Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Oct 2002

Vol. 554 No. 5

Second Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments: Motion.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Cullen):

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

– notes the findings of the Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments;

– condemns the actions of those against whom the tribunal has made findings;

– commends the work of Mr. Justice Flood and his legal team; and

– expresses its continuing support for the ongoing work of the tribunal.

The interim report of the Flood Tribunal is a highly significant contribution to Irish public and political life. Its findings on the modules completed to date are unambiguous and show the thoroughness with which it has carried out its investigations. Mr. Justice Flood has sent out a very clear message to anyone who has any corrupt dealings, or is contemplating such dealings in relation to the planning system, that they will not get away with it. As the Government Minister with responsibility for the operation of the planning system, I fully support this message.

The Garda Commissioner, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Revenue Commissioners and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement are examining the interim report. Mr. Justice Flood has already sent the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Corruption and the act of hindering or obstructing a tribunal are criminal offences and the law in this regard must be enforced. The findings of the tribunal are a blow to the political system. It is unacceptable for any person who holds high office and the trust of both the Government and the public, to accept corrupt payments in return for political favours.

A good land use planning system is an essential part of ensuring a high quality of life for all of us. Its purpose is to ensure that development is orderly and sustainable and that it leads to a better physical environment where people can live and work. Land use planning is necessarily complex as it involves mediating development in the public interest. Property values are affected by planning decisions and it is essential that the principles of probity, fairness and transparency are seen to operate. As Minister for the Environment and Local Government, I am determined that the planning system should be transparent, sustainable and efficient and support a modern competitive economy. The development plan process allows us to develop a positive vision of the future of an area and monitor the achievement of that vision. It must allow us to ensure that development land is delivered on time and in the right place and with necessary services. The plan must also promote the conservation and protection of the environment. The community must also, of course, be generally satisfied that the vision set out in the development plan is right.

Mr. Justice Flood has made his interim findings and they are disturbing. He has not made any specific recommendations at this stage in relation to amendments to planning, local government or ethics in public office legislation. However, although much important work remains to be completed by the tribunal, some ongoing improvements of planning law and procedure can still be beneficially advanced by the Government in the meantime. The Government has already made a series of significant changes to planning legislation in the Planning and Development Act, 2000, to make the planning system more transparent. The Act introduced more opportunities for public consultation into the process for making development plans, particularly before a formal draft plan is made. Strict timetables have been introduced so that development plans must be adopted every six years and a two year timetable is set out for doing so. Therefore the practice where development plans were let get out of date and where the adoption period was dragged out has been eliminated. Procedures for the making of declarations of interest by elected members and officials have been updated. The Act also provides for mandatory codes of conduct for members and officials of planning authorities. These provisions have now been superseded by the Local Government Act, 2001, which sets out comprehensive ethics provisions for local government staff and members in the operation of all their functions, not just planning ones.

National codes of conduct are currently being drawn up by my Department to give effect to these provisions and are being finalised as a matter of urgency. In the context of an ethical framework it is not merely enough to avoid actual impropriety. The actions of all participants must also be seen to be above suspicion. In order to avoid any risk of damage to public confidence in local government any appearance of improper conduct must be avoided.

Up to now, local authorities generally have not had a national spatial framework within which to position their development plans. For the past three years the authorities in the greater Dublin area have had the benefit of the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area. A national spatial strategy for the entire country is being finalised and will be published shortly. Local authorities will be required to ensure that development plans are in line with the NSS. The strategy will set out a blueprint for the development of the country as a whole and for the achievement of more balanced regional development and will provide a clear context for local authority development plans.

Over the past five years my Department has been pro-actively engaging with planning policy advice. We have issued planning guidelines on matters such as increasing residential densities, wind farms mobile phone masts and child care. Draft guidelines on landscape protection have also issued. The purpose of these guidelines is to assist local authorities in carrying out their planning functions and to give all involved in the planning system up to date guidance on best practice. My Department is working on draft guidelines on the adoption of development plans and has also commenced consultation on revised and updated guidelines for development control.

In light of the findings of the Flood Tribunal the suggestion has been voiced that land use zoning functions should be made or at least overseen by a national zoning committee, possibly chaired by a High Court judge and staffed by planners. The central tenet in these suggestions is that zoning is not appropriate to local authorities or councillors.

Mr. Justice Flood has not made any findings in his interim report that the rezoning of land was procured corruptly. He found that Mr. Burke assured those present at the time of the payment of moneys to him that he understood that the payment was being made to him in connection with the proposal to alter the planning status of the Murphy lands and further assured those present that he would honour his commitment to do so. Mr. Justice Flood found that the payment received by Mr. Burke amounted to a corrupt payment and all present were aware that it was such. However, the lands in question were not rezoned. The provisions of the Planning Acts would have contributed to this outcome, whereby rezoning is carried out in public, following public consultation and by majority decision of the elected members. Therefore, no one person can ensure the outcome of a proposal to zone land. That is as it should be. The vast majority of local councillors are honest people who carry out their functions faithfully and with no personal gain.

Zoning functions are only one among a range of significant planning policy decisions for which local councils are responsible. It is also the case that many rural local authorities carry out little or no zoning. Elected councils are also concerned with adopting housing strategies, local area plans and strategic development zones for housing and economic development, approving proposed developments which would be in material contravention of the development plan, adopting a register of protected structures, and specifying other important non-zoning objectives of their development plans.

Subsidiarity in the taking of decisions at the lowest appropriate level is a principle which has been endorsed at international and national level. It is a basic consideration, for example, in the definition of our relationship with the European Union and in charters for good governance issued by the Council of Europe and other bodies. It also guides Irish policies on good governance. We can all recall that, in 1999, the Irish people voted at a referendum to enshrine a role for local government in our Constitution.

The reform of local Government undertaken by the last Government was aimed at ensuring a modern dynamic system. The strategic policy committees were introduced to broaden participation and these committees now provide a valuable input to development plan policies. The county and city development boards have also contributed greatly.

Comhar, the National Sustainable Development Partnership, recently published principles for sustainable development. Principle 11 provides that decision making should be devolved to the appropriate level and principle 12 states that stake holder participation should be promoted at all levels of decision making.

It is also the case that land use and zoning decisions are generally local government functions in other jurisdictions. For all of the reasons I have outlined, I am inclined to the view that land use planning is generally appropriate to decision making at local level. The key challenge, therefore, is to ensure openness, probity, fairness and efficiency in the operation of the planning system.

It seems to be better, therefore, at this stage to press ahead with the recent reforms of the 2000 Act, but also to await the recommendations of Mr. Justice Flood in due course. The first development plans to be adopted under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, are due for completion by the end of 2003. We will assess the process in light of that experience. The revised development control procedures only came into force on 11 March this year, so it is a little early yet to judge their impact on increasing efficiency.

Aside from the planning code itself, the Taoiseach outlined in his public statement of 26 September 2002, the intensive campaign of legislative reform which has been launched to ensure the highest standards in public office. The Prevention of Corruption Act , 2002, the Standards in Public Office Act, 2001, and the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) Act, 2001, have all recently been passed into law.

In particular, as part of the Standards in Public Office Act, 2001, the Standards in Public Office Commission is empowered to carry out inquiries and investigations into the conduct of politicians and those in public life. The Commission is chaired by a judge of the High Court and has powers to order the production of documentation and information. The Standards in Public Office Commission is a permanent statutory body set up to monitor, investigate and regulate the conduct of those elected to serve the Irish people or who are employed in the public service. This is to ensure the maintenance of proper ethical standards. This Act imposes on politicians and others an obligation to have one's tax affairs in order, and to swear a statutory declaration that this is so. An independent and powerful body such as the Standards in Public Office Commission with an ongoing mandate to supervise and maintain proper ethical standards is the best guarantee that what has happened in the past will not be permitted in the future.

The Government also intends to quickly enact legislation to recover assets obtained by or enhanced through corruption. Proceeds obtained through this legislation will be paid to the Exchequer and held for the benefit of those who have suffered, namely, the Irish people.

A Corruption Assets Bureau will be established which will recover assets corruptly obtained and also any increase in the value of an asset that has been obtained through corruption. The proposed new legislation will specifically empower a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent – acting as an officer of the Corruption Assets Bureau to form an opinion based in whole or in part on the report of a tribunal of inquiry, whether the tribunal reported before or after the passing of the legislation.

Under the new legislation, when a tribunal reports, if, in the opinion of the tribunal, persons received or gave corrupt payments, or received benefits as a result of corrupt practices in which they participated, a chief superintendent acting as an officer of the Corruption Assets Bureau can go to the High Court and obtain freezing orders in respect of assets corruptly obtained or whose value has been corruptly enhanced.

Second, the proposed new legislation will empower the High Court to appoint inspectors to the affairs of an individual or a company whose task will be to trace assets – assets corruptly received or assets whose value were corruptly enhanced through acquisitions and disposals and to report to the High Court on the current value of assets obtained with assets-funds which represent the direct or indirect proceeds of corruption.

Third, the High Court will be given specific statutory power to adjust the value of assets corruptly received into current day values. For example, if a person corruptly received £1,000 in 1960 and bought a house with that money the High Court will be entitled to order that the current day value of the house be frozen or forfeited.

Fourth, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1976, applies to property which directly or indirectly represents the proceeds of crime. The proposed legislation will extend that definition to include reference to property whose value was corruptly enhanced. It is therefore clear that the Government will not tolerate corruption in public life.

When Mr Justice Flood took on the task of investigating allegations of corruption in the plan ning process in 1997, neither he nor the Government expected that the work of the tribunal would be still under way five years later. However, we all knew he had a difficult task ahead of him. My predecessor, Deputy Michael Smith, when Minister for the Environment in 1993, directed that the Garda Síochána be asked to investigate allegations of corruption in the planning system which were reported in the media. The investigations did not disclose evidence which, in the view of the Garda, would warrant charges against any individual. Mr. Justice Flood has shown that a tribunal, led by a tenacious and committed chairman, is an effective means of investigating matters such as these.

Mr Justice Flood has indicated that he expects that a final report on the matters, which are the subject of current private hearings being conducted by the tribunal, will not be delivered for at least another two years. The tribunal has cost almost €22 million to date. However, the Government is wholly committed to providing the tribunal with the resources it requires to continue with work set out in its terms of reference so that these matters can be resolved once and for all.

The tribunal is also being enlarged by the addition of two further members who will be appointed shortly and will assist Mr. Justice Flood in giving full consideration to all evidence brought before the tribunal. It is essential that all those persons asked to co-operate and assist the tribunal in its work do so in a full and truthful manner. There is no excuse for the failure of persons to provide information to the tribunal or for hindering or obstructing the work of the tribunal.

The Government welcomes the interim report of the Flood tribunal and the clear message it sends out to all persons who engage in corrupt practices. The tribunal has shown that wrongdoing will be exposed. The legislation enacted and proposed by the Government will ensure that we have anti-corruption legislation appropriate to a modern democracy. This legislation will be enforced. It behoves all Members of the House to uphold the principles of public service.

Mr. Kenny:

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann:" and substitute the following:

– condemns the conduct of former Deputy Ray Burke;

– deplores the failure of the Taoiseach to properly investigate the allegations against Ray Burke, prior to appointing him as Minister for Foreign Affairs and to explain why he did not speak to Mr. James Gogarty on the issue;

– calls on the Taoiseach to fully explain the extent to which he was aware of the allegations against Ray Burke before he appointed him to his Government;

– calls on the Tánaiste to disclose details of the assurances given to her by the Taoiseach in relation to Ray Burke which led her to accept Mr. Burke's appointment;

– demands that the Government investigate all Government decisions prompted by Ray Burke when he was a Minister;

– calls on the Taoiseach to provide details of any report or evidence supplied to him by former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds prior to appointing Ray Burke to the senior and sensitive Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

– calls on the Taoiseach to provide details of investigations carried out by his ministerial colleagues into allegations of misconduct by Ray Burke;

– demands that Dáil Éireann now sets up a permanent anti-corruption commission and a land development agency commission as proposed by Fine Gael; and

– requests that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste both answer questions arising from the report for a period of one hour at the conclusion of the debate.

Before dealing with the findings of the interim report of Mr. Justice Flood, I compliment him on the thoroughness of his investigation and the clarity of his language. His plain speaking blew out equivocation. It rid us forever of the notion that some of us are above the law. His report sets the standard for all other tribunals.

Mr. Justice Flood has left us in no doubt that when it comes to securing probity in Irish political life, there can be no more weasel words, no more poor recollection, no more squirming, avoiding, posturing, shirking or smirking. He made it crystal clear that in the conduct of the public business, there should be only truth, truth told willingly, wholly and on time. Today, on behalf of my party and of the thoroughly disillusioned people of the country, I thank him. He has done the State some service.

The State, with all its connotations in Irish political life, is just one of the critical contexts in which we must consider this report today. It must also be considered in other key contexts – our national institutions, the criteria necessary for high public office, appointment to Cabinet, political and national leadership, even democracy itself.

I am proud to be the leader of the party that founded this State. The Governments that succeeded us followed our example, setting great store by the integrity of the Executive and the blind impartiality of the institutions. Consequently, Ireland built up a fine international reputation as a country where the Government and its institutions were above reproach. That reputation was the basis of our so-called tiger economy. The word went out that Ireland was a country worth investing in. When other countries were rocked by scandal and corruption, Ireland was clean, that is, until successive Fianna Fáil-led Governments unleashed sleaze and scandal on a scale never seen before, and that will I hope not be seen again, on the politics and institutions of our country. In the past ten years, sleaze and scandal have been attached umbilically to the senior coalition partner – blank cheques, Mazri, Haughey, Lawlor, Sheedy, Foley, Flynn, Ellis and Burke.

Mr. Cullen:

What about Lowry?

Mr. Kenny:

I am talking about the Fianna Fáil-led coalition.

Mr. Cullen:

The Deputy is being very selective.

Mr. Kenny:

The interim report of the Flood tribunal adds two further monstrous epitaphs to Fianna Fáil's already soiled reputation – bribery and corruption. The Taoiseach presided over much of this sleaze and therefore he has serious questions to answer. He was the chairman, the chief, and it was on his watch and in his time that it happened. His flat refusal to accept responsibility in the matter and his outright rejection in terms of making himself accountable to this House or to the people sees Fianna Fáil become more rank and more odious by the day because the stench of corruption travels far.

Is it any wonder then that our reputation is tarnished, that the perception is gaining ground that Ireland is a place where favours can be bought, where the public, especially our young people, in all their passion and idealism, are deeply suspicious of or even utterly indifferent to politics and politicians?

Ireland is facing an uncertain future. Inflation is now the highest in Europe. Cuts to public services, secret or otherwise, went from none to €300 million to €500 million and now €1 billion. Who knows what the figures will be next week, next month or next year. Jobs are fewer and far less secure. That uncertain future demands a leader equal to its challenges. The findings of the Flood report provide incontrovertible evidence that the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, by his judgment and his action is no longer that leader.

If there has been one constant theme in his entire political career it is this, and it gives me no great pleasure to say it – an unbroken thread of denial, shiftiness and contradiction. The findings of the Flood report and its attendant revelations have shown the Taoiseach to be dogged by denials, explanations and clarifications. Indeed they reveal his past failure to lead as pathological. Flood severely questions the Taoiseach's judgment, not only as being the man for the job in the first instance but especially for the tough days ahead. If he was the man for the job, how could he have appointed Ray Burke to the third highest political office in the land? Was this not the acid test of his judgment and leadership?

The media and senior politicians advised him quite clearly against this but he ignored that advice and doggedly pursued the elevation of a man known to be on the take, over whom ques tions hung and in respect of whom unease, rumour and other persistent allegations lingered. You might say it was an intriguingly unpolitic decision for one so cute – sheer GUBU. One has to ask, did Ray Burke have something on him? His investigation of the Burke allegations was a total sham. He told the Dáil on 28 May 1998: "I tried to find out the truth but got nowhere." Then he made an immediate contradiction: "I did not go around as an investigator, I simply tried to follow up inquiries that had been made but people would not give me any information."

Mr. Cullen:

They did not give them to the guards when they inquired.

Mr. Kenny:

To whom was the Taoiseach talking? Did he not ask Dunlop, Bailey or Brennan, Fianna Fáil stalwarts all? Could he not have gone straight to James Gogarty, who was the named chief witness against Burke? No, but he went up every tree in north Dublin. Would any of these people not have confirmed the truth to him or was it a case of being afraid to unearth the true extent of what exactly was going on? Make no mistake about it, the Taoiseach has questions to answer and he should answer them now because the people, like this Dáil, are waiting. A total of 100,000 people either bought the report or downloaded it from the website. They must have been very surprised this morning to hear the Government Chief Whip let the cat out of the bag when she said that the only questions the Taoiseach will answer are questions that he answered previously in the same way. Perhaps they will be one of the following quotations.

On 27 September 1997 the Taoiseach stated: "I asked Ray Burke, back in the summer before I set up the Cabinet, about this story of the £30,000 and he assured me at that particular time that he had received this money but that he had done nothing for the company and that he was involved in nothing wrong".

On 28 May 1998 the Taoiseach stated: "I do not recall if I particularly asked about any individual company". Later on he stated:

I cannot recall if I asked him if he received money from Murphys or JMSE . . . In terms of any discussion I would have had with him, he did not tell me about that contribution.

The answers go on and on but whatever nugget the Taoiseach chooses, one thing is sure. The public awaits him convinced that the truth will out eventually.

Mr. Cullen:

It has.

Mr. Kenny:

The moral tone of the Government of which the Minister, Deputy Cullen, is a member is dubious. It bought the election. It lied about the public finances and greased politics with business – remember the organ-grinder and the monkey – to get the vote out in marginal Macroom. It broke the country in one Dáil term, all in the middle of a boom. The Taoiseach appointed a corrupt man to high political office and, when challenged, he defended him royally. He stated: "A good man hounded out of office by rumour and unsubstantiated allegation". At first, Ray was the best of them but then, true to form with the Taoiseach, he was the worst. As he put it in his memorable statement to RTE's "Prime Time", he was "deserving of all the public criticism made of him". Elsewhere he stated: "Ray betrayed us, he let us down". Today, those same words apply to the Taoiseach himself because by refusing to answer questions that go to the very heart of power and public life, he lets down himself and his country and denigrates democratic politics. When it comes to Ray Burke, his man for the job, the Taoiseach should explain what he knew and when he knew it.

The problem, however, is no longer Ray Burke, who will be dealt with eventually by the law. The problem is with the Taoiseach, in his capacity as leader of the country. Let me ask the Taoiseach, therefore, to answer the following questions, as he has promised to do fully when he replies to this debate tomorrow.

What evidence, oral or written, did he receive from the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, before he appointed Ray Burke? What evidence, oral or written, did he receive from the former Minister for Justice, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, before he appointed Ray Burke? What evidence, oral or written, did he receive from the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, before he appointed Ray Burke? What evidence did he provide to the Tánaiste? Was it not clear to both of them that a man was being appointed to Cabinet about whom deep and legitimate suspicions were held, a man whom both knew had taken a £30,000 corrupt payment? Was there no other person of clean character who could have been appointed? What reason can the Taoiseach give for introducing retrospective legislation that benefited one citizen only and a known Fianna Fáil supporter to boot? Why did he travel to Macroom, County Cork, before the election to announce the purchase of a plant and job creation with the chief executive of the Élan company when that company's board had not approved the purchase and the IDA had not authorised it? Did the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment know about this or was it because of Mr. P. J. Mara's consultancy? Can the Taoiseach explain his strange interregnum decision to tax designate the Golden Island site in Athlone against departmental and official advice, after the Labour Party had walked out of that Government? Was his role in the State's purchase of the Battle of the Boyne site, which netted huge profits for a close friend of the Taoiseach, entirely subject to scrutiny?

Why, after Mr. Justice Flood's verdict that Ray Burke had acted against the public interest, will the Taoiseach not now instigate a thorough investigation of all Government decisions to which he was party, especially in the controversial area of communications, oil and gas licences and any other decisions promoted by the said corrupt Minister? What of the passport files, currently with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and by all accounts now considerably expanded? Why was Ray Burke so anxious that no public inquiry would be held into their allocation? Now that he has read the file the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform must respond fully.

The Taoiseach's denials were without substance in the case of Ray Burke, despite persistent rumours. Similar persistent rumours now abound that he himself may be one of four currently serving Ministers who received a dubious payment of £80,000. While rumour is no substitute for fact, if the Taoiseach's conscience is clear, why does he not deal with this matter as he did so effectively in the case of the allegations by Mr. Starry O'Brien?

It must be difficult for the newly-elected Fianna Fáil TDs who find themselves in this political quagmire. Perhaps some will do the decent thing and put pressure on their leader to come clean. He refused to do so in regard to Burke. He is doing it again in regard to Flood. If there are good people on the Fianna Fáil benches, and I strongly suspect there are, they will have the opportunity to show themselves tomorrow. They should stand by the truth, and by the Republic.

What about the absent Progressive Democrats, those watchdogs for the public? How can they stand idly by on their moral mountain in regard to this matter?

The Taoiseach says he is a democrat but he is now behaving like a despot. Just as his trusted lieutenants, Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor, were not above the law, so he is not above question. His inquisitors are losing patience. His people are losing faith. His country, and ours, is losing credibility internationally.

The Nice referendum has brought us firmly within the sights of those fledgling democracies of eastern Europe. It is a damning indictment of the Taoiseach and the Government that there can be even the merest whiff that their behaviour, collectively and individually, would not be entirely out of place in those old regimes – politics greasing the wheels of business, business lining the pockets of politicians, leaders who believe that they have no need to be publicly accountable. It is a bleak page in this nation's history. If the Nice referendum is passed, which I expect will be the case, it will be in spite of this Government and not because of it.

The Taoiseach, in his handling of this affair, has brought the highest political office in the land into the lowest possible public repute. Personally, he may care less, as he indicated the other night, but politically he should be conscious of the great onus that is upon him and show even some limited understanding of his responsibilities as Taoiseach. The people made him their leader. They gave him his power. They entrusted to him a commodity so precious that people in every part of the world, in every generation, have endured war, torture, exile, prison and even death to attain it. They gave him their vote. That vote gave him power and now, in the name of democracy, he must pay for it.

Truth is the price and that same truth will be the watchword for the Fine Gael Party. The Government should get used to it. Our actions now will determine how much we can limit the damage this issue has caused for the future.

My party has put forward two specific proposals, which will be dealt with by Deputy Allen and others, aimed at preventing any future corruption of the planning process. We favour the establishment of a national land use commission to certify all future rezoning decisions by local authorities and the establishment of a permanent anti-corruption office to investigate allegations against public representatives or public officials.

I want to put it on record that if in its future work the Flood tribunal finds that a serving or former Fine Gael public representative acted improperly, there can be no room for him or her in this party. The people we serve and represent are entitled to propriety and probity. Probity is exactly what this debate is about. Further, it is about the kind of leadership we have, the kind we want and the kind we will need in the future. Is it the kind that appoints Mr. Ray Burke as Minister for Foreign Affairs? Is it the kind that appoints Liam Lawlor to the Committee on Members' Interests? Is it the kind that appointed Denis Foley to the DIRT inquiry and left him there long after he had been exposed as the holder of an Ansbacher account? Or is it the kind that appoints a director of elections for the Nice campaign whom Mr. Justice Flood found to have failed to co-operate with the tribunal, yet whom the Taoiseach finds to be completely innocent?

What kind of leadership do we get from a Taoiseach who says that the tribunal has nothing at all to do with him, that in fact he is hardly mentioned? Is that the kind of leader we want for our country, our children and our future? I think not. The Taoiseach's central presence in all these sordid events has done this State no service. The persistent allegations and swirling doubts do us no good as a nation. Our reputation is tarnished and our credibility is weakened; our integrity is undermined and our people are embarrassed. In most other democracies the Taoiseach would have resigned. Regrettably, the Taoiseach is in many ways past his peak as leader. For him, the ebb tide has now begun to flow. This is so serious – the first case ever of a tribunal's confirming the existence of a corrupt Minister appointed, with knowledge, by this Taoiseach – that if he fails to answer all the critical questions fully and completely he should consider his position and step down as Taoiseach. Otherwise, inevitably, that right will be removed from him.

Mr. Howlin:

I am glad to be given the opportunity of speaking on one of the most momentous reports ever debated in this House. I regret the circumstances that prevent the Taoiseach from being present, but I would have expected the Tánaiste and senior members of the Government to be present for the opening comments on this matter which has galvanised the country in recent weeks. No Taoiseach in history has fallen from grace as quickly or as completely as Mr. Bertie Ahern. The man who could walk on water a few short months ago is now perceived as a political liability even by his own. The face that looked down upon us from every hoarding, lamp-post and pole during the May general election campaign is absent from the poles and hoardings during the Nice referendum campaign of this October. The allegations of Fianna Fáil Deputies gathered in huddled groups, weary of the damage he has done to their party, is evidence enough. Finally, the Taoiseach has been found out.

The people expected great things from this Taoiseach – the professional ordinary man, the man of the people. They gave him their trust. That trust was broken in the aftermath of the general election. It was shattered beyond repair by the findings of Mr. Justice Flood in his second interim report. I do not know why the Taoiseach appointed Mr. Raphael Burke to the Cabinet in June 1997. Only Ray Burke and the Taoiseach know that. I do not know why he brought Liam Lawlor back from the political wilderness. I do not believe we shall know the answers to those questions at the end of this debate either, despite the protestations of the Taoiseach on the Order of Business today.

The bottom line is quite simple. There were umpteen warnings to the Taoiseach about Ray Burke prior to and after June 1997. Each of them was individually significant, including those of Jimmy Guerin, Fianna Fáil member and activist, whose voice and opinion would be known and trusted by the Taoiseach; Mr. Gogarty; the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, reporting to the Taoiseach the views of a whistle-blower from inside JMSE; and a former Taoiseach, Mr. Albert Reynolds. There are probably more we do not know about. Each of those voices is significant by itself, but together they were surely compelling and damning. At the absolute minimum they warranted serious investigation. The Taoiseach could not even bring himself to ask Mr. Burke a direct question. More telling still, the Taoiseach chose Deputy Dermot Ahern to make inquiries on his behalf. It beggars belief that he could not confront Mr. Burke and simply ask him a direct question. No doubt the Taoiseach now regrets his infamous remark about having been up every tree in north Dublin.

However, even the minuscule inquiries he did succeed in making should have been enough. On 24 June 1997, Deputy Dermot Ahern reported to the Taoiseach that JMSE was denying making any payment to Mr. Burke. Why would a company, being asked in confidence by a senior mem ber of the party it strongly supported, deny making a political donation to another senior member of the party if that donation was above board, genuine, legitimate and satisfactory? Yet by 27 June the Taoiseach was able to tell the Tánaiste that the payment JMSE claimed had not been made had been made. How was he in a position to do so? We do not know, because in the Dáil on 28 May – fast becoming an infamous date for the Taoiseach – he sought to suggest, among other things, that he was not aware of the donation until Ray Burke's Dáil statement about the affair.

What we do know is that he certainly did not ask Mr. Burke himself, or if he did, he denied doing so to this House when asked that specific question by Deputy Quinn – again, not surprisingly, on 28 May 1998. The Taoiseach has since sought to suggest that he did not mean what he said on 28 May, but his colleague, Deputy Ahern, thought he knew the line he was supposed to follow. In defence of the position that he thought the Taoiseach was adopting about his ignorance of the JMSE payment, and as related by the Taoiseach to the House, Deputy Ahern told the Dáil a week later that the Taoiseach was in no position to know about the Burke payment.

Debate adjourned.