie, Austin.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek. |
McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Question declared carried.