Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Jan 2004

Vol. 578 No. 4

Leaders' Questions.

Mr. Kenny

On 10 December, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said outside the House that he had incontrovertible evidence that senior IRA personnel were involved in organised crime in funding Sinn Féin. On 16 December, the Taoiseach, in response to a question from me in the House, said he considered Sinn Féin and the IRA to be two sides of the one coin. Last week, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform elaborated on his claim and said the wall between Sinn Féin and the IRA was like a Chinese wall indivisible and that money available to one organisation was available to another.

Does the Taoiseach believe the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, given the gravity of the claims made by him and that he repeated specifically that he was speaking as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding the information and intelligence made available to him? Has the Taoiseach called him in and examined the evidence available to him, which leaves him in no doubt that funding is being made available, through senior IRA personnel involved in organised crime, to the Sinn Féin Party? If so, what does he propose to do about it in his capacity as Taoiseach and as head of the European Union?

The Taoiseach

I dealt with this matter just before the Christmas break and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has made a number of statements both inside and outside the House on it. I believe he has also answered some written questions today. He made the point that the collection of evidence regarding any criminal matter is a matter for the Garda Síochána. Obviously, it should be left to the Garda and it is a matter for it to decide what resources to use in the pursuit of criminal matters, be it the Criminal Assets Bureau or other parts of the force.

Deputy Kenny correctly stated that in the House before Christmas I dealt with the allegations about the funding of Sinn Féin. I do not want to comment further on those. I will repeat what I said then and have said when I have been asked by journalists since: if some members of Sinn Féin want to make charges of corruption against other parties, they should carefully consider from where they are coming on the issue. I have said that outside the House and I say it again here.

I cannot share with the House the details I receive in confidential briefings from the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on security matters and that has never been done. I have made it clear, however, that I believe that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. Deputy Kenny is correct that I have always said that. Where there are suggestions that the IRA or people with connections to it are involved in crime to benefit the IRA, it raises issues for Sinn Féin, a point I have made several times.

A central goal of the peace process has been to secure the complete cessation of all involvement in criminal activity by paramilitary groups. All Members of the House should continue to use their influence in that regard. I have made that point in all my meetings and we have passed legislation to establish the Independent Monitoring Commission which will now oversee this area. Everyone must co-operate with that body because it has a vital role to play in moving the situation forward.

The investigation and prosecution of criminal activity is a matter for the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions and I do not have a role in that. While there has been no finding in court on this matter, that does not mean investigations will not continue. I do not withdraw the remarks I made in the House in December but I have nothing new to say to Deputy Kenny. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said what he said. Deputy Kenny asked me if I believe him and I do.

Mr. Kenny

That is precisely what is wrong with the Government. I did not ask the Taoiseach to share the intelligence information made available to him or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform with the House. The Taoiseach said he does not have a role in the matter but, as Taoiseach, he has a role in ensuring that the institutions and laws of the State are upheld in the democracy in which we live.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is no fool. He is a Minister of a sovereign Government speaking outside the privilege of the House as Minister and basing his remarks on information supplied to him by intelligence sources. His statement was categorical and it is astonishing that the Taoiseach, as Head of Government and President of the European Union, has not seen fit to uphold his remit based on the direct statement of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that organised crime and senior IRA personnel are involved in funding Sinn Féin. If an allegation of such gravity were made about Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party or the Green Party, there would be calls for public inquiries and for the forces of the State to see that such matters were investigated, exposed and dealt with by the law.

Fine Gael has no truck with illegal armies, punishment beatings or organised crime. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated his case categorically and the population of the country and I expect the Taoiseach to act on our behalf to uphold the rule of law, the institutions of the State and the democracy in which we all carry out our duty.

The Taoiseach

I do not want Deputy Kenny to misquote or misinterpret me. I have stated that there are no direct criminal prosecutions and that the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity are ongoing. I have already answered the question. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has also said that there are investigations, but they are matters for the Garda Síochána and the DPP. I am not saying that we are not concerned about these issues, I am saying that there are ongoing investigations in a number of areas but no prosecutions and I have no role in those investigations or prosecutions.

Obviously, whether it is in Northern Ireland or the Republic or Ireland, we will do all we can to pursue the ending of any activity of the nature referred to, including punishment beatings. Deputy Kenny was right when he said there have been a number of punishment beatings lately. These are all issues I will continue to address but, while security briefings are given to me and I exchange information on security briefings in my discussions with the British Prime Minister, they are not matters I can put before the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

Leaving aside killing and maiming people, does the Taoiseach agree that the second greatest injustice in the past three decades in this society has been the extent to which the same people have been expected to pay for the running of the State while many of the wealthier elements have engaged in tax evasion and underpayment to the extent that the Committee of Public Accounts heard from the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners before Christmas that €922 million has been recouped as a result of investigations into non-payment of DIRT, Ansbacher, National Irish Bank and other areas?

In that context, will the Taoiseach examine the conflict in Manchester United? People interested in soccer are fascinated to see the club apparently intent on destroying itself by causing the dismissal of its most successful manager. This is not a dispute about football, transfers or dodgy dealing but about a horse and tax-exempt stallion fees. What could put this into sharper focus than the controversy in the most famous football club in the world that is prepared to tear itself apart over the fees from a single stallion?

What must the income from the entire industry be worth? We do not know because the Minister for Finance will not address this ongoing injustice. An additional 1,000 hospital beds could be provided by spending €100 million. With what the Taoiseach can see happening at Manchester United, will he ask the Minister for Finance to address this ongoing injustice once and for all in the Finance Bill that is due before the House shortly?

The Taoiseach

I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that all taxes should be legally paid and, where there are exemptions, the case should be made for them and their value to the economy. That is what happens with all remaining exemptions. The exemption in this case has existed since 1969 and has not changed much since. It was amended in 1997 and a number of groups have analysed it in the period since then.

There was an anomaly that those who owned stallions were exempt from income tax on the profits or gains arising but did not have to produce accounts. That point was made in the House on a number of occasions. The Finance Act 2003 made it a requirement that accounts would have to be provided for all income earned from stallions. The Minister for Finance stated that the Department of Finance or Revenue Commissioners would examine the information those accounts provided to see if change was necessary.

It was a fair point that, until that change and even though the exemption had been on the Statute Book since 1969, with an amendment in 1997, stallion owners were not required to submit accounts. They argued that they were not making huge profits but provided no evidence. That is a fair point, but it has been corrected. The reason for it is that we can see there is a significant amount of employment in this country due to the fact that the stallions are here. If there was no incentive the stallions would be elsewhere and so would the employment related to the industry. I do not know where Rock of Gibraltar would have ended up, whether in Ireland, Gibraltar, the Middle East or somewhere else. That is another issue. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte in that I hope this issue is resolved. I do not want to see it affect a club that has flown the tricolour over its grounds for many decades and is, by connection, an Irish-supported club. I hope those matters are resolved, but I do not think they will be resolved around changes in section 231 of the Finance Act.

Mr. Rabbitte

I know the history and the country has changed a great deal since 1969. I know that the Revenue Commissioners cannot tell us how much tax has been foregone. I know that when the industry was prepared to pay a tax tailored to its particular requirements, the Minister for Finance would not go along with it and that we dragged the commitment from him that in future they will have to make returns only from 1 January this year. They will not have to pay tax. The stable lads will have to pay tax but the owners will not. However, they will have to declare their earned incomes. That is a grave injustice. I know the history of it. I also know that the Taoiseach pulled a great stroke for the owners when he allowed them to have tax exile status and spend more years here. While the Taoiseach worries about Rock of Gibraltar going abroad, it would only be following its owners. They have already gone abroad. They do not pay any tax here.

If stable lads are expected to pay tax, how is it that people who have tens if not hundreds of millions — the earnings of Rock of Gibraltar alone are reckoned to be €5 million per annum — do not pay tax? How can it be justified that the Taoiseach will not require the Minister for Finance to address this ongoing injustice in the tax code? I know the Taoiseach knows the parties on both sides, including Sir Alex Ferguson. I think he togged out a few times for Manchester United when he was at the London School of Economics, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether he is going to change the Finance Act.

Mr. Treacy

He certainly did not fail to get on the Ballindine Juniors team.

The Taoiseach

A few Members of the House played at Manchester United's ground last year, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately I was not privileged to be one of them. I would make a few points in reply to Deputy Rabbitte. I am not too sure whether the individuals involved in this case would be beneficiaries to the extent that he thinks. I may be out of date with my information, but I am not too sure that the stud that is well-known is one of the beneficiaries in terms of our tax law. Perhaps my information is out of date as regards the situation as it existed.

Mr. Rabbitte

Will the Taoiseach say how we know this? How does he know?

The Taoiseach

I was in the Department of Finance a number of times when this issue was discussed, as was the Deputy's party.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Revenue Commissioners will not tell——

The Taoiseach

No, they will not, but the structure of the studs is well known in the Department of Finance. The bloodstock breeding industry in this country has grown substantially over the last number of years. It is a world-renowned industry. Whether it requires changes or not, it would be interesting now to see an analysis of the accounts. I agree with that, but the export of horses and sales and nominations to foreigners from this country is an enormous business. The latest figures calculated for the entire industry showed that that aspect of its activity employed between 4,500 and 5,000 people. I am totally in favour of the analysis being done based on the accounts now being put forward. However, I would not like to see an amendment being brought in that removes the stallions from this country and the jobs, without proper analysis. The analysis will take place. We will wait and see whether section 231 of the Finance Act needs to be changed but I would prefer that an analysis should be done first based on the accounts.

Mr. J. Higgins

Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government has made a decision today to build a national stadium at Lansdowne Road and will he clarify that decision? Has the Taoiseach been cured of the Ceaucescu syndrome which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, implied he suffered from, referring to his campaign to build a massive and unviable complex at Abbotstown that would have paralysed the whole of west Dublin on numerous occasions throughout the year if it went ahead? What will the net cost be to the taxpayer of this proposal? How much precisely will be contributed by other associations or individuals — and who are they — and the taxpayer? Does the Taoiseach now admit that a huge waste of taxpayers' money has ensued from his pushing ahead in the bull-headed fashion he did, against all good advice for the most part, with the proposed project at Abbotstown? Will he put a figure on how much taxpayers' money has been wasted in that regard to date? Are there outstanding contracts with companies with regard to that project and what have they cost so far? What is the Taoiseach's current thinking on the future for the Abbotstown lands?

The Taoiseach

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, has already made a statement today. The new Lansdowne stadium will be a 50,000 all-seat facility. A transparent roof covering the seats will be built on the axis of the existing Lansdowne stadium. The development will commence as soon as possible. If all goes according to schedule it should be completed by 2008. That is the period within which the Government would like to see it built. It will meet all the current international standards for rugby and soccer. The pitch area will of a sufficient size to accommodate Gaelic games. The standard of the facilities will be broadly equivalent to those at Croke Park. It will include corporate boxes and 8,000 premium seats. The estimated cost of the project is about €250 million at current prices which is likely to translate into actual outlays totalling just under €300 million as the project is realised over a period of five years. Approved Government support is €167 million at current prices which is expected to translate into cumulative outlays of €190 million over a five-year period. The major national governing bodies are involved in the project, so hopefully they can get ahead as quickly as possible, because this is vitally important both for rugby and soccer international matches in the future.

As regards Abbotstown, both the company and the site will remain in the hands of the Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited, which will continue to develop other sporting facilities on the site. The only facility built on the site is the aquatic centre which will continue to be a good amenity for the people, international swimmers and those from various parts of the country, but mainly the Deputy's own constituents. He did not want them to have that development, but thankfully they will. Hopefully they will have other sporting facilities as well in spite of the Deputy. The issues of its further development will have to be in line with private sector involvement on the site and whatever grants they get from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. That is what the land will be used for.

Mr. J. Higgins

I would like to take the sting out of what the Taoiseach just threw in there. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the water sports project. As a member of Fingal County Council, I was instrumental, with others, in ensuring it received every co-operation as a sensible facility for people.

The Taoiseach did not answer my question on how much money was needlessly spent on the proposed Abbotstown project. Perhaps he will reply in that regard. What budget has been set aside for Abbotstown? What is the nature of the project on which the Taoiseach stated Campus Stadium Ireland will work? The Taoiseach was prepared to find approximately €750 million to fund his proposal. Many of us made the point at that time that such funding would be better spent on improving the inferior facilities of working class communities and on a sensibly proposed stadium. Will the Taoiseach ensure that that is what will happen? As the Tánaiste has allegedly won that argument, should we be fearful that her proposal to throw elderly people into the cold will now be pursued with greater vigour?

Mr. Rabbitte

The Progressive Democrats will have to be quiet for a while.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Higgins appears to support the development, I thought he was saying it was a waste of resources. There was no waste of resources. Feasibility studies carried out in that regard will be useful for the further development of the site for sporting requirements in the future.

The board will have to make its case for ongoing developments. The national governing bodies and groups such as the community games, international soccer groups, training ground managers and other facilities also have proposals which they wish the Department to pursue. All these proposals will have to be assessed in the future. While there were some facilities on the site, they were poor and a new scientific laboratory was required. Therefore, I do not consider that to be a waste of resources.

The Government will continue, as it has done in recent years, to invest money in youth and sporting facilities. I am sure the Deputy will welcome and support such developments in his area.