In the few years I have worked in the precincts of Leinster House, this is the third debate on a report of a tribunal of inquiry in which I have participated. I too compliment Judge McCracken on the clarity of his report. The main elements of it were covered in detail by the national newspapers at the time of its publication. It was considered to be a report which the ordinary citizen could read and comprehend. I read half of the beef tribunal report but have yet to read the remainder; I do not think I ever will. The hepatitis C tribunal report was clear in one sense but it was a little overloaded with legal jargon best understood by members of the legal profession. This report is distinguished by its clarity and the clarity of its recommendations. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind about the conclusions reached and the recommendations made. I hope action will be taken in respect of the two main findings, the first of which concerns matters that may be followed up by the Revenue Commissioners in respect of both Mr. Haughey and Deputy Lowry. I hope the Director of Public Prosecutions takes speedy action in regard to the papers and information sent to him by Mr. McCracken which deal with the alleged contempt and disrespect shown to the tribunal by Mr. Haughey.
Senators have articulated the view of the man and woman on the street on this matter. We could have a lofty debate but we are only part of the way through a process which we must see through to its logical conclusion. A recent poll in the Irish Independent shows that two-thirds of people believe politicians are involved in corruption. Instead of complaining about this attitude we must show that it is wrong and that we are capable of following through on the recommendations made in the report. In particular, we must give early consideration to Mr. Justice McCracken's recommendation that we amend the Ethics in Public Office Act and change the way we respond to gross wrongdoing by Members of either House. It will not be easy to deal with such matters from a legal point of view but the public expects us to take action.
It is interesting to note that during debates in this and the other House Members are on the side of the angels. I participated in the debate in the Dáil on the Ethics in Public Office Act and remember the scorn heaped on the head of the then Minister of State, Eithne Fitzgerald. The comments made at that time warrant rereading. I believe many of the people who poured scorn on her would now readily admit that what she said was correct. No proponent of that legislation ever accused a majority of Members of wrongdoing. However, we needed to put in place a system whereby allegations could be dealt with. Rumours feed rumours and newspapers never refuse ink, and if these matters cannot be properly investigated then the public will continue to believe that we are all involved in corruption.
I hope the Government gives early consideration to introducing the type of amendment suggested by Mr. Justice McCracken so that there is some policing of sanctions by the criminal justice system. The public is not confident that the sanctions and methods of investigation provided for in legislation are adequate. We know that everything is done in as fair a manner as possible but the public regards the Houses of the Oireachtas as an exclusive club. If the policing of the Houses of the Oireachtas is left in the hands of its Members it will do nothing to allay the public's concern or restore confidence in them. The Government responded to the tribunal report by tabling this motion. We must ensure that the new tribunal does its utmost to allay the concern among members of the public. This objective can only be achieved if our amendments are accepted by the Government and included in the tribunal's terms of reference.
Since the publication of the report many of the issues which gave rise to public concern in the 1980s and early 1990s have been reopened. It is important for the tribunal to bear these matters in mind. I am referring to issues such as the sale of land at Carysfort and Glending Woods. It is interesting to note that while some public representatives who were on one side of the argument are now trying to put forward the other side of it they are still not prepared to have the matter investigated by the tribunal. Other issues include the sale of the Johnson Mooney and O'Brien site, the rezoning of land in the Dublin area, the export credit insurance scheme, the ESAT Digifone licence, about which many members of the Government raised questions at the time it was granted, and the passports for sale, an issue which has never been cleared up and about which the public expects us to do something. It is important for the tribunal to bear these matters in mind when applying itself to the task given to it.
We must look at this matter from the point of view of what the man and woman on the street want. The ordinary compliant taxpayer, the person who has no option but to take his cheque with the various deductions at the end of the week, expects us to ensure that the tribunal examines the Ansbacher account in detail and not in the limited way proposed in the motion. We need to ascertain what private account holders are engaged in tax evasion. The public expects action to be taken when that information is obtained. There is a high level of disgust at the way in which the system allows, either implicitly or explicitly, rich people who can afford the right advice to evade tax, while workers in factories in Tullamore, Athlone, Mullingar and other areas have no option but to take what is given to them at the end of the week.
The tribunal obtained this information but it could not be brought into the public domain because of the limited terms of reference given to the tribunal and the assurances given by Mr. Justice McCracken to certain people. The terms of reference of the new tribunal should ensure that those accounts are inquired into so that people who are evading tax are identified and action taken against them. We should extend the terms of reference to ensure that the tribunal investigates not only the sections of the Ansbacher accounts relating to Mr. Haughey but also the other accounts which it discovers have benefited him or associated people. We would all like to know the information obtained by the tribunal in respect of the holders of the other Ansbacher accounts. However, we cannot be given that information because of the limited terms of reference given to the tribunal. I do not want a similar situation to arise in respect of the Ansbacher accounts or other accounts from which Mr. Haughey may have benefited. Neither do I want to hear the new tribunal say, "We obtained certain information but we cannot delve into it because it is not within our terms of reference". Our amendment is limited in its scope, yet it would ensure that any information which came to light in respect of other accounts which were of benefit to Mr. Haughey and the information obtained by the first tribunal in respect of the holders of the Ansbacher accounts could be published. For those reasons I strongly urge the Government to accept our amendment.
Our second amendment relates to the manner of disbursement by Mr. Haughey of public moneys received by him by virtue of his office as Leader of Fianna Fáil between 1983 and 1992. If any of us applied through our local GAA or soccer club or other local organisation for £1,000 from the national lottery we would have to do much paper work. While this is very annoying and difficult to put together it is justified by the requirement that public moneys be properly accounted for. The same reasoning should hold in this case. The public who pay taxes to fund political activity deserve, without reservation or question, a full account of how that money is used. That is why we want the tribunal to inquire into and report on this matter. We want taxpayers to see how their money was spent and to judge if it was in accordance with proper procedures. That is a basic requirement in the smallest of clubs. This payment involved hundreds of thousands of pounds. I support extending the inquiry to include payments to any party leader because full accountability is required in the spending of public money. This money must be accounted for if public concern is to be allayed and the questions being asked on the street are to be answered as fully as possible.
The third amendment proposes to give the tribunal powers to carry out a preliminary investigation into a matter discussed in the other House last week concerning the contribution of £30,000 paid to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant a full public inquiry into that matter. Members of the public are not satisfied with the statement and response to questions given by the Minister last week. They are also not satisfied with the nature of some of the questions asked which they believe did not go far enough. We want the tribunal to make a preliminary investigation into this matter and if it is found to be in line with what the Minister said last week, no further questions can be asked. The tribunal should have the power to interview the other two people who were present at the Minister's meeting to see if all the accounts square up and to report to the Dáil on this matter of legitimate public interest.
Sections 34 and 35 of the conclusions of Mr. Justice McCracken's tribunal report state that the possibility that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts or even be given without being sought is very high and if such gifts are permissible they would inevitably lead in some cases to bribery and corruption. The report further states that it is also not acceptable that any person or commercial enterprise should make such gifts in conditions of secrecy no matter how well intentioned the motives may be.
Contrary to what the Minister said in the Dáil last week, these are not new 1997 rules. These basic commonsense ethics have always applied. I would consider the arrival of a stranger at my or anyone else's door bearing £30,000 in used bank notes in two brown envelopes, for which the recipient did not write a letter of thanks, to be a matter of secrecy. How did the directors and auditors of Murphy Structural Engineers show the transaction on their books at that time? Can they explain that excessively large sum of money, equivalent to £100,000 today, and the unusual method of payment? The mantra trotted out of no favours asked or given will not deceive anybody. A former ministerial colleague of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn, said as much in her column in The Irish Times. The public will not be taken for fools. This matter needs to be cleared up once and for all. That can be done in a decisive manner by including it in the preliminary investigation of the tribunal which would put the matter to rest.
