Since the beginning of this year serious questions have been raised about the introduction of section 19 of the Finance Act, 1994. The hard fact, which neither the Taoiseach nor his party can escape, is that Deputy Bertie Ahern as Minister for Finance in 1994 introduced a section to the Finance Act which has been of substantial financial benefit to only one person. That person, Mr. Ken Rohan, is a significant donor to Fianna Fáil.
Each time additional information is dragged from the Government on this issue, new questions come to light – serious questions which only the Taoiseach can answer. The background to this affair is well known to Members of the House, so I will confine my remarks to two new developments in this case arising from a recent request under the freedom of information legislation. First, each time the Government has been called to account over this matter it has claimed that the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht supported the proposed amendment touted in early 1993 by Mr. Rohan. However, documents released under freedom of information legislation show this is not the case. The letter which the Government has relied upon to support its inaccurate claim is dated 9 February 1993. The letter shows that it came from an official in what had until the previous month been the arts and culture division of the Taoiseach's Department at a time when that division had not been assimilated into the newly created Department. The then Minister in the Department offices at Lower Grand Canal Street, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, has confirmed to me that he was not aware of Mr. Rohan's correspondence and certainly never supported the claim. As the letter bears out, it was never brought to then Minister's attention. The letter is signed by a Ms Turner who begins her letter, "I have been approached by Mr. Ken Rohan".
It is a tendentious construction of these facts that enabled the Minister for Finance to state on 6 May last that "the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht wrote supporting the proposal". It is clear from the correspondence that this proposal was never considered or endorsed by the Department at ministerial level. In fact any effort to portray the impression that there was ever a substantial group of people urging reform simply does not tally with the facts. A review of the file demonstrates that only Ms Nuala Turner, Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald and, at a very late stage, Mr. Matt McNulty, via a letter to the Taoiseach's Department, voiced their support for Mr. Rohan. In fact, never before in the history of the Department of Finance has so much been lost by so many at the behest of so few.
Second, I want the Minister to account to the House this evening why the official advice given by both the Revenue Commissioners and officials in the Department of Finance was withheld from Members of the House, and more importantly I want the Minister to explain why this advice was rejected by the then Minister for Finance in favour of an amendment drafted by Mr. Rohan's tax advisers and inserted into statute law.
In August 1993 the Revenue Commissioners outlined their views on the Rohan amendment. Their comments, not disclosed to the public until acquired under the freedom of information legislation are very revealing. They make three pertinent points against Mr. Rohan's amendment. First, they say that the proposed amendment would benefit only a very small pool of taxpayers. In fact they had only ever come across two such cases. Second, Revenue pointed out that owners of significant building were already in receipt of important tax advantages. Third, the Revenue made the valid point that the provision of works of art to a company director results in a significant financial benefit to that individual as compared to the cost involved in actually buying the works of art and that tax should be levied on this benefit. This advice was endorsed by officials in the Department of Finance. In December 1993 a reply to Mr. Ken Rohan was drafted in the Department. That reply contained the observations made by the Revenue Commissioners and concluded: "In current budgetary circumstances I feel an extension of such a relief to what by any standards must be regarded as a relatively privileged group of taxpayers could not be justified". However, the then Minister, Deputy Ahern, was fully in favour of granting tax relief to a privileged group of taxpayers, or more accurately, one particular privileged taxpayer, well known to the Fianna Fáil Party. A line was drawn through this draft reply and a note made which read: "The Minister approves of the amendment on the lines suggested in correspondence of Mr. Ken Rohan". It seems that in 1994 the then Minister, Deputy Bertie Ahern was more interested in the advice, amendments and tax troubles of one Fianna Fáil donor than in the advice of the Revenue Commissioners and his own departmental officials.
There is a stench surrounding this affair. Facts have had to be dragged out of the Government and I am calling on the Taoiseach to make a public statement in relation to the matter. There is no doubt that the Taoiseach must be made accountable for his actions.
