I wish to share my time with Deputies Quinn and Gormley.
Private Members' Business. - Ansbacher Accounts Queries: Motion.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Eireann calls on the Taoiseach to come before Dáil Éireann to make a statement and answer questions on:
–who told him that Deputy Foley was under investigation by the Moriarty Tribunal and had an Ansbacher account;
–when he first became aware that Deputy Foley might have held offshore accounts or been compromised in his activities on the Committee of Public Accounts;
–when he first discussed this matter with the Tánaiste;
–whether the Government has got an early warning mechanism about material or witnesses under investigation by tribunals;
–whether he or the Tánaiste have received, or are aware, of the contents of the additional list of Ansbacher account holders' names that Deputy Foley's name is on;
–the circumstances of his meeting with Deputy Foley in December 1999 and who first sought that meeting, the people present at it and whether notes were taken;
–the specific questions he asked Deputy Foley;
–whether he asked Deputy Foley to resign from the Committee of Public Accounts or its sub-committee investigating DIRT; and
–whether, in view of his statement to Dáil Éireann on 3 June 1998 that "as a general principle that those who have enjoyed the trust and support of ordinary party members, of the electorate and of this House, and who have achieved high office and positions of great trust over a number of years, owe a full and frank explanation to the country that should not have to be extracted from them by tribunals of inquiry", he will ask Deputy Foley to make a full and frank explanation to Dáil Éireann.
The motion poses nine questions for the Taoiseach and each can be answered with almost a single sentence. On this occasion we want facts, not froth or verbal gymnastics. I ask these nine questions because I believe elected politicians in their private and public dealings should and do set a tone for society. Politicians should be leaders, not followers. They should set a standard. A party leader who does not set exacting standards for those who follow him is simply not doing his job.
The first question asks who told the Taoiseach that Deputy Foley was under investigation by the Moriarty tribunal and had an Ansbacher account. It is an important question. A number of journalists claim that they knew for some time that Deputy Foley might have an Ansbacher account. The then editor of Magill posed this question two years ago to Deputy Foley. Did the Taoiseach ever hear the rumours which had reached Magill two years ago? Did the Taoiseach's fabled media monitoring machine ever pick this rumour up? It is quite adept at spreading rumours. Who told the Taoiseach about Deputy Foley's Ansbacher account and when? Was it two years ago, two months ago or just the day before the meeting with Deputy Foley?
The second question asks when the Taoiseach first became aware that Deputy Foley might have held offshore accounts or have been compromised in his activities on the Committee of Public Accounts. Did the Taoiseach know of the possibility that Deputy Foley might have had such accounts, as Magill suspected, when he chose Deputy Foley as his party's nominee to chair the Committee of Public Accounts between 1995 and 1997? Did the Taoiseach have any such suspicions about Deputy Foley and his accounts before the Committee of Public Accounts DIRT inquiry began? Did he know about them before Deputy Foley participated in the publication of the report on tax evasion last December? A tax evader investigating tax evasion. If the Taoiseach knew Deputy Foley might have had offshore accounts before the DIRT report was published, even at that late stage, he should have asked him about it and told him forthwith to resign.
The third question asks when the Taoiseach first discussed this matter with the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney. This is related to the first question. Some reports suggest that the Tánaiste knew about Deputy Foley's position before the Taoiseach knew. Such a report was carried in the Sunday Tribune. If so, how did she know about it? Did she get it from a list that was given to her in her ministerial capacity and chose to pass it on to the Taoiseach in a party capacity and, if so, was that the appropriate thing to do? A detailed chronology of this business from the Taoiseach would be most helpful and might link the disparate facts and statements of belief that have been issued by the usual sources and by some Ministers on this matter.
The fourth question concerns whether the Government has got an early warning mechanism about material or witnesses under investigation by tribunals and should be easy to answer. It seems to Members on this side of the House that on occasions the Government and its mouthpieces are remarkably well informed about matters that we are led to believe are strictly confidential to the tribunals.
Question five is about whether the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have received or are aware of the contents of the additional list of Ansbacher account holders' names, which includes Deputy Foley's. At least one journalist claims to have the full list, suggesting that this list exists in a complete format. Do the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have this full supplementary list of names, including Deputy Foley's? Will this new list be selectively leaked in due course, in the same way the original list was leaked last September?
On that occasion I asked the Garda Commissioner to investigate these apparent leaks. He told me that he had not received any papers on the subject from the relevant Departments and, therefore, could not act. It would be helpful if the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste gave the Garda Commissioner some of the papers in their possession about the Ansbacher lists so the commissioner can make at least an informal assessment as to whether criminality was involved on the part of anybody high or low in the leaking of the names.
Question six asks about the circumstances of the Taoiseach's meeting with Deputy Foley in December and who first sought that meeting, the people who were present at it and the notes that were taken. By any stretch of the imagination, this must have been a memorable and dramatic meeting for the Taoiseach and Deputy Foley.
They were probably both in denial.
Given the serious nature of the matter for discussion, was anybody else present at the meeting? What did the Taoiseach do after the meeting? Did he make a note of the meeting and did he talk to any officials or party staff afterwards? Does he have a record and, if not, why not?
I recall having such meetings with members of my party when I was Taoiseach. While I was always unaccompanied, I was careful to ensure that a record was taken immediately after such meetings as to what had happened, in case there was any dispute thereafter. I assume the Taoiseach has a record available, if not contemporaneous then one taken immediately afterwards, of what transpired at the meeting. Vagueness will not suffice on this occasion from the Taoiseach, who is absent from the debate this evening.
The seventh and eighth questions seek to find out the specific questions the Taoiseach asked Deputy Foley at the meeting. Did he ask questions or did he just nod sagely as Deputy Foley gave his version of how he came to emerge phoenix-like from his state of denial about his offshore accounts? Did the Taoiseach ask Deputy Foley if he had paid tax on the interest on those accounts? the Taoiseach, as a former Minister for Finance and accountant, knew there was a potential tax liability on these offshore accounts. If he did not ask the question, "Did you pay tax, Denis?", he clearly did not want to know that he had not paid tax, and if that was the case, the Taoiseach was not doing his job. If he asked the question and was told by Deputy Foley that he had not paid tax, the Taoiseach knew there and then in December in his office in Government Buildings that a member of his party was an admitted tax evader and he should have asked him there and then not just to leave the office but also the party. He did not do it, if that is the case.
Question No. 9 refers to the Taoiseach's statement in Dáil Éireann on 3 June 1998 that:
as a general principle...those who have enjoyed the trust and support of ordinary party members, of the electorate and of this House, and who have achieved high office and positions of great trust over a number of years, owe a full and frank explanation to the country that should not have to be extracted from them by tribunals of inquiry.
In light of this, has the Taoiseach asked, or will he ask, Deputy Foley to make a full and frank explanation to Dáil Éireann about this matter, or is it the case that Deputy Foley will conveniently resign the Fianna Fáil whip tomorrow so that the Taoiseach will no longer be in a position to ask him questions because he will no longer be within his jurisdiction? It would be a convenient way for Deputy Foley to avoid answering the questions by leaving the Fianna Fáil Party and for the Taoiseach not to have to ask the questions. Although he could have asked them last December or any day up to today, he will not be in a position to ask them tomorrow because Deputy Foley will have left. It is very convenient for both the Taoiseach and Deputy Foley but typical of how the Fianna Fáil Party does its business.
We do it well.
I am tempted to say to the Deputy who has just interrupted me that he should be ashamed to have made that intervention. His party has, over the past two and a half years under its current leader, been unable to face the truth about its associations with and support for the former Deputy, Charles Haughey, and all he stood for, the former Deputy, Raphael Burke, Deputy Ellis, Deputy Matt Brennan's constituency colleague, and Deputy Foley, even though it has been plain as a pikestaff since last December.
The problem with Fianna Fáil is that it does not do its job well, including under its current leader because he has no wish to ask questions to which the answer might require a decision from him which would involve pain on his part. It is that unwillingness to face any painful decision or any friend with a hard question which characterises the fundamental weakness of Fianna Fáil at present. Fianna Fáil is a weak party. It is weak because it is unable to face the truth. Facing the truth and asking hard questions require strength and, by that measure, Fianna Fáil is a weak party.
We were not afraid to talk to Sinn Féin.
It is weak because of its continued tolerance of the style of leadership it receives at present. Deputies who support the Taoiseach in his passive and evasive attitude to this issue should be ashamed of themselves. Éamon de Valera would never have led Fianna Fáil in this way. The Minister of State, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, spoke the truth when he said there is an unwillingness in the Fianna Fáil Party to stand by its own proud traditions, to confront public opinion, even where it believes that opinion to be wrong, or to confront a version of history which may have been presented in a manner unfair to a former leader, even if it believes that version to be wrong, because it never wants to be unpopular with anyone at any time.
It is impossible to be a genuine public leader in politics if one is unwilling to be unpopular. The problem with the Taoiseach is that he never wants to be unpopular with anyone, and that is not leadership, that is useless. The people will soon enough come to appreciate that, in Government Buildings at present, they do not have a leader, they have a follower of fashion and public opinion, a person who always wishes to be nice. Sometimes niceness is not enough. When Deputy Foley was summoned to the Taoiseach's office to explain himself, niceness was not enough, but I have no doubt it was the only characteristic displayed at the meeting. It is not good enough and the people are not, nor will they be, satisfied with it. Leaders must ask hard questions, but this leader does not.
This is a debate about political accountability, standards in office and the vast gulf which exists between the words and deeds of the Taoiseach. By tabling this motion, Opposition Deputies seek to restore the integrity and standing of the House which has been damaged by the continuing fall-out from the Foley affair. The Dáil has repeatedly acknowledged the huge challenges facing politics. The sleaze and double dealing of a few prominent political figures has cast a dark shadow on how democratic politics is perceived in this State. The public perception of politics has been shattered by the revelations of the past decade, particularly the past three years.
The Labour Party believes that we in the House have a duty to ensure the whole truth, however unpalatable, is laid bare. We have a responsibility to deal with the difficult questions the truth sometimes turns up. Given the central involvement of members of his party in the issues being investigated by the Moriarty and Flood tribunals, the Taoiseach must prove by his words and actions that there is no place in modern politics for the cronyism and cowardice of the past.
Speaking in the House on 10 September 1997, the Taoiseach seemed to acknowledge the serious task confronting politics. Referring to the establishment of the Moriarty tribunal, he stated:
The whole procedure envisaged is a painful necessity for our democracy. It is essential that we dissipate the atmosphere of cynicism and suspicion and that we show we are capable of acting resolutely without fear or favour to defend it.
However, as we have found out time and again in the Dáil, the Taoiseach's actions do not match the fine words carefully crafted by his spindoctor.
The Foley affair raises serious questions for both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. It is right and proper for those on this side of the House to ask those questions now and to expect honest and straightforward answers. No one has sought or wants to establish a parallel inquiry to that taking place in Dublin Castle. However, issues pertinent to the House and which should rightly be addressed in the House have emerged as the tribunals continue their public hearings. The Moriarty tribunal is not investigating the manner in which the Taoiseach found out about Deputy Foley's deceit. It is not with that the House charged the tribunal. The serious questions about the Taoiseach's and the Tánaiste's role as this scandal unravelled cannot be brushed under the carpet. Debate on these important and pertinent political issues cannot be suspended indefinitely because a tribunal of inquiry is sitting. They are legitimate questions and they must be answered in this House. This is called parliamentary accountability and it does not grind to a halt with the establishment of a tribunal.
This debate has been precipitated by the reprehensible actions of Deputy Foley. By holding an offshore account illegally and for the purposes of tax evasion, Deputy Foley has engaged in corrupt and duplicitous practices since he became a TD. The extent of this duplicity is mind-blowing. In 1979 Deputy Foley colluded with Mr. Des Traynor to defraud the taxpayer. By his own admission, he has known since 1983 that an offshore account was used to execute this fraud. In 1995, after the death of Des Traynor, he made a withdrawal from his account. Mr. Foley contacted and met Mr. Traynor's right-hand man, Pádraig Collery, in a discreet corner of Jury's Hotel and received £50,000 in cash. In May of last year Deputy Foley received a statement of his account. The names Ansbacher and Hamilton Ross appeared on the statement. All this information was concealed from the tribunal until November of last year.
At the same time, Deputy Foley sought and obtained senior positions of responsibility and trust in this House. He has been chairperson of the Committee of Public Accounts. Last autumn he sat on the sub-committee that inquired into DIRT evasion. In September 1997, the day after the Taoiseach waxed lyrical about the need "to dissipate the atmosphere of cynicism and suspicion", Deputy Foley himself voted to exclude the Ansbacher accounts from the remit of the Moriarty tribunal.
I put it to the House and to the two members of Fianna Fáil who are present, that the nature and extent of Deputy Foley's deception is truly shocking. Members will know that I have made a complaint against Deputy Foley under the Ethics in Public Office Act. I did so because I believe in that legislation. My party campaigned for and introduced this significant reform. Unlike others, we believe in adhering to that legislation and not simply paying lip-service to it.
However, it is the role of both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in the Foley affair which is at the kernel of this evening's debate. The events surrounding the Taoiseach's meeting in December with Denis Foley and the inaction which followed, demand an explanation, as Deputy Bruton has already said. Newspaper reports, which have not been denied, insist that it was the Tánaiste who first informed the Taoiseach that Deputy Foley was under investigation by the Moriarty tribunal. Shortly after receiving this critical information, the fateful meeting between Deputy Foley and the Taoiseach took place. We do not know the date. It seems that the Taoiseach's diary of appointments with Fianna Fáil backbenchers has been elevated to the status of a State secret. We know few details about the meeting. What we do know is that in January of this year Deputy Foley was still a serving member of the Committee of Public Accounts and action was not taken by either the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach until this sordid affair became public. The murky cloak of secrecy which has been cast over the Taoiseach's meeting with Deputy Foley cannot be maintained.
The motion details the questions that need to be answered and they have been well articulated by Deputy Bruton. Whether either the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste will adhere to the standards of openness and accountability required by this House and answer those questions remains to be seen. That Deputy Foley remained a member of the Public Accounts Committee after his meeting with the Taoiseach simply beggars belief and it is my understanding that a formal letter of resignation has not yet been received by that committee. Outside this House, the Taoiseach has stated that he requested the meeting with Deputy Foley because he had been informed that he was under investigation by the Moriarty tribunal. Deputy Foley confirmed that this was true. This is a critical point. The Taoiseach was centrally involved in drawing up the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal. He knows what those terms of reference are. The Moriarty tribunal is charged with examining public office holders who benefited from the Ansbacher deposits. It does not have a role in examining murky investments made 26 or 28 years ago or in examining under-the-counter payments in a hotel in Tralee during the showband era. The only reason the tribunal would be inquiring into these matters was that they were linked to the Ansbacher deposits.
The inescapable logic is that as soon as Deputy Foley confirmed to the Taoiseach that he was being investigated by the Moriarty tribunal it was clear that Ansbacher deposits were centrally involved. However, despite this evidence and the fact that Deputy Foley informed him at the meeting that he was salting money away in an investment account with Des Traynor, the Taoiseach asks us to believe that he did not know that Deputy Foley was an Ansbacher depositor until it was publicly revealed by the tribunal on 27 January last. This House is asked to believe that. Despite the overwhelming evidence of culpability the Taoiseach expects us to believe that he was as shocked as the next person to find out that Denis Foley was up to his neck in the most scandalous tax fraud perpetrated in this State.
The Taoiseach's threadbare defence for this contention is that he had seen a list of Ansbacher depositors who were unearthed by the Tánaiste's authorised officer, Gerard Ryan, and that Denis Foley's name was not on that list. However, if it is true that the Tánaiste provided the information which led the Taoiseach to call in Deputy Foley, is it not apparent that both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste knew before the meeting with Deputy Foley that Gerard Ryan's list was not exhaustive and that he had uncovered some but not all of the Ansbacher depositors? Is this not one of the main reasons the Tánaiste sought the appointment of High Court inspectors to continue inquiries into the Ansbacher quagmire? The Taoiseach's defence that an initial investigation carried out with the limited powers available to an authorised officer had identified all the Ansbacher depositors and that anyone not on that list must be innocent of any connection to Ansbacher accounts is, therefore, quite unsustainable.
Where does the Tánaiste stand on this issue? Will she either confirm or deny that she informed the Taoiseach about the tribunal's investigations of Deputy Foley? If this is the case, will she confirm that she was aware that people not identified in the authorised officer's report had Ansbacher deposits? Will she accept that the Taoiseach's defence is threadbare? Will the Tánaiste explain why she has stood silently by while an Ansbacher account holder continued as vice-chairperson of the PAC?
Since the formation of the Government the Tánaiste has been denied information, told a blatant untruth and been openly defied by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach has now presented the Progressive Democrats with another display of Fianna Fáil's regard for standards in public office but no doubt, as with so many other issues, the Progressive Democrats will be satisfied to turn a blind eye to their supposed principled politics.
In a comment made about this affair outside the House, the Taoiseach stated that at the meeting Deputy Foley informed him that, in line with Fianna Fáil policy, he was co-operating fully with the tribunal. Now it is official. Fianna Fáil Deputies will comply with the law of the land. The Taoiseach apparently accepted this outrageous claim.
Deputy Foley has concealed crucial information of relevance to the tribunal of inquiry established by this House. When the tribunal was established he knew that Des Traynor operated an offshore account for his benefit and that when Mr. Traynor died, Pádraig Collery continued to manage his offshore affairs. Yet he did not think this of relevance to the Moriarty tribunal. Again, in May of last year Deputy Foley received a statement of his account which mentioned Ansbacher. The extent of his involvement with the Ansbacher deposits was there in black and white yet he still concealed his involvement from the tribunal. When the Tánaiste received a report into Ansbacher, Deputy Foley kept his head down, thankful that he had not been discovered at that stage. Again, he concealed his involvement from the tribunal. Only when the tribunal, through other avenues, had tracked down Deputy Foley did he co-operate with the inquiries. Is this Fianna Fáil policy on tribunals of inquiry? Is there anybody else in a similar position to that of Deputy Foley in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party?
The Taoiseach seemed quite prepared to accept Deputy Foley's behaviour at a meeting in December. Does the Tánaiste also accept this duplicity and evasion? It seems the Progressive Democrats are willing to put up with anything which delays their next meeting with the electorate. Despite the occasional and publicly necessary bout of sulking it is abundantly clear that the Progressive Democrats will put up with any behaviour so long as they cling to office.
The Taoiseach's refusal to robustly confront wrongdoing within the Fianna Fáil Party is feeding the public cynicism surrounding Irish politics. The vast gulf between his words and actions serves to undermine his credibility and that of the Government. Speaking on his proposed ethics commission on 28 May he stated that "events had made it all the more urgent to have this legislation processed as quickly as possible. The Minister for Finance intends urgently proceeding with this." We still have not caught sight of it 21 months later. The Taoiseach promised to introduce a new code of conduct for Fianna Fáil members at its Ard Fheis in November 1998. Thirteen months later we find that the proposal has been shelved and that a draft document which requires candidates to produce satisfactory evidence that their tax affairs are in order has been rejected. The Taoiseach told the House on 10 September 1997 that it is "unacceptable that the people who decide upon the laws should engage in placing their money outside the jurisdiction in offshore accounts not merely for the purpose of concealment from the public but in a way which lends itself to wholesale tax evasion." When faced however with a member of his parliamentary party who was engaged in such evasion for more than 20 years he refused to take action and that member remained a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. He told us on 28 May 1998 that "Fianna Fáil is giving co-operation to the tribunal". Yet it seems he does not bat an eyelid when the extent of Deputy Foley's concealment of that vital information relevant to the work of the tribunal is laid bare.
Restoring trust and public confidence in parliamentary politics is one of the most important challenges facing this House. The Taoiseach has proved himself utterly incapable of contributing to this task. Each time he has been required to take strong action against wrongdoing and make a break with the culture of secrecy and cronyism which has crippled Fianna Fáil and subsequently damaged the rest of politics he has failed abysmally. The Burke affair, the Rennicks payment, the Sheedy scandal and the Foley revelations, in all these crucial tests the Taoiseach has hid from the truth and misled his partners in Government. He has misled us as well.
It appears that Deputy Foley and the Taoiseach expect a fool's pardon. We have a choice to make in this House. Either Deputy Foley is an extremely stupid individual and a complete amadán or he is a very cute fellow with one hell of a brass neck. Deputy Foley and the Taoiseach are not stupid individuals. It is clear that in terms of public perception Deputy Foley has damaged the work of the Committee of Public Accounts – the six men who were going to redeem Irish politics and who did a very fine job. As a result of Deputy Foley's revelations the public has become even more cynical about Irish politics and the task of changing public attitudes towards tax evasion has become far more difficult.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General showed that tax evasion was widespread and endemic. There were 22,000 bogus nonresident accounts in Tralee alone. This is a terrible problem. It is almost perverse that those who evade tax are seen as victims who are simply taking precautionary measures to prevent the avaricious State from stealing their hard earned money. That is how it is often seen. There will be enormous sympathy for Deputy Foley and little understanding for the craw-thumping do-gooders who want to do him down. In the case of Raphael Burke, the Taoiseach said that we were hounding an innocent man out of office. That is the perception unfortunately.
He did say that.
There are many people who will identify with Raphael Burke and Deputy Foley and who will say, "I wouldn't mind £30,000 in a brown paper bag." Look at the sympathy for Deputy Lowry who topped the poll. The chattering classes in Dublin will say, "Isn't that awful? It must be some sort of rural aberation. It could not happen in Dublin." It could. If Charles J. Haughey were to run for election he would enjoy electoral success. If Raphael Burke were to run for election he could possibly top the poll. Despite all our pretensions and so-called sophistication in this Celtic tiger economy the gombeen culture still flourishes in this pathetic little country of ours.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
I am afraid it is a corrupt country and until we can admit to this we have to show—
The Greens will not abide by High Court decisions.
It is a case of adding the ha'pence to the pence and prayer to shivering prayer as a former Deputy once put it so well. The Taoiseach knows this only too well and he plays to the gallery and the gutter when it suits him. What did he say to Deputy Foley? How long did the conversation last? We have not received answers to these questions. It is being put out by Fianna Fáil that somehow the Taoiseach was misled by Deputy Foley, as Deputy Roche said last night on radio. The Taoiseach simply does not want to know. He is like Manuel in "Fawlty Towers"–"I know nothing". The Taoiseach knows nothing. This is a Fawlty Towers Government stumbling from one scandal to the next. It knows nothing and wants to know nothing.
It has 39% of the vote.
The Taoiseach has promised standards in public office, a matter which has now been put on the back burner. A Deputy can be asked to leave this Chamber if he does something outrageous like take off his jacket. We have our priorities slightly wrong when a Deputy can sit here if he is evading tax. We have to put our house in order. That is what the motion is about.
While there has to be a clear division in terms of what is happening at the tribunal which has a quasi-judicial function, Article 15.10 of the Constitution states that each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders with power to attach penalties for their infringement and shall have powers to ensure freedom of debate. We are enjoying that freedom tonight and have certain privileges to which we must live up. We must give leadership. We cannot condone corruption and be seen to be complicit in any way. The problem is that the Government has been seen again and again to be complicit in corrupt practices. This is intolerable in a democracy. I hope there is a new Government because if this continues there will be no trust in politics.
I wish to share time with Deputies Pat Carey and Michael Ahern.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann notes the Taoiseach's statement, containing the necessary information about the circumstances and consequences of Deputy Denis Foley's appearance before the Moriarty tribunal."
In the years and decades which lie ahead historians and observers of political science may have good reason to look back on the political happenings of the second week of February of the year 2000. There is no doubt but that this week will be seen as one of the most important in the social, political and economic development of the nation. The ongoing efforts to maintain and build upon the fledgling peace in Northern Ireland and the notable achievement of a new social consensus regarding our immediate economic future will be seen as milestones in the Ireland of the third millennium. The same observers may well ponder with perplexity the curious preoccupation of the Opposition which chooses this week to debate during Private Members' Business not the burning issues of the day which will fashion our future but what will be seen as an obscure and long forgotten motion relating to the peripheral actions of the Taoiseach. Time and history will adjudicate on whether Opposition Members will be seen to have captured the hearts and minds of the people with this motion or whether they will be seen to have focused on peripheral performances at a time of historic happenings.
I have no doubt but that the Taoiseach, in his efforts relating to Northern Ireland and to build an equitable and fair society, is carrying out the wishes of the people. I have no difficulty with Members of the Opposition using Private Members' Business in this fashion – it is their democratic right – but it is about time they changed their tune. Since I entered this House in June 1997, the same tune has been sung from the Opposition benches. That tune seeks to demonise Fianna Fáil, its Leader, its Ministers, its Deputies and its membership throughout the country.
Who is at the tribunals?
Its lyrics are consistent and monotonous. It is the single transferable song of the Opposition. It has at this stage become an electoral lament, a sad dirge of recognition by Opposition Members that they cannot best Fianna Fáil policies, they cannot best Fianna Fáil achievements and, in particular, they cannot best the charisma and success of Deputy Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach.
They do not hold Ansbacher accounts.
The Minister's promotion came dear.
In football parlance, they have decided that since they cannot play the ball, they will play the man.
Who is the Minister's scriptwriter?
This tactic has been pursued relentlessly and with a spectacular lack of success. It is a tactic which is employed irrespective of issues, timing or reality. So it is that tonight, in this week of crucial importance to the future of Northern Ireland, in this week in which we are building the suprastructure for the future of society in Ireland, we are using our time to debate an Opposition motion which requests the Taoiseach to make a statement on a matter related to an ongoing tribunal of inquiry.
To return to football parlance, while the political action is the penalty area, Fine Gael wants to debate the location of the corner flag.
It gets better.
The Minister, without interruption.
The lack of success of this tactic can be seen in the recent opinion poll results. Those who go about the work entrusted to them by the people fare better than those who jeer from the sidelines.
The Fianna Fáil Party has dominated the political life of this country since its inception in 1926. It is a party with an honourable history of service to the people. It would be fanciful to assume that in three quarters of a century any political party of the size and scale of Fianna Fáil could escape blemishes caused by individual human failings.
The Minister neglected to mention the Ansbacher accounts.
Experience in the United Kingdom, Europe, North America and Australia shows that political life is not immune to human frailty and fault. What is of importance is the capacity of society and of any political grouping to deal with matters when they arise and to put in place systems which ensure, in so far as it is politically possible, that such matters cannot arise again.
We have sought to discover what occurred by establishing tribunals of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, as amended. Two tribunals are continuing their work. The pace at which the work is proceeding and the costs which attend the work is a topic to which this House might usefully return, but it must be borne in mind that the 1921 Act has long been regarded as being deeply flawed. In England, Lord Salmon, who examined the workings and legislative framework of tribunals of inquiry noted in relation to the 1921 Act that ". of necessity the passage of the Bill through Parliament was somewhat hurried. As a result, there are certain omissions and shortcomings in the Act .". Whatever shortcomings exist, it is clear that tribunals, once established, should be allowed to get on with their work without unnecessary interference from the Oireachtas.
Tribunals of inquiry have two functions. First, they exist to restore public confidence arising out of some matter of definite public importance. Second, they exist to report to the Oireachtas and to make recommendations to assist the Oireachtas in its legislative task. It would be a wholly unsatisfactory situation if the ongoing work of the tribunals were to be punctuated by ill-informed comment or criticism from this House by persons who, of necessity, had a less than perfect grasp of the facts.
The Taoiseach is not being investigated. What is to stop him making a statement?
It is also wholly undesirable that we in this House should seek to influence, con sciously or unconsciously, the workings of this tribunal by conducting simultaneous and politically motivated debate.
(Interruptions).
The Minister, without interruption.
It is inappropriate that Opposition Members should seek to turn the legislative forum of the people into some class of ongoing commentary on the tribunals. Comments made by Members of this House could have repercussions on and could affect the deliberations and outcome of the tribunals.
The Taoiseach will make a statement on the motion and I welcome his decision to do so. That decision is consistent with his style of open government and the manner in which he has conducted himself since being elected Taoiseach. The Taoiseach recognises that those who participate in the public life of this State must be above reproach and must demonstrate a high level of ethical behaviour. His efforts as leader of this country and Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party have consistently been directed to this end.
Tá an córas Rialtais in Éireann bunaithe ar daonlathas agus saoirse. For 70 years, the system of government in Ireland has enjoyed the confidence of the public.
On a point of order, it is 78 years.
We in Fianna Fáil, the largest political party in the State, believe it is incumbent on us to be at the forefront in underpinning the confidence of the public in politics and public representatives. We can never condone the betrayal of public trust or behaviour which would bring democratic politics into disrepute. We accept that we have duties and responsibilities to this House and to the people. I resent the implication which attends tonight's motion and which was conveyed in the preceding speeches that all members of the Fianna Fáil Party are in some way implicated by the actions of an individual.
Having served at all levels of the Fianna Fáil organisation, I know the party stands for the principles on which it was founded. We stand for the policies which have brought Ireland as far as it has come in the past 78 years. We accept that our duties and responsibilities are imposed on us by the people and that we owe it to them to maintain their trust. That is what Fianna Fáil, led by the Taoiseach, will continue to do.
This House can and should deal with established facts but as far as the Taoiseach is concerned, it is time for this House to leave behind the shadows of persistent and unsubstantiated innuendo.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion. Politics is a noble profession which involves service to the community which is informed by a sense of civic duty and a love of one's country. The late US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, used to say there was no greater calling than public service, and I agree with that sentiment.
At the last general election, one out of every three people did not vote, resulting in the lowest election turnout since the early 1920s. Two thirds of young Irish men and women did not vote in the recent local and European elections. The impression that politicians are all the same and that politics is about power, prestige and low standards in high places is apparently winning. Politicians have a duty to challenge this view and renew faith among our young people that politics makes a positive difference.
Since 1987 this country has been turned around from an almost bankrupt banana republic to a modern, wealthy economy. This did not happen by accident. I remember the difficult decisions taken by politicians, Ministers and the Government in 1987 which were the foundation for the resurgence of the economy. The politicians made the difficult decisions and the political leadership of all parties in the past 13 years have been responsible for the numerous national plans which have been so important for our development. Without political leadership, the successful development of our economy would not have taken place. However, we cannot sit on our laurels and expect plaudits for past actions – we are as good as our next act.
There is no doubt that the revelations at tribunals have had a considerable negative impact on the public perception of politicians. The reaction of the public is interesting because very few of the number of people involved are politicians. However, they attract the greatest opprobrium. This highlights the fact that the public, expects, demands and deserves the highest standards from their public representatives. Fianna Fáil stands for public service and needs to be seen as a party which puts public interest first. This has been the tradition of my party since 1926. Of course, there have been some transgressions of the high standards required by the party. However, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Ireland is fortunate in having a healthy democratic system which in the main has enjoyed the confidence of the general public. As the largest political party in the State, it is incumbent upon Fianna Fáil to be at the forefront in underpinning the confidence of the public in politics and public representatives. We can never condone a betrayal of public trust or behaviour which brings democratic politics into disrepute. I repudiate such conduct.
On entering the new millennium, Fianna Fáil, as part of the ongoing modernisation of the party, prioritised the reinforcement of the emphasis on highest standards in public life, in accordance with the ethos of its founders. In Government we have initiated and implemented legislation covering a wide range of electoral and ethical issues including the Electoral Act, 1997, the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1998, the Local Government (Declaration of Donations and Expenditure) Act, 1999, and the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2000, which amends existing legislation, some of which is over a century old. It is also intended to address serious loopholes in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. A standards in public office Bill is in the process of preparation.
In 1999, Fianna Fáil published proposals for a mandatory code for office holders and candidates for discussion within the organisation. This code will be put forward for sanction by our Ard Fheis in March. This document has three objectives. First, to set out guiding principles and a general code of conduct to which members, active in public life, should adhere. Second, to specify the requirements imposed on candidates and office holders by the electoral and ethics legislation and practices so that each person understands clearly his or her legal obligations. Third, to provide for the establishment of a standards in public life committee to foster the development and enforcement of ethical behaviour in the party.
This document does not anticipate and provide for all instances in the conduct of public life where issues requiring the exercise of an individual's judgment will occur. On such occasions, a candidate or office holder must always recognise their highest duty is to the public they serve and act accordingly. The party requires that candidates and office holders comply with all legal requirements, both in their spirit and letter.
However, promulgating the highest ethical standards goes beyond legislation. This document seeks to promote the highest standard of conduct and is intended to compliment the requirements of law. As with the relevant legislation, it should be seen as a definitive guide. It is intended to reflect the high standards which Fianna Fáil seeks to promote in public life and which the majority of members, elected or otherwise, have upheld in the history of the party.
It is interesting that of all the parties, Fianna Fáil has come forward to lead the way once again.
For God's sake, let us not make a farce of it.
There are instances of behaviour in other parties which will, in due course, see the light of day. It will be seen that they have been hiding behind the door.
Before I conclude, I wish to ask whether Deputies John Bruton or Quinn have inquired of all their councillors, Deputies, Senators and MEPs if they have had or have any offshore accounts? Were they happy with their response? Why has Deputy Bruton been wearing such a pained expression in the past few weeks? I look forward to hearing their replies.
Confess something.
At a time when the fledgling democratic institutions in Northern Ireland are teetering on the brink of collapse and when every sinew of our political being ought to be striving to ensure they survive and thrive, it is saddening that the Opposition has yet again embarked on one of its regular moral witch hunts. Has it nothing to say or offer or no words of encouragement for the beleaguered communities on both sides of the political divide in Northern Ireland?
Shameful.
Has it no interest in finding a solution to what is surely the most important issue of this parliamentary session? I think the answer is "no". It is more convenient to be opportunistic and have a go, yet again, at the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. On the day when the programme for fairness in work was published following detailed and painstaking dialogue between the social partners, when pay increases of 20% and further tax reductions, programmes of accelerated housing development and targets to counter social exclusion were all agreed, the Opposition is on its moral high horse yet again, second guessing tribunals which have been set up by the Houses of the Oireachtas as the most appropriate mechanism to investigate the matters which are the subject of its motion.
Tax dodging is wrong, although for years it seems to have been an accepted culture. Paying tax seems to have been an option, not an obligation, for many. Thankfully, we now seem to have a more compliant culture and this House, through its laws and actions, can take a great deal of the credit for this. We have started on a road which will lead us towards even more rigorous standards and that is as it should be. I am and always have been a PAYE taxpayer, with many other Members and thousands outside the House. We always expected that the same rigorous demands would be made of others outside that category but they were not.
Where does the blame lie? We all had a sneaking regard for the "cute hoor" culture which seemed to be endemic and all pervasive in certain sections of society. It was condoned, rarely condemned and never properly investigated – not even by the media. Why? Some would say this was because of the overly restrictive libel laws. Surely the hard-nosed newshounds should have been able to do better. The tax collecting agencies have not crowned themselves in glory. They are performing now as we expected they always should have. Is it a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? The manner in which we perform our duties, discharge our responsibilities and meet our obligations is a legitimate topic for public scrutiny. Our conduct as Members of the House and in matters which relate to our membership must always be open to public scrutiny. Of necessity, that means as public representatives our affairs must be open to a greater public interest than the affairs of other citizens. Each candidate for public office knowingly accepts this because public confidence in the workings of the House is the cornerstone of democracy.
The report of the McCracken tribunal raised for proper public debate the issues of the integrity of our democratic process and the public perception of it. If there is a widespread public perception that Members of this House may be open to improper external influence then, collectively, we forfeit the respect of the people. If we as the people's representatives forfeit their respect, then the integrity of the Oireachtas is damaged and the cornerstone of democracy is loosened. Each of us has a duty to ensure this does not occur. Our primary duty is to the democratic institutions of this State and to ensure they are protected and strengthened. If and when questions arise which cast a shadow on the workings of this democracy, we have a duty to take every reasonable step to answer them and to lift the shadow.
In May 1995, Lord Nolan presented to the British Parliament his first report on standards in public life. He and his committee stated in their report, "We cannot say conclusively that standards of behaviour in public life have declined. We can say that conduct in public life is more rigorously scrutinised than it was in the past, that the standards which the public demands remain high, and that the great majority of people in public life meet those high standards." Those conclusions apply equally to elected representatives here. The same principles of conduct which underpin public life in Britain apply here. The seven principles stated by Lord Nolan are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The decision by this House to establish the McCracken tribunal signalled to the public and to those in public life that the standards expected of public representatives, both by their fellow public representatives and the public, go substantially beyond mere compliance with the criminal and civil laws. There is an implied trust placed on persons in public life by those who put them there. The extent of that trust can be difficult to define but it can be summarised in the word "honourable". Those who send us here expect us to act in an honourable manner. The Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, spoke for the entire Fianna Fáil organisation when he said, "Participation in the democratic life of this country is about public service not self-service or the sustaining of a certain lifestyle. It is the Oireachtas and ultimately the people who decide what our political leaders and representatives are paid and who provide them with the appropriate facilities. Even if in the particular case there were no favours sought or given we could not condone the practice of senior politicians seeking or receiving from a single donor large sums of money or services in kind."
By comparison with many of our European partners, we are a relatively young democracy. In a sense, we are still on a learning curve in the development of standards of best practice to allow that democracy flourish in the real sense. We were extraordinarily lucky in our emerging years as a new State to have so many visionary statesmen and women who had a very clear idea of how they saw democracy flourishing through a vigorous parliamentary system. Most were idealists; many were pragmatists as well. By and large, they were all inspired and driven by a sense of public duty and by the value of the process of politics and of unselfish public service. It strikes me that many of these founding members of our State had an independence of means which gave them a freedom of thought and action which perhaps those of us who may now be termed professional politicians may not have to the same extent. To the extent that they did not always have to look over their shoulders to examine the implications of decisions in electoral terms, they had room for more courageous decision-making.
We have good examples in the early years of this State of Members from all parties and from none, from the professions and from the trades unions who made a considerable contribution to the State. They did not look to the safety net of a Dáil seat when making their decisions. If anything needs to be adjusted in our mind set as parliamentarians, it is that we must be ordinary people, always listening and interacting with the people. The day we think that as soon as we step inside the Kildare Street gate and on to the plinth, we have undergone a mysterious metamorphosis is the day we lose touch with reality. Trust, integrity, courage, good judgment and openness are but some of the qualities we would expect in any well rounded personality. These are traits and qualities the public expect in their public representatives. It is not, however, good enough to express these values, it is expected that we display them in the way we frame policies and make decisions, even in the way we live. That does not mean we should set ourselves up as plaster saints. It does mean we must expect that our public behaviour is constantly under the microscope and open to scrutiny. It is important, therefore, that we put discredited ways of doing things behind us. All our dealings must not only be open but be seen to be open.
The proposed public ethics commission is desirable and I compliment the Taoiseach and the Government for their initiative. Public life will be served well by it and it will do much to restore public confidence and trust in the operation of Government.
I was elected to the Dáil in my third attempt, so it is fair to say that I wanted to become a full time politician. It is a humbling experience to come to this House as one of the representatives of Dublin North West to join colleagues whose honesty and integrity I admire. The contributions of some of the founding members of the State have inspired me. I am in awe of much of the work they have done. I am dismayed and greatly disappointed at the earlier attitude of a small number of people who, though totally devoted to public life, abused their very special position and dragged the whole profession of politics into disrepute. If we expect the consent of the governed to be forthcoming, the people who govern must be the essence of probity and integrity. The past must be rigorously investigated and the faulty punished. The lessons learned from these investigations must be incorporated into legislation which is being proposed by the Government. We must search elsewhere for models of best practice into the operation of the parliamentary process and procedure and into monitoring standards in public life. Many of our current practices need little adjustment but where improvements can be made, they should be implemented without prevarication.
In recent years, we have seen the fragile flower of democracy emerge in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. We saw the spectacle of the first time voters in South Africa travel for days, over deserts, to exercise their hard won right to vote. Perhaps we have become too complacent and take too much for granted. Complacency is a malaise which must be avoided at all costs. It breeds cynicism and cynicism breeds alienation. Once people are alienated and to all intents and purposes outside the loop, it is difficult for them to feel a sense of ownership of what is happening.
When it comes to honesty and integrity, there is no pecking order in this House, no matter what office is held or on what committee the Member sits. When it comes to membership of a committee where the financial affairs of others are under examination, it seems to me that it should be a given that anybody who has the slightest doubt about their own affairs should not compromise themselves, their committee, its investigation or findings by presenting themselves for membership of such a committee. Therefore, it is best that a Deputy in that position does not present himself for membership of the Committee of Public Accounts and, by extension, the sub-committee charged with investigating the DIRT controversy. However, when it comes to condemnation, I believe in due process. I am not prepared to condemn someone, a Member of this House, who is widely acknowledged to be hardworking, kind and helpful, without hearing him out or without hearing all the facts. When those facts are known and analysed, then I will reprimand, censure or do whatever is required to preserve the good name of all politicians.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
Tonight is the first time the House has an opportunity to see parliamentary accountability at work in respect of what has become known as the "Foley affair". It could scarcely be a more serious issue since the connection to Ansbacher has become widely accepted as a synonym for tax evasion. What do we get instead of parliamentary accountability? In respect of a motion directed at the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, we get calculatedly and deliberately the most junior of the Jun ior Ministers sent in to the House to read a script that frankly I wished I had not been present to hear. Fianna Fáil could have taken a different course tonight. It could have said some of the things its members are saying in private but it did not. This most junior Minister and some of her backbench colleagues have instead taken up the position of "hit me now with the peace process in my arms".
It is outrageous.
They have dragged into a particular and specific debate the shelter of what is ongoing in the wider political arena on this island. The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin's contribution was almost unbelievable. For example, she urged us to leave behind the shadow of unsubstantiated innuendo. We should reflect on that statement from a Minister of State who knows better. There may be a price to be paid for promotion, but it should not be that high. I have much regard for the Minister of State, many Fianna Fáil colleagues in the House and the people who have traditionally voted for the Fianna Fáil Party. However, the House is dealing with a serious issue put on the agenda of the House by the conduct of half a dozen people in Fianna Fáil in succession. It is an insult to the House to send in the most junior Minister of State and for her to make a speech to the effect that we are deflecting the Taoiseach from his important work in respect of Northern Ireland.
We should consider what would happen if any other party leader in the House dealt with the Deputy Foley situation in the same way as the Taoiseach. There would be internal unrest in the party. However, six senior members of Fianna Fáil, two former Ministers, a former Taoiseach and several Deputies, are helping various tribunals with their inquiries. If that happened in any other party the leader would be replaced. That does not happen in the Fianna Fáil Party, despite all the grand homages to the fine tradition of the party and the honour of public service.
It has not happened in any of the issues to which the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, said she is tired listening since June 1997. Why is she listening to it since June 1997? The answer is that these issues continue to recur. The sewage keeps seeping out from under the door. She said that experience in the United Kingdom, Europe, North America and Australia showed that political life is not immune from human frailty and fault. That is a nice way of putting it and nobody on this side is trying to pretend that human frailty does not apply on both sides of the House. However, the issue is how the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party dealt with it. The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin's comment about experience in Australia, America and elsewhere is a euphemism for corruption. That is the issue being inquired into and the Taoiseach has now developed expertise in contriving not to answer questions.
We are told the Taoiseach has appointed an interlocutor to make contact with Deputy Foley. This is very convenient because he cannot then ask him any questions. There is now an interlocutor to defuse the Deputy Foley time bomb and the Taoiseach does not have to ask any questions. It is entirely beyond belief that in the one contact between the Taoiseach and Deputy Foley he did not ask him why he was being investigated by the Moriarty tribunal. It is entirely incredible. That is what the Moriarty tribunal is investigating and for the Taoiseach to say that he did not know that he was an Ansbacher holder until the day it was revealed at the tribunal is entirely beyond belief. It is reminiscent of the trail of deception on which he led the House in respect of the former Deputy Ray Burke.
The Taoiseach led us to believe that he sent a senior colleague to London and that he was up and down every tree in north Dublin, but he did not ask the man himself the hard question. There was only one question but he did not ask it. Instead he said, "Ray, is there anything that you want to tell me?". That is the standard and quality of leadership and we now know that there were several other questions that he might have asked former Deputy Burke. He might have asked him why he wanted to continue dragging the communications portfolio behind everywhere he went. When he was in the Department of Energy, he had the communications portfolio between 1987 and 1988. He transferred to the Department of Industry between 1988 and 1989 and he brought the communications portfolio with him. From 1989 to 1991, when he was in the Department of Justice, he also brought the Department of Communications. What is the answer to the question? From what we have been hearing in recent days, it appears that £35,000 may provide part of the answer. Most Members remember the ferocity of former Minister Burke's attack on RTE at that time.
Yes.
My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, was the Opposition spokesperson at the time. Former Minister Burke sought to relegate 2FM at that time to clear the pitch for Century Radio and he sought to divert some of the licence fee. He reduced the transmission fees by £200,000 and he capped the revenue from advertising. However, the spokesman for Fianna Fáil assured The Sunday Tribune on 3 June 1990 that everything was fine and he denied that Mr. Oliver Barry was “a significant contributor”. He said: “Mr. Barry participates in party functions such as auctions and raffles and donates relatively small four figure amounts.”
Members may recall that the first head of news at Capital Radio at that time, Mr. Patsy McGarry, wrote in The Irish Times on 20 July 1999 about the “tantrum” thrown by the then Minister, for mer Deputy Burke, when the new radio station broadcast comments by Deputy Éamon Gilmore on a planning story. Out of earshot he told Mr. McGarry: “‘Did you not know that one of the reasons we set up these new stations was to get people like that off the air?' Burke then proceeded to cancel Capital's derogation from the 20% news requirement.”
We must ask how many Oliver Barrys are out there? How many more Ansbacher holders are out there? One of the most horrifying aspects from the point of view of the public watching what has gone on in recent days is that essential documents and records have been deliberately destroyed. If it is the case that they have been deliberately destroyed, then others who are also Ansbacher depositors can sleep easy in their beds.
We should remember the row in the House when the Government opposed a motion from the Labour Party to have the Ansbacher deposits included in the remit of the tribunal in the first place. Instead of the disgraceful contempt we have seen so far for the House and the mantra of "hit me now with the peace process in my arms", the Fianna Fáil Party could have lectured us, if they chose, on the importance of public service. They could have pointed to the patriotic performance of former Fianna Fáil Leaders, but they should have admitted that serious damage is being done to politics arising from the activities of half a dozen senior Fianna Fáil personnel who are helping the various tribunals with their inquiries at present. Yet, there was not one word of criticism tonight.
The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, in an arrogant speech that certainly was not written by any of her civil servants, said we should leave behind the shadow of unsubstantiated innuendo. Deputy Carey said that as soon as he finds out what is going on, he will condemn them but he will not condemn now.
Deputy Patrick Carey.
If we do not know enough about the damage that is being done in the eyes of ordinary citizens to the State and practice of politics, we have learned nothing from the last decade. No senior Minister has been present in the House tonight for this debate or purported to answer for the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We do not know why the Tánaiste has taken a vow of silence on this one. It is markedly different from the stance she has taken so far on this issue and perhaps she should take to heart the words of her Attorney General when he remarked that a party that stands for nothing will stand for anything. It is time the Progressive Democrats looked at the implications of what is happening and forced Fianna Fáil, in the interests of all of us who believe in public service, to face up to the damage being done to politics.
This is the first occasion I have heard Deputy Hanafin speak since her appointment as Minister of State and I wish her well with her new responsibilities.
However, listening to her speech was extraordinary in relation to what is supposed to be responsible for the pass in which politics finds itself. I thought, when history breaks out in Fianna Fáil, we all have to run. She blamed just about everything except original sin for the actions of her party. I love the phrase: "They cannot best the charisma and success of Deputy Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach". This concept of charisma is one for which we have paid a high price. Now nobody wants to know former Taoiseach Charles Haughey and some question whether he was ever a member of Fianna Fáil. I have heard a Minister ask if he ever paid his subscription for membership. Does he carry a card? Maybe he does not exist at all.
I remember charisma in action. I remember a certain class of person practically breaking each other's ribs to get near him when he was at the height of his powers and his abuse of public office. Let us be clear: when Deputy Hanafin uses a phrase like "Fianna Fáil is leading the way"– an unfortunate phrase – they are leading the way into the tribunals to give evidence, one after the other. One of the phrases people like myself – who came in to serve in public life – are unhappy with is the "politicians' tribunal." It is time we spoke directly. There is at least an over-representation of politicians from one party being investigated by the tribunal.
None of this happened by accident. If one goes back to the 1960s when much of this began, a culture was created within a party of many fine achievements and which has many fine members today. I am making no accusations against all members of Fianna Fáil, but the cult and culture that surrounded Mr. Haughey in his day – and all the others – were sustained by something outside membership of this House. It was sustained by the kind of people one saw in attendance, the kind of people anxious to be acolytes. They were people from the shady end of the building industry who were not interested in making fast money from building or rentals. They were people who had perhaps not built at all for some time but who had bought land where building might take place and then sold it again. They were always around. The motion is about this: how could a couple of innocents be sustained in this field of people behaving in a particular way? We are asked to believe that the person who is now Taoiseach knew nothing. It was going on all around him and he knew nothing.
One moves on to different matters. When I was a Minister with responsibility for broadcasting I was pilloried for different things I did in relation to RTE, such as abolishing the cap. Some of those making prime appearances before the tribunal are those who said they would put manners on RTE. Their chief priests in attendance said: "We will soon have our own station to tell our own story". I loved the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin's comment: "They will get their answer from the opinion polls". If the people want to say yes to that, let it be known that there are some of us who will say no. I would not want that. It is a great reflection if that behaviour is acceptable.
Again, let us be frank. There are people who have worked all their lives, paying their tax week in, week out and who have taken lectures. In the 1980s they took lectures from someone who was living like the last days of the Borgias. In the Hanafin analysis this is some kind of frailty that is human and that breaks out in the best of parties in even the greatest countries. Dear, dear. We are going to have a suggested general confession from all elected representatives as a substitute for those appearing before the tribunal and those who, miraculously, were never touched by any of it. It is something that stretches credulity nearly as far as the immaculate conception.
In relation to the matters coming before us, there is another sinister undercurrent – the suggestion that maybe all these tribunals are taking place under flawed legislation, that they are lasting a long time, that they are costly and what will come out of them in the end? The answer to that is to look at how long they got away with it. Is it in the public interest, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs, to have buried the truth? People ask why all this was not discovered earlier. I remember nearly 20 years ago when people were digging for the truth in relation to the background of some of the matters now being investigated. The answer is that they were well buried and well hidden with the collusion of alleged professionals who had sold their professional skills to a task of deceit, fraud and criminality. What would a person in an unemployed centre, who elects a Member to the House, say if they were told they were just the same as a person elected by those who represent the banks?
The secret in the opinion polls is that the public paid a heavy price for the suggestion that perhaps because this was going on for some people it might, at the end of the day, be for the good of the country also. That was the feeling at the time and there is still a lot of it left. It would suit everyone if it could be said that all politicians are the same. Not all politicians are the same and not everyone in Fianna Fáil is the same. However, Fianna Fáil would have been better off coming into the House and saying that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste would answer the questions that have been asked and that they wish to detail the meetings and questions that took place and the information and answers that resulted. This is not what we are getting; instead we are getting rhetorical flourishes and, as Deputy Rabbitte said, the disgraceful notion of "hit us now with the North under one oxter and the new agreement under the other". There was always a moment of terror in Northern Ireland when Fianna Fáil used to bang the green drum as the reverberations all over the island were singularly less than helpful.
What we must do in relation to the motion is to restore the practice of public service. I have been very careful to acknowledge the contribution made by all political parties, but I find it a bit much to listen to all this wind, which is a mixture of corners, tackling the man and not the ball, charisma, success and the Taoiseach. It is a lot more than that. The time has come for us to know clearly and unequivocally what the Taoiseach asked the Deputy in question, the answers he got and the circumstances in which he got them and what the Tánaiste knew. There is a kind of smokescreen that it will pass, that people will get tired of it and that suddenly people will awake and it will have been a bad dream and people will be back to the good old party. We are not talking about "shadows of persistent and unsubstantiated innuendo". We are talking about malpractice, destruction of public trust, damage to the civil society and enormous evasion. There is also the suggestion that there is such innocence prevailing at the top of the party responsible for all of this that they are somehow or other separated so well from reality that even if it were true they would not know it.
Debate adjourned.