Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the nature of the agreement or understanding between the Government and Deputy Collins; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21906/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Agreements with Members.
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the understanding which has been reached between the Government and Deputy Collins; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23085/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the nature of the agreement or understanding between the Government and Deputy Collins; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23912/03]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the nature of the agreement or understanding reached between the Government and Deputy Collins; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24889/03]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:128 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the nature of the agreement or understanding between the Government and Deputy Collins; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27318/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, and No. 128 together.
I can confirm to the Dáil that Deputy Collins communicated to the Government Chief Whip his resignation from the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. There is no agreement or understanding between the Government and the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach give a definition of the status of Fianna Fáil Deputies who have either resigned the whip or have had the whip taken from them? It appears the only real penalty applied to them is that they miss the excitement of Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meetings. Will the Taoiseach indicate the numbers within his ranks who, like Deputy Collins, have resigned the whip or have had the whip withdrawn from them?
That is outside the scope of the question.
Of course, you do not like the scope of the question.
The Deputy has gone outside it.
It is all internal.
Deputy Collins informed the chairman of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Kirk, that he was resigning the whip. I want to know from the Taoiseach if it is possible to get a definition, without mentioning geographics or demographics, of what status Deputy Collins now has and the status of any other Deputy within the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party who has resigned or has had the whip withdrawn from him or her. Is special attention being given to these people? While Deputy Collins did not vote with the Government on 5, 6 or 11 November and did not bother to participate, something happened on the way to Damascus because he voted on 12 November with the Government. Is he back or is he not? Demographics, geographics, is he with Fianna Fáil or against it? What is the definition of his status and that of others?
As I said in my reply, Deputy Collins is not a member of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party.
The Taoiseach has had plenty of time to think about the relationships between Deputy Collins and Fianna Fáil given that he knew of Deputy Collins's difficulties in June but did nothing about them. Having given so much time to the matter is the Taoiseach in a position to tell the House how Deputy Collins's situation may affect the way tax clearance certificates are to be dealt with in the future? Are there any lessons to be learned from Deputy Collins's difficulties given that apparently there was no problem in obtaining a tax clearance certificate? If that is the case, is it the Taoiseach's view that there is not much validity in a tax clearance certificate?
The Deputy is going outside the scope of the question.
We all need a change in the rules and the Taoiseach is the one to herald the change.
Deputy Collins and all Members of the Fianna Fáil Party and the other parties, so far as I know, had a tax clearance certificate. In regard to Deputy Collins, an issue has been raised in a Revenue report. That is the subject of independent handling by the Public Offices Commission which has full responsibility and full powers to deal with that matter and I am not going to do its work for it.
That is typical. It is meaningless.
What lessons does the Taoiseach think the House and the political system ought to learn from the experience with Deputy Collins? Does the Taoiseach agree that in the minds of the public when he said, as he was able to say from the United States, that as far as he was concerned Deputy Collins had a tax free certificate, that seems to convey to the public that his tax—
Tax clearance certificate.
I am immensely grateful. On reflection it looks as if he did have a tax free certificate for quite a while.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to continue with his question and not to allow himself to be side-tracked.
That seems to be the problem. He had a tax free certificate. Does the Taoiseach agree that in the view of the man and woman in the street, that means that one's tax affairs are in order? What are the implications of that for the system we operate to underpin Members' elections to the House where the general view was that if one was in possession of a tax clearance certificate, one's tax affairs were in order but now it turns out that is not the case?
As I said previously on this point, I agree with what Deputy Rabbitte says. I understood a tax clearance certificate meant that one's tax affairs were totally in order. Whether it means that or not, we have to wait until the Public Offices Commission investigates this matter. Deputy Collins informed me he had a tax clearance certificate, that he had sorted out a tax issue with the Revenue Commissioners but that it would be published on a list which would be in the public domain shortly. He told me that last June. It did not come into the public domain until September. He stated that he believed it would lead to the Public Offices Commission examining the matter. At this stage Deputy Collins has opted on advice to deal fully with the commission, as he must under law. We must wait to see the circumstances of the tax issue that he resolved with the Revenue Commissioners, what Revenue's view was, how that affected the tax clearance certificates and how the Public Offices Commission, under its statutory powers, interprets that. I honestly do not know the answers to these questions. We must wait for the report.
When the Taoiseach was in New York he described as "spongers" the decent compliant taxpayers who campaigned against the local bin tax regime. Why did he not call Deputy Collins, against whom there is a proven case of tax evasion, a sponger? Is it not the reality that the resignation by Deputy Collins of the Fianna Fáil whip is a nod and a wink to convince the public that Fianna Fáil might take tax evasion seriously? If it did, the party membership of a tax evader would immediately come into question. The reality is that tax evasion is not a serious issue in Fianna Fáil.
The Deputy must ask a question.
If the Taoiseach legally allows millionaires and billionaires to pose as tax exiles to evade their social responsibility in taxation—
We are dealing with Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, and Question No. 128.
I know that.
The Deputy is well outside the scope of these questions.
We are trying to learn lessons from this situation, as several other Deputies have said. I was about to conclude. If the Taoiseach grants millionaires and billionaires tax exile status and allows them evade or avoid taxes to the tune of hundreds of millions, what does it matter if one of the lads does it unofficially?
Deputy Higgins is ahead of me, as always. If he has evidence that Deputy Collins is guilty of tax evasion, which is a criminal offence, perhaps he would give the House the details. It might be better still were he to say it outside the House and allow Deputy Collins deal with it.
Will the Taoiseach explain to the House the ethical basis for agreements with Deputy Collins or other Independent Members of the House? Will he advise us whether he agrees that agreements with so-called Independent Members should be in the public arena where they would be open and transparent?
Should it not be the case that, if there is or has been in the course of this and the previous Governments' terms in office since 1997, a preferential facilitation for Independent Members, as against other elected Members on the Opposition benches, that is something of which the wider public and the relevant constituents should be fully apprised? Does the Taoiseach not agree that we need open and transparent detail of such agreements?
As I stated previously, there is no agreement with Deputy Collins. The previous Government acted in line with the tradition of the House which is that, when a Government does not have a majority, it works with Independent Members by explaining to them and co-operating with them on the legislative programme and dealing with issues of concern to them. That has always been the way.
Will the Taoiseach take Deputy Collins back before the European elections?
The Taoiseach will recall that, shortly after the Revenue Commissioners published Deputy Collins's name in September, that mighty man from Limerick, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, appeared on "Prime Time" and said that the Taoiseach had insisted that Deputy Collins notify the Public Offices Commission of his tax problems last June.
The Deputy's remarks do not arise out of these questions.
They do arise.
Not out of these questions. I suggest that the Deputy submit a question on the issue.
They do arise. They are relevant—
We are dealing with questions about the agreement or understanding between the Government and Deputy Collins.
They are relevant to the agreement or understanding the Government has with Deputy Collins. Will the Taoiseach admit that this statement was not true and that the Public Offices Commission was not notified of the tax problems of Deputy Collins until after his name was published by the Revenue Commissioners? Will he state whether that is a failure or a weakness in the strategy and conditions set up by him?
That matter does not arise from these five questions.
Excuse me, it does arise.
The Chair has ruled that it does not arise. The questions are quite specific.
The Chair has ruled on many occasions in the House, in my presence, that it has no control over the response given by the Taoiseach.
That is correct, but I have control over the contents of a question, and the question—
Is there an understanding between the Government and Deputy Collins in terms of the agreements worked out between them? There is a need for the Taoiseach to answer that. What is the current status of the inquiry into Deputy Collins's behaviour, being conducted by the Taoiseach's party? Will that inquiry be concluded shortly and will the report be published?
On the first issue, I am aware, as I stated previously, that in an interview on RTE television the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, gave in good faith a version of events as he understood them. That was not the version given in the statement issued by the Public Offices Commission. I too clarified the position, which was accepted by the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, and everyone else. There was no problem there.
On the other matter, Deputy Collins has opted to deal with the independent statutory body handling this issue and I am not au fait with how that investigation stands.
Deputy Collins, albeit no longer holding the party whip, is still a member of the Taoiseach's party. Is it not therefore the case that there is an understanding of membership? We are trying to elicit further information. Is the Taoiseach concerned that Deputy Collins remains a party member, having had to secure a tax clearance certificate and indeed swear on oath that he was in compliance with tax laws? Is there not a difficulty for the Taoiseach in having members of his party swearing on oath that they are in total compliance—
That does not arise from these questions.
It involves the relationship between the Taoiseach and Deputy Collins, which is one of party membership. Will the Taoiseach bring about changes for his party membership or for the way in which tax compliance is assured to the public in advance of an election?
I will not comment on this matter in advance of the Public Offices Commission completing its investigations. Experience has shown me that many issues, when investigated, turn out to be totally different. I will be glad to comment when I see the report on these matters.
Has the Government an understanding with Deputy Collins that, for example, he will support the Hanly report? If so, he would be the only Fianna Fáil Deputy in the mid-west region to support it.
He would be the only person in Fianna Fáil to support it.
As I understand from the Taoiseach's answer to Deputy Sargent, the internal Fianna Fáil inquiry or commission has collapsed. Is that due to the fact that he selected as chairman of that inquiry someone whose company made a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners for over €600,000 some years ago?
That does not arise from these five questions.
Will the internal inquiry proceed?
The Public Offices Commission inquiry is taking precedence. I thought that Deputy Rabbitte would at least be fair to a former colleague of his. That person's company made the settlement, but he was not a director of the company at the time, he was a Minister of State. As Deputy Rabbitte knows, he did not have responsibility for those matters. His company made a settlement, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Deputy Collins has decided on his own legal advice that he will deal comprehensively with the Public Offices Commission because it is a statutory body and he will give precedence to it.
Sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, the House has spent 20 minutes on this question and we have gone well outside the scope of the four questions which are similar to each other.
There are four questions.
Sorry, Deputy, there are four questions and they relate to an agreement or understanding between the Government and Deputy Michael Collins. The House has gone well outside the scope of the questions—
No more than when we began. There have been four questions and no answer.
—and it is anxious to move on to other questions.
I am anxious to facilitate the Chair but it is an important subject. After the decades of tax evasion, non-compliance, DIRT accounts, bogus non-resident accounts and all the rest—
That has nothing to do with the questions. We will move on to Question No. 5.
No, a Cheann Comhairle, it has.
The Chair has ruled on the matter.
In respect of the Taoiseach's statement that he has no understanding with Deputy Collins in terms of his future voting arrangements in the House, will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to condemn non-compliance with the tax laws by a member of the parliamentary party of any party in the House?
As I have stated several times, no current Member of the House has brought in more anti-avoidance and anti-evasion legislation than me. I do not believe any other Member has done so since the foundation of the State and certainly no current Member has. As the person who brought in that legislation and took enormous political criticism from the media, business and, to a lesser extent, Members for doing so, of course I subscribe to the standards outlined by the Deputy.
The Taoiseach referred previously on Question Time to a certain status attached to those who are not members of Fianna Fáil or another party and are given the assistance of an official to inform them of issues that arise. Is Deputy Collins in receipt of assistance from the same official or is there such a conduit of information given that he cannot attend Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meetings? How is he informed of the message, whether it be about Hanly or demographics, geographics or whatever? How is he to know how he should address the population on these critical issues? Is an official assigned to assist him in this regard?
A special handler.
He is on his own.
As I stated earlier, there is no agreement or understanding between the Government and the Deputy and neither is he seeking assistance from the office of the Chief Whip or the official who liaises with people who seek it.