Items Nos. 2 and 3 can be discussed together, with each Senator allowed to speak once. There are seven amendments tabled to No. 3, of which amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related. Only one amendment may be formally moved and put before the House at any time but Senators may refer to the content of each of the seven amendments in their contributions. When the amendment before the House has been disposed of by putting the question, if necessary, the remaining amendments may be moved individually in sequence and a separate decision obtained on each such amendment if required.
Report of Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) and Establishment of Tribunal of Inquiry: Motions.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann:
— welcomes the publication of the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments),
— thanks the Chairman and the legal and administrative teams for their work in conducting the Inquiry, and
— welcomes the Government's proposal to establish a further Tribunal of Inquiry.
I am glad to be back in the Seanad this morning. I will not be able to stay all day as I have to meet with a number of parties from the North but I will be present for the opening speeches.
I would like to take this opportunity to again compliment Mr. Justice McCracken on his excellent report and on the manner in which he executed his difficult task. The tribunal into certain allegations of payments by Dunnes Stores to politicians was established last February, consequent on resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. I welcomed its establishment, indeed I had long sought it. I also welcomed the appointment of Mr. Justice McCracken as chairman in view of his expertise in commercial law, and in unravelling complex accounts, as well as his reputation for getting to the bottom of such matters quickly. Mr. Justice McCracken brought all these attributes to bear on his task over the last number of months, and a debt of gratitude is owed to him by all of us. Indeed, it is also appropriate that we commend, as he does himself in his report, the work of the team, both legal and administrative, which assisted him so efficiently in his work.
The report of the tribunal is a model of clarity and precision, and we have to face up to the severity of its judgment on what it has discovered. The findings of the tribunal in relation to Mr. Charles Haughey and Deputy Lowry are of the gravest concern to us all. The tribunal found the behaviour of both to be unacceptable. This is a finding with which I am sure we all agree. Let me outline in particular what I, and I believe all of us, find unacceptable.
It is unacceptable that people who have held high office and enjoyed a high degree of public trust should give evidence that is, in the words of the tribunal, unacceptable and untrue or deliberately conceal vital information from this House, or from a tribunal set up by this House. There is no excuse for this. It is also unacceptable, that in the case of Mr. Haughey, full co-operation was withheld from the tribunal, forcing the tribunal to undertake lengthy, painstaking and costly research to establish facts which could have been established almost at once with his full co-operation.
It is unacceptable that in a manner hitherto concealed from the public, a Taoiseach should be personally supported to the tune of £1.3 million. It is appalling that any businessman should be able to believe, even if wrongly, that he could in any sense buy the Taoiseach, or that he might have him in his pocket, if he ever needed him. By accepting such favours, Mr. Haughey thereby laid himself open to the possibility "that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts, or even be given without being sought", even though thankfully this did not occur. As the tribunal has said, "if such gifts were to be permissible the potential for bribery and corruption would be enormous".
It is unacceptable that Deputy Lowry, by receiving several hundred thousand pounds in cash or in kind, should have, in the words of the tribunal, "made himself vulnerable to all kinds of pressures from Dunnes Stores, had they chosen to apply those pressures", and that he could be open to blackmail from other sources.
It is unacceptable in terms of equity of access to politicians that, as the tribunal puts it, "to give an effective service to all their constituents, or to all the citizens of the State, they, i.e. politicians, must not be under a financial obligation to some constituents or some citizens only".
It is unacceptable that a former Taoiseach and a former Minister, as former makers of law themselves, should so blatantly flout the laws of this land in relation to both tax and exchange control. It is all the more galling that this deceit was carried out while these men sought to lecture others on moral values and restraint.
In light of these trenchant criticisms of former holders of high public office, I was greatly relieved to read in the report that the tribunal had concluded that "no political impropriety", or in other words no actual corruption, had been shown to have occurred within its terms of reference. Nonetheless this does not mean that there is any room for complacency in dealing with the findings of the report.
We have to make it clear in this House by our actions, that we are going to insist on the highest standards in our public life. There must not be the slightest suggestion that public life in this country is conducted in accordance with anything other than the highest standards.
While the report is rightly critical of these individuals, I think we must look also at the culture which allowed this situation to come about, particularly over the past 30 years or so. In this regard we must all share the responsibility, just as now we must all share the task of ensuring that such a situation can never arise again. Legislation we passed in the Parliament went a considerable distance towards closing off possible avenues of abuse. We have to find new more transparent and acceptable ways of raising necessary political funding from our supporters and well wishers, without making further calls on the taxpayer, and without allowing a privileged few to create a sense of obligation.
I regret the damage to the reputations of those most directly concerned. Deputy Lowry did some good work as an officeholder and worked extremely hard for his constituency, who, in spite of all that has been revealed, remain grateful. However, he was, to quote his own words, "the author of his own misfortune" and a once promising career now lies in ruins.
The record of Charles Haughey is well known. Parts of it, independent of anything related to this report, will always be controversial. But in many important areas, valuable service by someone of immense ability will be recalled. For the positive things he did, he will always be held in high regard by very many people. But none of us will disagree with the verdict of the tribunal that "by allowing himself to be put in a position of dependency," Mr. Haughey "has devalued some of the undoubtedly valuable work which he did when in office". It is inevitable, unfortunately, that his real achievements will now be seen or set off against what we have learned from the tribunal. I find that very sad for an individual that many of us know well, and have honoured and admired. Not only is it sad for the party he led, or for his former colleagues in Government, who sought to serve the public under his leadership, it is sad for our democracy and our nation, that a leader who, after Lemass, put more of his stamp on the Ireland of the second half of the 20th century than possibly anyone else, should have demeaned himself and political life by accepting such huge sums of money for his personal benefit from Ben Dunne.
There are those who would seek to attach blame for the actions of Mr. Haughey to the Fianna Fáil Party. I am no more responsible for the misdemeanours of Charles Haughey than Deputies John Bruton, Dick Spring or Proinsias De Rossa are responsible for the misdemeanours of their colleague in Government, Deputy Michael Lowry. All of us took Government decisions on the basis of the best information available at the time and the political judgment of colleagues we trusted, and on our view of the country's best interest. If there was covert manipulation from ulterior motives, and I reiterate that the tribunal found no evidence of political impropriety, then none of us was aware of it at the time.
It has been suggested that we in Fianna Fáil should have been more inquisitive as to how Mr. Haughey's lifestyle was maintained. It may well be that we should have been more questioning, although it is hardly the norm to assume that wealth must always have been improperly acquired. I note this suggestion has been made by, among others, persons who not only supported Mr. Haughey in Government, but also by some who served with him in Government. Charles Haughey's leadership of Fianna Fáil, in Government and in Opposition, was more contested than any other leader, and people made their choices and took decisions on the facts as then known. It is easy after the McCracken Report to say "it should have been obvious" but then the gift of 20/20 hindsight brings with it great wisdom. It is only fair to ask: did Deputy Lowry's senior colleagues in Fine Gael, or his "leader and best friend forever", never wonder at his facility in procuring substantial contributions both for the party and themselves individually from Ben Dunne?
It is right to acknowledge the role of the media who exposed the state of affairs brought before the tribunal or who previously questioned it. The fourth estate — freedom of the press — is vital to democracy.
It is now our job to do everything in our power to restore public confidence in the political system. However, before looking forward it is necessary to clear up the past. We need to get answers on essential points without engaging in witch-hunts or in scapegoating one or two individuals for faults in society as a whole. To the extent that the tribunal and related matters are impediments to concentrating on the central business of Government, we need to sort out these matters expeditiously, without recourse to endless tribunals. We need to do the job properly and not have to keep coming back to it.
The report of the Dunnes Payments Tribunal, and the evidence which was given before it, would suggest there are reasonable grounds to investigate whether other payments were made which fell outside its terms of reference. Accordingly, there is a motion before the House today seeking the establishment of a new tribunal to carry out these further investigations and other related matters.
The terms of reference before this House are the result of careful consideration by the Government as well as extensive, and I believe unprecedented, consultation with the Opposition. While it has not been possible for the Government to accept all points made by the Opposition, I believe that the terms, as they stand, reflect the will of all Members and, at the same time, are sufficiently focused to enable the tribunal to carry out its work efficiently and in a reasonable timeframe.
I will now comment on the terms of reference, not in a strict legal way but in a way which I hope will satisfy Members that the new tribunal can address adequately their concerns and those of the public.
The terms of reference provide principally that the tribunal investigate:
(i) whether any payments were made to Mr. Haughey in the period from 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1996, when he held public office, and whether such payments were connected with any public office held by him, or had the potential to influence his discharge of any such office.
This will require the tribunal to follow the so-called "money trail". It will be required to ascertain whether there were substantial payments, who were the donors, how much was involved, when they were made, whether any of the controversial decisions were made at the time involving that donor and, whether, as a consequence, the tribunal believes Mr. Haughey did any act or made any decision to confer any benefit on that specific donor in respect of the transaction.
This approach is infinitely better than examining allegations concerning specific public, ministerial or Government decisions. The tribunal will be more focused in its work and will not unnecessarily drag in innocent third parties, or, on the other hand, be precluded from examining any decision. The Government considers that following the money trail is the most efficient and effective way to progress this type of inquiry, as witnessed by the great success of the Dunnes Payments Tribunal, which adopted this approach.
Second, the so-called Ansbacher accounts will be examined to ascertain if there were any sources other than Mr. Ben Dunne who lodged money to those accounts for the benefit of Mr. Haughey and, if so, to investigate the circumstances of such payments in the way I have referred to. The accounts will also be investigated to determine if any payments were made from money held in any of the Ansbacher accounts to any person who holds or has held public office.
It may be appropriate to remind the House that Mr. Justice McCracken has yet to decide whether the Dunnes Payments Tribunal should proceed with its appeal against the ruling of the Grand Court in the Cayman Islands concerning these accounts. It is the Government's desire that the appeal should proceed but I acknowledge this is a decision solely for the tribunal. I assure the House that any resources required by the tribunal to proceed with the appeal, should it decide to do so, will be made available.
In so far as the Ansbacher accounts relate to private citizens, the Revenue Commissioners are empowered to seek access through the courts to the bank accounts of named individuals resident in the State, and will no doubt take into account, in a more general way, the picture presented and the lessons learnt as a result of the tribunal.
There are similar provisions in the terms of reference to those relating to Mr. Haughey, concerning payments to Deputy Michael Lowry, in respect of any period when he held public office. The tribunal is also required to examine the bank accounts listed at (f) in the terms of reference, in the same way as it is required to examine the Ansbacher accounts in relation to Mr. Haughey and in relation to any other holder of public office.
Third, the tribunal is also being asked to investigate whether the Revenue Commissioners availed fully, properly and in a timely manner in collecting or seeking to collect tax due by Mr. Haughey and Deputy Lowry. It is important that compliant taxpayers are reassured that the Revenue law, as with all law of this land, is applied equally without fear or favour.
With a view to the future, and ensuring, in so far as is possible, that this situation cannot arise again, the tribunal is being requested to make recommendations in a number of areas, which give cause for concern arising from the McCracken report. These include reform of company law, increasing accountability while maintaining the independence of the Revenue Commissioners, the role of the Central Bank as regulator of the financial services sector generally, regulation of their members by professional accountancy and other bodies, and changes in tax law to protect the State's tax base from fraud or evasion in the establishment and the maintenance of offshore accounts.
The terms of reference go on to describe the proposed modus operandi of the tribunal, with a view to ensuring the tribunal will be efficient in its operation and merely reflects what has become the practice of tribunals of inquiry, in that before taking oral evidence a degree of preliminary investigation is undertaken. That it is being formally stated in the terms of reference, merely reflects the desire of the Oireachtas, that the tribunal undertakes the groundwork before proceeding to a full blown inquiry involving taking oral evidence, cross examination and the normal procedures. It allows the tribunal to assess the result of its preliminary groundwork to see whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full blown inquiry. It also protects the good name of innocent third parties. The terms of reference provide that the tribunal shall submit reports to the Clerk of the Dáil on all matters, including those where the tribunal considers there is insufficient evidence to warrant a full public inquiry and those reports will indicate the steps taken by the tribunal to determine what evidence, if any, existed.
Though the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921, and 1979 are silent as to this two-tier procedure for an inquiry, I have been advised it is both within the scope of the Acts and constitutionally permissible. It is simply the prima facie evidence principle in practice. The tribunal is also being informed that it is the desire of the Oireachtas that, in so far as is consistent with the interests of justice, the costs of persons who fail to co-operate with the tribunal should be borne by those persons. I hope Members will agree these terms of reference represent a solid basis for a focused tribunal which will be able to go about its work in an efficient and effective manner.
A new tribunal is but one of many steps necessary to dispel the atmosphere of cynicism and suspicion which hangs over public life. We must address the recommendations of Mr. Justice McCracken and strengthen our laws to restore public confidence and guarantee the highest standards in public office. Neither I nor the Government I lead will shirk from taking any decisions necessary on foot of the tribunal report. The aim must be to ensure that mechanisms and structures are put in place so that the public can have full confidence in the manner in which the public affairs are conducted from now on. The undertaking contained in "An Action Programme for the New Millennium", published by the two parties in Government, to implement the recommendations of the McCracken tribunal will be honoured quickly. We may indeed go beyond them.
Turning to the specific recommendations made by Mr. Justice McCracken, on further consideration I agree with the tribunal that it would be impractical and ineffective to seek to impose an obligation on accountants, bankers and other professionals in certain transactions concerning politicians.
The Government will consider the recommendations concerning extension of the powers of the Ombudsman to investigate breaches of ethics in public office. The Government will also consider the implementation of the recommendation in the Report of the Constitution Review Group of May 1996 and endorsed by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in its First Report, that a new Article should be inserted in the Constitution on the Office of the Ombudsman. Such a constitutional provision would confirm the establishment of the office, providing for the independent exercise of such investigative and other functions of the office, as may be determined by law. A referendum on such a provision could best be held in conjunction with the referendum which will be necessary on the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Ombudsman, however, has much other work to attend to relating to the vindication of the rights of the individual citizen vis-à-vis the State, and more debate is needed before we would decide to shift radically the public focus of his work.
The report recommends that it should be mandatory for any candidate for either House of the Oireachtas to produce a certificate that his or her tax affairs are in order, accompanied by a statutory declaration to that effect. As promised in the Government's action programme, we had been examining such a proposal, which we strongly support in principle.
Government consideration will include reconciling the tribunal recommendation with the recommendation of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, in relation to the establishment of an electoral and ethics commission. As that committee states in its first report, a single commission, incorporating the Public Offices Commission, the Constituency Commission and a proposed independent referendum commission, under the Constitution would guarantee the independence and impartiality of the commission; generate greater confidence in public life; create greater transparency in public institutions; and provide an independent source of advice and information in the areas of ethics in public life and electoral law reform.
The all-party committee's report also makes the point that provision in the Constitution for such a commission would provide a powerful constitutional mechanism, to guarantee the probity of public life. Such a body is the best option for us to take so that we have a permanent watchdog in place, with the necessary powers, and which will develop a special expertise in this area.
I hope this debate on the tribunal's report will provide an opportunity for these options to be discussed. Subject to the outcome of the Attorney General's examination of all these issues, the system which will be put in place will mean that all allegations of impropriety by politicians or public servants will now be dealt with in a comprehensive and transparent manner.
Pending the introduction of substantive measures by the Government, I have instructed that the necessary amendments to the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, be prepared for introduction in the next session to implement with immediate effect the tribunal's recommendation on the creation of a criminal offence for breaches of the legislation, and the consequent barring of a convicted person from standing for subsequent election.
Any decisions which will arise from Government consideration of the report will not prevent existing authorities such as the Offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Revenue Commissioners and the Comptroller and Auditor General from exercising their statutory powers, as they deem necessary. I remind the House that the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners has stated publicly that the proceedings of the tribunal have been monitored closely by Revenue, and all appropriate action will be taken. The Minister for Finance has also indicated that any additional investigative powers required by the Revenue Commissioners can be introduced. It is appropriate at this time to refer to the Government proposals for legislation on Cabinet confidentiality which were put to the House yesterday and which will be the subject of a referendum on 30 October. These include relaxation of the rule of absolute confidentiality of Cabinet discussions where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in the interests of the administration of justice or by virtue of an overriding public interest pursuant to an application by a tribunal appointed to inquire into a matter of public importance.
The initiatives envisaged are a painful necessity for our democracy. It is essential that we show we are capable of acting resolutely to defend it. Our aim is to have a Republic, free of any taint or abuse of power, which is honoured and respected at home and abroad.
I thank the Seanad for dealing with this matter in order that, following today's debate, we can move in conjunction with the Attorney General and in consultation with Opposition leaders to appoint a judge to this tribunal. From an administrative point of view, the registrar and staff of the recent McCracken tribunal are still in place tidying up the proceedings. It is my intention to avoid delay in this matter and, following consultation with Mr. Justice McCracken, it has been agreed that his staff will be retained. Mr. Justice McCracken has ruled himself out of participation in the new tribunal but strongly supports keeping the former tribunal staff together. That would save time recruiting appropriately qualified people to undertake the work. It will only remain to appoint a judge to the tribunal.
The Government's and my views, as stated in the Action Programme for the Millennium, are that a watchdog commission should be established in this House. The only way we can move forward is if we have a body to which Members of the House, people in the media and the public could send their reports. The commission would perhaps be presided over by a High Court judge who would have a permanent staff on a selected basis as happened in the Broadcasting Commission. The commission could examine cases and those which contained vexatious claims could be discussed while necessary investigations could be carried out. If an investigation should then proceed into a more public domain — and I hope it will not happen — that would automatically follow.
It is wrong for anyone to break the law and allegations must be investigated. However, it is also wrong when the rumour machine gives rise to vexatious allegations about Members of either House. People should either "put up or shut up"; matters should not be allowed to drift and all allegations vexatious or otherwise should be dealt with seriously. That would require us to draft a Bill which would serve as a watchdog for us. Before doing that, I would like to hear Members' views on such legislation and I would like party whips and leaders to work together on it. It behoves us to ensure that proposed legislation will address the issues the people want addressed and that it will be a sensible mechanism for the proper working of this House.
We are here to deal with and serve the public in relation to issues such as health, education, employment, protection of the aged, the homeless and the disadvantaged and to seek to run the country in a proper manner. It would be sad if, like other jurisdictions, we were continuously involved in issues such as this. A tribunal is necessary in this instance but it should not have to happen in the future. The public perception is that we are not monitored. We must have a mechanism which would assure the public that a fair system exists. The onus is on us to enact such legislation and I would welcome individual or collective views from Members of this House. Work began on this legislation in late June as soon as I took up office but it will take some months for us to refine it. It is unique for us to be in a situation where we can draft legislation which affects us.
I thank the Seanad again for taking the time to deal with this issue today in order that the tribunal can be set up without undue delay.
As the House is aware a number of important amendments to the motion have been tabled, the first of which is No. 3 on the agenda. In the absence of the Cathaoirleach, Senator Mullooly, I take this opportunity to offer him my warmest congratulations on his appointment as Cathaoirleach. I do not intend to be parochial when I say that Senator Mullooly is a constituency colleague and we served together in this House in the 1980s and on Roscommon County Council. We have been Members of the Oireachtas almost continuously since 1981. I also congratulate Senator Liam T. Cosgrave on his appointment to the position of Leas-Cathaoirleach. I have no doubt that, in the same way as he discharged his duties as Cathaoirleach, he will discharge his duties as Leas-Cathaoirleach with competence and aplomb.
I welcome the Taoiseach to the House, it is a privilege to have him here today.
The motion before the House is of paramount importance. I thank Mr. Justice McCracken for the work he has done in this tribunal and the clarity with which he presented this report. There is a direct relationship between the outcome of any report and the terms of reference given to the tribunal and the presiding judge. The previous Government gave very clear terms of reference and instructions to Mr. Justice McCracken in this tribunal and he fulfilled them to the letter. He gave us a document which is absolute in its clarity and which gets to the point. There is no wandering from the main point as, I am sorry to say, there was in the beef tribunal. Perhaps the fault there lay in the fact that Mr. Justice Hamilton did not have clear terms of reference. Mr. Justice McCracken performed his duty on the basis of having been given very clear terms of reference.
This report uncovers an appalling vista. It formally reveals that holders of the highest office in the land covertly received large sums of money from businesses which were salted away surreptitiously and not declared to the Revenue authorities. These sums of money were kept to finance a lavish lifestyle.
A popular jibe about holders of public office is that they engage in this type of activity. The majority of us in this House know that is not the truth, but the information contained in this report confirms for those who want to believe it and for the commentators who commentate so often on these matters that it is the truth. The revelations contained in this report greatly damage the body politic. I am not exonerating in any way Deputy Lowry, who belonged to my party, but the greater sin was committed by a former Taoiseach, as revealed in this report. That is appalling and it will cause lasting damage.
People serving in public life will find it extremely difficult to maintain their reputations. Those of us in public life serve with integrity and our only purpose is to serve the public interest. Most of us are badly rewarded for that service but, leaving that aside, we have to defend the reputation of public service. It is difficult to defend it given the revelations in this report.
While I welcome the presence of the Taoiseach, it is regrettable that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is not here. He has come into this controversy because since the McCracken report was commissioned——
He is working on behalf of the Government in Belfast.
——it has been revealed that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was the recipient of a substantial sum of money in 1989. The Minister went before the Dáil last week and gave, according to every objective Member and commentator in the print and visual media, an inadequate explanation as to the reason he received that substantial sum of money. It is regrettable that there was no mention of the Minister or this contribution in the Taoiseach's address to the House this morning.
The source of these funds should be part of this debate. I do not believe the Minister, Deputy Burke, when he states that a stranger, accompanied by an acquaintance of his, walked in off the street, gave him £30,000 in cash and walked away. Does any Member in this House believe him? Does any ordinary member of the public believe that kind of story? They do not.
The most important question that must be answered is whether the Minister asked the benefactor about the business account from which this money came. Did he ask if it was part of the normal declared accounts of that person's company? Did he ask if the money was personal funding or funding generated out of business and whether the contribution would be declared to the appropriate authorities for tax purposes? Did the Minister's colleagues in Government ask him those questions when no doubt he gave his explanation in Cabinet before the Dáil debate? That fundamental question has not been answered by the Minister and it has not been adequately addressed by his Cabinet colleagues. It is the duty of all the Members of this House to inquire into it and to ask further questions.
The new tribunal should have a role in investigating the contribution to the Minister, Deputy Burke. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, one of the most senior posts in Cabinet, he should not resist that proposal. He should make available to Mr. Justice McCracken, assuming he will be the chairman of the new tribunal, all information and documents in his possession. The two people who visited the Minister's house on that day should be invited to give oral or written evidence to the tribunal as to the origin and nature of the donation. That is vitally important.
Many of us have been in public life for years and we know that people do not walk in off the street and deposit a five or six figure sum of money without some strings being attached. It is incredible to ask people to believe that. We all know that does not happen, and if it did we would ask questions as to the reason somebody would be such a good benefactor. This issue has been left out of the remit of the new inquiry but it must be inquired into because the public are asking questions and they must be answered. The problems of the Minister, Deputy Burke, are now very much part of this whole public controversy. For that reason the Government and the Minister should accept that the part of the controversy he has generated should be inquired into by a new tribunal.
We have, by amendment, requested that the new tribunal examine the way in which a parliamentary allowance, the leader's allowance, paid to Mr. Haughey over several years when he was Leader of the Opposition in the 1980s, was disbursed by him. That matter is not within the remit of the new inquiry but it should be. That sum of money, approximately £1 million in total, has not been fully accounted for either by Mr. Haughey, who has said nothing about it, or the Fianna Fáil Party. The Taoiseach might have made reference to it in his address to the House this morning but he did not. He could have laid our fears to rest by simply stating that these funds were properly disbursed by Mr. Haughey as Leader of the Opposition and that the party's accounts indicate that. He did not do so, however, and the question remains. That is the reason for our amendment.
This substantial sum of money should be inquired into by the new tribunal. There is clear evidence that during those years that funding was not disbursed in the way it ought to have been by the then Leader of the Opposition. The current Leader of Fianna Fáil and the other members of the Cabinet should not resist such an inquiry. I appeal in particular to the Progressive Democrats Cabinet members — Senator Dardis might take this message back to his colleagues in Cabinet — to insist even at this late stage that our amendment be accepted.
The public has many questions about this matter. It is a great pity that in examining the Ansbacher account the tribunal will look only at donations to Mr. Haughey. I find it strange that £38 million could be deposited in an account in a relatively small bank managed by a few people for, it appears, the benefit of a small number of people in a certain golden circle. Mr. Justice McCracken identified the portion of the Ansbacher account from which Mr. Haughey benefited. However, there are other people involved and it is absolutely imperative that the tribunal examines the entire account. The confidentiality of funds which are legally held can be protected under the terms laid down but if we want to follow the money trail — and a large amount of money seems to be in this account — then the tribunal of inquiry constituted by the Houses of the Oireachtas must have access to it. I do not understand the resistance of the Government to this proposal or why the Taoiseach did not refer to it. This merely serves to increase the level of suspicion. I will deal with the matter in detail on Committee Stage. I appeal to the Taoiseach to accept our amendment.
The Taoiseach said that neither he nor his colleagues are responsible for the actions of Mr. Haughey, any more than Deputy John Bruton or his colleagues are responsible for Deputy Lowry's unacceptable actions. I do not accept that statement. Mr. Haughey's most controversial Ministry was from 1989-92. To put it mildly, that Government made some very weird decisions. Under the Constitution the Government makes decisions on the basis of collegiate or collective responsibility. In other words, all Government decisions are made collectively. Ministers are responsible for their own areas but they bring their decisions to Cabinet so that members can question certain aspects of them before they become Government policy.
The Ministers who served under Mr. Haughey, including the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, cannot absolve themselves from part of the blame for the Masri affair, the strange goings on in relation to the sale of Carysfort or the many other controversies, one of which led to the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry. The report of that tribunal may have been faulty in terms of laying the blame firmly on certain people but it gave a clear picture of what had taken place in the beef industry. One of Mr. Haughey's first acts on taking office in 1989 was to hand most of the responsibility for the beef industry to one company. I do not wish to impugn Deputy Reynolds but he also has questions to answer about some of his actions as Minister for Industry and Commerce. Some of his actions were weird and clearly contravened decisions taken by the Cabinet. For example, questions arise about the way he distributed export credit insurance to companies which were either owned by or associated with Mr. Goodman. These matters must be inquired into to a greater degree. It is only then that we will be able to accept the Taoiseach's statement that neither he nor his colleagues are responsible for certain actions taken by the then Government.
The members of a Cabinet share collective responsibility for the decisions of their colleagues. This applies to decisions taken not only by the Taoiseach but also by Ministers. One is supposed to know what is going on at Cabinet and one cannot absolve oneself by saying, "I did not know what was going on". At that time questions were raised by the media and Opposition about what was occurring. Members of that Cabinet are now trying to absolve themselves from any blame for wrong actions. However, the only way they can do this is by showing us that they questioned these actions at the time and believed what they were told.
The tribunal of inquiry has revealed that the highest officeholders in the land acted wrongly and in a way the rumourmongers often said they acted. I sincerely hope we learn lessons from this so that we do not have to debate a similar motion in the future.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter which has been the subject of public attention for some time. The tribunal states:
If politicians are to give an effective service to all their constituents or to all citizens of the State they must not be under any financial obligation to some constituents or to some citizens only.
We must ensure that this is the way the system operates.
Mr. Justice McCracken did an excellent job in obtaining the information sought by the public. While his report is conclusive in many respects there are some unanswered questions. The new tribunal is being set up to establish further facts. If the people referred to in the report had co-operated more fully with the tribunal and the other House then a tribunal might not have been necessary. That applies to Mr. Haughey and Deputy Lowry. Mr. Haughey failed to comply fully with the tribunal and Deputy Lowry failed to give the full information to his colleagues in the other House. He had to address the House at a later stage, admit he was brief in the information he gave and correct the inaccurate statement he gave earlier. Those two actions alone give further credence to the public cynicism and suspicion that exists. It is unfortunate that those two people gave information only when they were forced to do so.
Apart from obtaining the information it is necessary to establish, let us hope the new tribunal will give back to the public a sense of trust and belief in the political system. That is important. As the Taoiseach rightly put it, we do not want to spend the next three, five, ten or 20 years dealing with a series of tribunals covering scandals or financial irregularities. We want to deal with this matter and get on with running the country and providing for our citizens.
There are a number of inaccuracies in what the Senator across the floor said. He indicated the Taoiseach did not address the Fianna Fáil leader's allowance, but the Taoiseach dealt with that extensively in the Dáil. At that time the matter was accepted by the Senator's leader and dealt with. I am not sure it was dealt with by the Taoiseach today, but it was dealt with in the debate in the Dáil.
The matter concerning the Minister, Deputy Burke, was also dealt with in the Dáil. There was an opportunity to debate it and the Senator's party accepted the outcome. Unless there is some conflict on this between the Senator and his leader and Front Bench on the matter, there appears to be some conflict between the spokesperson who spoke on behalf of his party and himself.
On a point of order, lest there be any confusion, there is no conflict between my Front Bench, my leader and me.
That is not a point of order. The Senator has made his contribution.
I am sure the Chair will share my concern that Senator Finneran should not mislead the House in stating that my party does not have residual concerns about the Minister's statement to the other House. We certainly have concerns.
I am sure members of the Senator's party can clear up that matter in their party rooms at a later stage. We cannot do that here.
Mr. Ryan
The Senator would not want to misrepresent Senator Connor in any way.
There are two aspects to this tribunal to which this House is giving breath today. An important one is to clear up what happened in the past which requires a number of steps to be taken. The new tribunal must establish whether money was given to Mr. Haughey for the purposes of calling in a political favour at a later stage. It must also investigate if payments made to Deputy Lowry interfered with decisions he made at Cabinet. To all intents and purposes he was only a front for the Dunnes Stores operation. That was an inappropriate way for a Minister to act and that matter must be cleared up. It is hoped that the tribunal will establish for the public that the political system is beyond reproach. If that is not the result, further steps will have to be taken.
It is extraordinary and unacceptable that any account, such as the Ansbacher account, should be in place and that any persons, particularly those in public life, should have an opportunity to lodge money in a tax haven outside this country and fail to comply with our tax laws. The Senator opposite indicated that the Taoiseach had not covered that matter, but he covered it extensively this morning. The Senator must not have been listening. The Taoiseach said that not alone did he and the Government support the full investigation and a legal process to establish the information but that the Government would also provide the necessary resources to do that. Those matters need to be cleared up. This debate is taking the form of a house tribunal and we might now move to deal with the nitty-gritty of the tribunal.
The tribunal should make recommendations on a number of issues, some of which were referred to by the Taoiseach this morning. Recommendations are needed on company law. It is a grey area that lacks transparency. For its own good the accountancy profession needs to address some of the public's concerns about it. It is unfortunate that to some extent a tinge of compliance with irregularity has been linked to that wonderful profession. It is important it should maintain high standards. That might apply also to certain areas in the legal profession. Some support and assistance from one or both of those professions was required in what happened.
The Central Bank needs to take a stronger hand in dealing with any irregularities surrounding the transfer of moneys, offshore accounts, tax law and other areas. There is a big web and the public believe that matters in the financial services area can be swept under the carpet. There must be transparency in that area and I hope the new tribunal will make recommendations to cover that.
People in public life need to re-establish our good standing with the public. The majority of people in public life are there to help their community, county and country to change society; they have a goal and are dedicated. The activities of a small number who have stepped outside the line, cut corners, been involved in deals, accepted donations and allowed themselves to be bought have blighted the political system. That is a matter that needs to be cleared up and let us hope the tribunal of inquiry will do that.
The press did a good job in its exposure of what took place and ought to be complimented on its investigations and the matters it brought to public attention. It is important that the press is prepared to work on behalf of the public. It did so on this occasion and I compliment it.
The funding of political parties is a problem which, while it has been talked about and attempts have been made to address it, has not been addressed fully. It is a two-sided coin and one that needs to be addressed. If political parties cannot accept donations from individuals, companies or whatever they must be funded from the public purse. Then there would then be a public outcry that taxpayers' money should not be given to political parties. We are in a dilemma. This is an area that has not yet been dealt with. In the past various Governments and parties produced proposals but still the issue has not been resolved.
This tribunal has the support of all the parties. All parties agree this tribunal is necessary and there was extensive consultation between the Government and Opposition parties on the terms of reference. If anything the Taoiseach went beyond the call of duty in trying to establish exactly what would satisfy the Opposition and agreement was reached to a great extent.
I hope the tribunal is as successful as the McCracken Tribunal into the Dunnes payments to politicians. If so, it will send out the message that nobody is above the law. If it establishes, irrespective of one's position, wealth or connections, that one is not above the law in the public mind it will have done a good day's work, apart from its investigations into individuals.
I am tired of the constant barrage of "they are all in it for what they can get". I listened to a television programme the other night and the first question from the interviewer was: "How do you think you will do, considering the low standing of politicians at this time?". What about the low position of journalists? It is like the old story — if you got the name of getting up early in the morning, you could stay in bed until dinner time. It seems the same applies to the political system. If a politician is involved, it is automatically assumed there is something shady or something to be questioned. If this tribunal can readdress that impression it will have done an excellent day's work. I do not know which judge will be in charge of this tribunal but I hope he or she will do as good a job as that done by Justice McCracken. I hope the money trail, which is the agreed method of moving forward, will establish the facts, who gave what and if any decisions of the Governments involved were clouded on account of payments made.
I agree with the Taoiseach when he said Cabinet members make decisions on the basis of information available to them. Irrespective of what Government was in office, whether a Government of which Deputy Lowry or Mr. Haughey was a member, the Ministers who sat around that Cabinet table made decisions on matters brought to them on the basis of information provided by civil servants in Government Departments. Those decisions were made in good faith and on the basis of the information available. It is wrong to suggest that people who sat down with Deputy Lowry or Mr. Haughey are part and parcel of the wrongs that either of those individuals did, not at the Cabinet table, so far as we are aware, but what they might have done outside. It is obvious that neither of the gentlemen involved came with that information to the Cabinet table. It does none of us any favour to make those allegations.
I welcome the setting up of this tribunal and hope it will establish the truth of the whole matter and bring the political system back into good standing with the public. I commend the tribunal to the House.
I wish to share my time with Senator Feargal Quinn.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Much of what needed to be said has already been said both in this House and in the press. It is such an important matter that every Member wants to say something on it. I certainly do. I am restricting myself partly because I realise so much has been said but also because I have an urgent appointment later. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words.
I notice that the tribunal has played one very significant role in Irish public life. Because of the surgical and precise skills of Mr. Justice McCracken, the whole reputation of tribunals has been rehabilitated after the fiasco of the beef tribunal which was expensive and ultimately inconclusive. We have here a clear forensic examination of some very troubling facts. These facts are troubling. They bring no joy to anybody. I, least of all, would gloat in the downfall and misery of distinguished public figures in our land. There is something shaming about being named so publicly in the terms of this resolution and Mr. Haughey must, regrettably, suffer that shame, as does Mr. Lowry.
Personal bank accounts are being trawled through. This, unfortunately, has been invited by the lifestyle of the people involved. We should be grateful to that most dysfunctional of families, the Dunne family, because without the row that broke out among their ranks we probably would never have got to the bottom of this material. However, that is a backhanded compliment. I notice that the concentration of all these reports is on the political ramifications, ethics in political life, and that is appropriate and proper; but when are we going to have some sort of inquiry into the ethics of business life here, because it seems that one of the sources of all this squalor is the inappropriate methods by which certain businesses run their operations? When one looks at the payments handed out by Mr. Ben Dunne, one has to wonder at the scale of his generosity, coming from sources which were so extraordinarily ruthless in their business practices, who screwed small suppliers to the wall with exclusive contracts, who hounded the courageous women who went out on strike over the question of South African imports. One wonders and one worries. There is no question of doubt in my mind that corruption and questionable behaviour is spread very wide in the business community.
Many years ago, after I had sold a house I was living in, I had a small amount of capital. I was advised to put it into Ansbacher's Bank, of which I had then not heard. I was immensely impressed and rather flattered to be accepted into the august ranks of subscribers to that bank. It was in a private house in Fitzwilliam Square and the board of directors read like Burke's Peerage or the Almanac de Gotha. It included people like Lord Talbot de Malahide and Viscount Powers-court. It was the very soul of probity, discretion and honour. So was the Guinness Mahon Bank. I remember old Sir George Mahon, who had been the British Consul in Berlin during the Weimar Republic, again a byword for probity in Irish business life. What do we find now? Banks with the same names which have apparently changed their character and are involved in these extraordinary transactions with paper companies — £38 million being held in secret accounts with methods so labrynthine that not even the Society of Actuaries could penetrate through the wall of secrecy surrounding accounts in the Cayman Islands, mysterious figures lurking in the background. It is for that reason that it is most important that the Fine Gael and Labour amendments should be listened to and acted upon in this House, because it is not appropriate that the Ansbacher accounts should be excluded from the scope of this inquiry in the manner proposed. Nor is it appropriate that this be left simply in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners. I do not wish to tempt providence by attacking the Revenue Commissioners because one never knows what nasty consequences might flow. I might, as a mere pimple on the backside of Irish political life, attract their wrath and ire in a way that other people might not.
They will never get your offshore account.
At the same time, I have to ask questions about where the Revenue Commissioners were during this period when questions were being asked about the lifestyle of people in public life. This is exactly the same question that is being raised by people like myself and Deputy Tony Gregory with regard to the drug barons, who are people living quite spectacularly beyond their means, people whom the ordinary public have no method of attacking or investigating. The Revenue Commissioners were charged with that responsibility. They apparently, unlike almost everybody else in the country, failed to notice the discrepancy between Mr. Haughey's lavish lifestyle and the apparent sources of his income. For that reason among others, it would not be appropriate to leave it merely in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners.
Another point I wish to make is that we need further information — I say this with great regret — in the case of Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burke. As an ordinary Independent Member of this House, it seems extraordinary that one contribution of £30,000 should be made for an election. That should be far more than the cost of the entire election. One wonders about furtive contributions in brown paper bags. There may be nothing wrong in it, but it does, as the McCracken tribunal very significantly indicates, create a climate in which the possibility for favours, for an atmosphere of bribery and corruption, quite clearly exists.
On this, I would like to return to what I said on the Order of Business. It is time order was put into the financing of political life here. I hope the Government will have the guts to introduce the Electoral Bill which will give funding on a pro rata basis and which will fund not only Members of the Dáil, not only members of political parties, but also Members of this House and Independents because it is wrong that, almost uniquely in Europe, political people running for election should be placed in a situation of having to raise all the finance themselves which sometimes apparently leads to dubious practices. It is quite outrageous that when individuals do raise money from their own personal finances in order to fund an election they are not even then allowed to discount it as a legitimate business expense against their income tax.
I thank Senator Norris for allowing me to share time with him. I welcome the Minister back to this House in a new position. As Senator Connor said earlier, we are privileged that the Taoiseach allocated time yesterday and today to come here and give us his thoughts on this. I will come back to that later.
We have had many surprises in the past year, most of which have been unpleasant. One of the few that has bean pleasant was the speed, efficiency and fruitfulness of the inquiry by Mr. Justice McCracken. That tribunal succeeded against all the odds in uncovering what most people believed would never be uncovered. Up to this year people had come to regard tribunals as nothing more than a horrendously expensive way of sweeping potential problems under the carpet. Now we have had two tribunals and they have, in a matter of months, totally vindicated the tribunal system as a valuable part of our Government system. The Taoiseach's words today to the effect that the staff backing Mr. Justice McCracken are still in operation and still available and that it was the intention to use that staff for the new tribunal are welcome.
The McCracken report itself does us a further service beyond the uncovering of what had already taken place over the previous months. The report, in quite uncompromising language, forces us to face the implications of the evidence. It calls a spade a spade. When it considers evidence to be incredible, it says so clearly and baldly. It refuses to let people talk their way out of uncompromising situations with explanations that simply do not stand up to rational scrutiny. The whole affair puts politicians in the dock, and it puts business people in the dock. I am wearing both those hats. As a business person I want first of all to say something about these events from the perspective of business.
Most people in business are honest, just as are most politicians. It has always been my belief, a belief that is widely shared in business circles, that in this country one could not buy Government decisions with bribes. Most companies give donations to political parties, but they do so grudgingly. They give in response to persistent badgering by the political parties. However, they give modestly, and they give mainly in order to be free of soliciting. In many cases they give something to all the parties that ask and, very often, the contribution takes the form of buying a table at a fund raising dinner or something similar. Most companies who made such donations in the past would not have expected anything in return other than, perhaps, access, in order to have their viewpoint heard. In good faith they believed that they could not buy Government decisions. One of the spectres that has been raised over the past year is whether this assumption is correct.
People are asking if, under the surface, there is a pattern of bribery, whether Government decisions have been improperly influenced. If such were the case, it would be very bad for business and for Ireland's reputation abroad. Governments must take many decisions that impact on businesses such as how to regulate their sector, award contracts and regulate planning matters, etc. The best scenario for business and the economy as a whole is that such decisions are taken impartially in the national interest. If even a minority of business or Government decisions are affected by bribery, the vast majority of businesses are treated unfairly.
Leaving aside all questions of morality, bribery is a distortion of competition. The playing field is no longer level for all participants. This is not only unfair, it is inefficient in a market economy. If Government decisions can be bought, then smaller businesses will suffer most; they cannot afford to be in that league even if they wished. Corruption is an act of discrimination against small and medium sized businesses on whom we depend to create future employment.
Businesses should try to influence Government decisions. They are as entitled to lobby as other groups and their voices deserve to be heard. The majority of business people would not ask for more than that. They want to be able to compete fairly in the marketplace. It is in the interest of business and the political process that corruption be exposed, punished and rooted out. I do not belong to the little army of cynics who argue that politics and business are inherently corrupt. That is simply untrue and Members know that most politicians and business people are honest.
However, it is not enough to be honest. There is also a responsibility to be vigilant against corruption and to root it out wherever it occurs. If corruption is allowed to gain a hold in even a small way it will rapidly infect the whole institution. Government must not only be free of corruption, it must be clearly seen and believed to be so.
That leads to the nub of the problem facing us in deciding the form and terms of reference of the tribunal which must be appointed to follow up on the McCracken report. The events of the past year have changed public opinion in a profound way. Senator Finneran referred to the need to re-establish our good names because up until that time most people believed Government was clean. There were always a few cynics who said the opposite but most people did not believe them. However, now their belief has been shaken, it is as if an earthquake has rocked their beliefs. They do not know what to think. What they will end up believing depends critically on what happens next and that is in our hands. Their future belief in the system depends on the readiness it shows to pursue those problems to the end. Citizens will make up their minds according to whether they believe the system will lead to greater openness. The Taoiseach stated it is our job to do everything in our power to restore public confidence in the political system. That is the objective. We need to get answers on essential points without engaging in witch-hunts.
While I welcome this statement of the objective, I question whether it will be achieved through the steps being taken. The proposed terms of reference for the new tribunal are probably the first act in a national tragedy. They will confirm the worst suspicions of people that there is something which the system or the establishment does not want revealed. It is incredible that this is happening at a time when everyone says the main task is to rebuild public confidence in our political institutions. How can the Taoiseach say that, when at the same time the Government's proposal will most likely further undermine these institutions?
The people expect a new tribunal to examine the Ansbacher accounts without any artificial time limits being set and that other matters should be further scrutinised. Someone has made the disastrous mistake of thinking that such restrictive terms of reference are a form of damage limitation. Time will show them to be a form of damage escalation. I am concerned that the Government which holds the promise of being a new broom will begin to look like a moth eaten one. I say that in spite of the Taoiseach's intention to set up a commission on the House when he spoke of the future.
However, by refusing to meet people's expectations the proposed terms of reference will push public opinion in a direction which no Member of the Oireachtas wants it to go. By assenting to them a further nail is being put in the coffin of public credibility in the political process, which is not what we want. I was impressed by the Taoiseach's demonstration of his wish to avoid such scandals in future. While I congratulate him, I urge him to go one step further and show more determination in clearing up the scandals of the past. The McCracken tribunal has not gone far enough. We can and should go further. Attention should be given to those who urge that there should be wider scope in the new tribunal.
I congratulate you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, on your election and wish you a long and successful term of office. In congratulating Deputy Kitt on his appointment, I wish him the same good wishes.
I commend the Taoiseach's speech which was comprehensive and highlighted certain important points. It is not unique that the actions of a number of individuals in any profession can sully the names of the majority but those uncovered by the McCracken tribunal have cast a long shadow on many decent people. They are just as appalled as I am at the departure from acceptable political standards which the report of the tribunal revealed. It did not just shine a light on the reprehensible practices of a number of individuals. It put the spotlight on very important people such as a former Taoiseach and a former occupant of one of our more senior and sensitive ministries. One is reminded of the famous words of the late George Colley who referred to low standards in high places.
A different emphasis may be put on certain aspects of this matter but there is no fundamental disagreement among Members about the lessons which must be learned and what must happen. The establishment of a new tribunal will allow us to delve deeper into the affairs of Mr. Haughey and Deputy Lowry and to establish whether there were strings attached to the extraordinary payments and financial gifts they received. That is the fundamental nub of the issue.
We all know the direction we must take. From now on there needs to be strict self-regulation to ensure that grubby dealings have no place in politics or business and that those who seek to abuse their positions for personal gain and pure greed are exposed and banished from public office.
Anyone who doubts that Mr. Lowry and Mr. Haughey acted irresponsibly and unacceptably in carrying out their functions as public office holders has only to read the report. The report is a damning indictment in which one repeatedly finds phrases like "we find the evidence unacceptable" or "untrue". The report provides a litany of offences from beginning to end, including tax evasion.
It is a tribute to Judge McCracken's skills that the report is so explicit and concise. No one can be left in any doubt as to his findings. It contrasts with the beef tribunal report of which I understand only 360 copies were sold. It was quite a task for anyone to wade through the beef tribunal report to try and discover the nuggets of sense that were found by Mr. Justice Hamilton. It is not true to say the beef tribunal report did not make any findings, it did. In several respects it was quite damning in terms of tax evasion and those who were a party to that as well as some of the practices that took place in the beef industry. It was, however, a difficult report to go through.
Having read the report of the McCracken tribunal a defence cannot be made for the two people who are the subject of it. They breached the trust of ordinary people by treating the taxation laws with disdain and that was not all. They left themselves open, as Mr. Justice McCracken says, to blackmail and bribery. As regards the taxation laws the report makes the point in respect of Streamline, one of Deputy Lowry's companies, that one of the transactions carried on was a "scam". That is a strong word for a judge to use in a report.
The two people involved used every trick in the banking book to ensure that huge payments to them could be hidden. The complex web of financial transactions put in place to hide the enormous financial gifts and payments to two holders of the highest offices can only be fully understood when one reads the lucid comments of Judge McCracken.
One significant point in the introduction to the McCracken report is where it says that "the greater part of the tribunal's work was investigative work behind the scenes". The team that conducted that work is to be applauded. I was pleased to hear the Taoiseach say the staff is being maintained to help with the new tribunal. That is a positive step.
The selection of the judge will obviously be a matter of some importance. I realise many current members of the judiciary who acted for one or other of the parties over the years will have to disqualify themselves from dealing with the matter. However, I am sure a suitable person can be found and we wish him or her well.
One could be forgiven for not understanding all the intricate details of the money trail. One could not but come to the conclusion, however, that what we were being treated to was a grand exercise in deception and concealment. That point is emphasised by Judge McCracken.
Since its foundation the State has been served by many distinguished Taoisigh. That one of them should have taken it upon himself to use one of the most exalted positions in our society for personal gain is despicable and can only serve to have damaged the office he occupied as well all of us in public life. Mr. Charles Haughey was no bit player. He was one of the central figures in political life for a quarter of a century until his resignation as Taoiseach in 1992. We know that one leading businessman was a generous donor but we must now find out whether there were other generous donors and what motives they had.
It is implausible to believe the statement by Mr. Dunne to the effect that since Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot it would be better for one person to be the Taoiseach's donor when he was in financial trouble. I suspect the people who were trawling for money would have gone to the other 11 apostles in addition to that person. That will be part of the trail which must be investigated by the incoming tribunal.
Mr. Justice McCracken leaves us in no doubt about the implications of a holder of high office being beholden to businessmen or others. On page 73 of his report he states quite succinctly:
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.
It is clear that at any stage Ben Dunne could have used the threat of disclosure to secure favours from Mr. Haughey. No evidence has emerged of any such favours being sought or given but that does not take away from the fact that Mr. Haughey left himself wide open to the possibility of blackmail or bribery. He compromised himself to such an extent that if pressure had been applied he would have found himself in an extremely weak position.
It is inconceivable that Mr. Haughey would not escape the full rigours of the law. Mr. Justice McCracken makes that point saying that it is not for the tribunal to impose sanctions. However, he did refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
If Mr. Haughey pays no penalty for his transgressions it will truly be a travesty of justice. It will be seized upon by those who already suspect that the law is just for little people. How can we convince somebody who steals a motorcar or is otherwise involved in larceny or vandalism, and who is convicted of such crimes and sent to jail, that they should be subject to the rigour of the law when people who are presumed to be their betters get away scot free?
In the film "The Field" it was the Bull McCabe who said that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor, one law for solicitors, accountants and doctors, and one law for us. However, the same law must be applied for everybody from the highest citizen in the State to the lowest.
There is an equally strong case to made for action to be taken against Deputy Lowry. I welcome the decision by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, to delegate an officer in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to examine the books of Deputy Lowry's company Garuda Ltd. The apparent breaches of company law brought to light by the McCracken tribunal have to be investigated and company law must be applied and implemented where possible. I hope the relevant authorities will pursue Deputy Lowry for tax evasion.
As for the impact of his tax dodging on his capacity to fulfil duties as a holder of public office, page 32 of the McCracken tribunal report provides us with as much enlightenment as we could possibly need. Judge McCracken finds Deputy Lowry's relationship with Dunnes Stores extremely disturbing in at least three aspects. The third aspect touched on by Mr. Justice McCracken is probably the most disturbing of all. The report states:
The most damaging aspect of this relationship is that there could be a public perception that a person in a position of a Government Minister and a member of the Cabinet was able to ignore and indeed cynically evade both the taxation and exchange control laws of the State with impunity. Loss of revenue to the black economy is a serious matter for the State and it is an appalling situation that a Government Minister and a chairman of a parliamentary party can be seen to have consistently benefited from the black economy from shortly after he was first elected to Dáil Éireann. If such a person can behave in this way without serious sanctions being imposed it becomes very difficult to condemn others who similarly flout the law.
On foot of that and the tribunal's other findings Deputy Lowry should resign his Dáil seat. It is unfortunate that the Houses of the Oireachtas do not have the power to expel Members who behave in such a way or, indeed, Members who deliberately mislead the Houses of the Oireachtas. He has done us a huge disservice in public life, especially in his attempts to explain away his conduct in his personal statement to the Dáil last December. His feeble attempt last week to apologise for misleading the Dáil goes nowhere near repairing the damage done by his statement of last December.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges must review the sanctions it can impose upon Members. It is evident we are quite powerless to act in cases of impropriety. Matters like criminal conviction and bankruptcy exclude people from membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas. If there is a requirement for a law to ensure that people who should be excluded from the Houses are excluded, that is what must be done within the constraints of the Constitution. One of the most serious things that can be done in a parliamentary democracy is to deliberately mislead the Houses. One of the foundations of our parliamentary democracy is that the truth will be told in the Houses of the Oireachtas and that no deliberate attempt will be made to mislead them. It is important to maintain that and the Houses and the committees responsible to them have an obligation in that regard.
The tribunal has raised as many questions as it has answered. There is every reason to believe that Mr. Dunne was just one of a number of financial donors to Mr. Haughey. I spoke previously of the so-called 12 apostles. It is estimated that the payments uncovered by the tribunal could have sustained Mr. Haughey in his lifestyle for no more than two or three years. That begs the question as to who else made financial contributions and how his lavish lifestyle was maintained for 20 years or more.
No political impropriety has been uncovered but it would be naive in the extreme to think that the receipt of donations of this magnitude did not colour every task performed by Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry in the service of the State. They showed utter contempt for the normal rules which apply to all holders of public office and their pathetic attempts to explain away such behaviour during the tribunal proceedings suggest they had little remorse for their conduct. Some of the submissions made by Mr. Haughey to the tribunal, which are appended to the end of the report, are also a damning indictment.
The terms of reference of the McCracken tribunal were narrow by necessity but they were sufficient to suggest that further inquiries would be merited. It is clear Mr. Haughey enjoyed a remarkably lavish lifestyle for more than 20 years. Mr. Ben Dunne's largesse accounts for two or three years, so we must ask if there were other benefactors over the years. If so, the public is entitled to know their motives. If Mr. Haughey was prepared to countenance the approach by Mr. Traynor and Mr. Fox on his behalf to a number of businessmen for money, as suggested by Mr. Dunne and apparently accepted by the tribunal, the question immediately arises as to which other businessmen were approached and how often.
We cannot ignore the probability of a multiplicity of such payments nor can a blind eye be turned to the possible motives of such donors. The public must wonder if it is possible to have confidence in the integrity of a number of policy decisions made during Mr. Haughey's tenure as Taoiseach. This raises the question of golden circles and the beef tribunal. We must also establish if Mr. Lowry's bizarre way of doing business influenced any decisions he made during his term as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.
The terms of reference given to the tribunal strike the right balance. On the one hand, we cannot have an inquiry which is open-ended and broadly based and, on the other hand, a tribunal which has such a narrow focus on a few specific areas that it leaves unfinished business and we are faced with yet another inquiry. If Senator Connor seeks to include a range of other items, such as the Ansbacher accounts, which were held by private individuals and which the Cayman Islands courts ruled would not be accessible, or the Masri passport incident, and Senator Norris seeks to include the business community, it will lead to another beef tribunal. We will then be back here in 12 months' time complaining about the cost and the fact it achieved nothing. The Government has sought the middle ground in drafting these terms of reference, which are appropriate and correct.
It makes sense that the first task of the tribunal should be the identification of donors. As the Taoiseach said, we must follow the trail of donors so we can quickly establish if it leads to policy decisions made in the 18 year period covered by the terms of reference. I share the distaste expressed by Senator Connor and others about the £38 million in the Ansbacher accounts and the convoluted ways of avoiding tax obligations. However, I wonder how the tribunal can get to the bottom of it, particularly in respect of accounts held by private individuals which have nothing to do with the two people who are the subject of this tribunal.
Since the foundation of the State we are fortunate to have experienced acceptable and, in many instances, high standards in the conduct of public affairs. It is important to remind ourselves that the record is good. A genuine wish to serve the country and the public good motivated earlier generations of politicians and it should be no different for us as we move into the next century. The pursuit of power for its own sake and in the interests of self-aggrandisement has no place in our political system. We do not need people in politics whose sole interest is to get something out of it for themselves. We need public service, not self-service, or a culture of greed fostered by people who are the most important people in the State. It is a disappointment when one is canvassing in general elections to be repeatedly asked what we can do for them. I have yet to encounter someone who asked what we can do for the country. We must look after our citizens and do what we can for individuals in our society, but the greater good of the country —pro bono publico— must be before us at all times.
The question of remuneration is relevant in terms of being able to ensure we are not subjected to outside pressures which might make our conduct less than becoming. That is not to say the people who hold senior ministerial office and the Taoiseach are not well paid; they are by the people's standards. However, we should not be so defensive as to say that the remuneration of Members of the Dáil and Seanad should not be sufficient to ensure they are not exposed to outside influences.
The McCracken report's recommendations on the Ombudsman and the powers he might have are relevant. I agree with the Taoiseach that we should debate this issue. While the extension of his powers might be beneficial, I am not convinced this is the best way, given the other duties with which he is faced. It might be better to have a separate entity. I am also pleased to note the Taoiseach's remarks that persons who fail to co-operate with the tribunal should bear their own costs.
The report's recommendations are explicit. They state that the sanctions for failure to make disclosures should be strengthened in two ways. First, the making of a false declaration of interest should be a criminal offence and should not merely be dealt with internally by the House of the Oireachtas concerned. Secondly, consideration should be given to introducing legislation to provide that the person found guilty of an offence under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1994, would be ineligible to become a Member of the House in future either for a limited period or permanently. That is relevant to us but it has not received much attention. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the House should examine it.
Most of us who enter these doors are motivated by public service. It is an old-fashioned idea, but a good one and it is part of the Republic we hope to defend and the people we hope to serve. People who conduct themselves in any other way deserve sanctions to be imposed on them by this House, the courts or the Revenue Commissioners.
For the purposes of debate, amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, will be discussed together.
Amendment No. 1 reads:
After the first paragraph, to insert the following new paragraph:
"Bearing also in mind serious public concern that certain decisions (including as examples those relating to the sale of lands at Carysfort and Glending Woods, the rezonings of land in the greater Dublin area, issues arising from the sale of the Johnson Mooney and O'Brien site in Ballsbridge, Export Credit Insurance, the grant of the ESAT Digifone licence, and the grant of citizenship under the Business Migration Scheme) made by holders of public office may have been improperly influenced or obtained.".
This year has been a poor one for politics and politicians; our stock has never been so low. The revelations about the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, and the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, have confirmed the worst suspicions of the public and sections of the media about our profession.
I welcome the establishment of a new tribunal. Of late, tribunals have undergone a rehabilitation. Justice McCracken deserves our deepest gratitude. His report is thorough and clear; it lays blame where blame is to be found and does so using the same moral criteria and, more importantly, the same language as the man in the street. The latter is essential because people should read the report. Gone is the confusion and obfuscation of the beef tribunal report. My party Leader has already called for the referral of the full report to the DPP. While I am reluctant to involve myself in decisions for which others are responsible, in this case the DPP, it is essential that prosecutions follow from Justice McCracken's report.
We cannot underestimate the damage done to our political and administrative system in the perception of compliant taxpayers, ordinary people, PAYE workers and citizens when they see that system abused by those who put it in place. This is no "animal farm" democracy and certain people cannot be seen to be more equal than others. At one level I feel a personal sense of gratitude to Justice McCracken. I have been involved in politics since the age of 18, when I joined the Labour Party and had visions of changing the world. I may be wiser now but my fundamental values — honesty, integrity and decency — have not changed. However, like other Members, I am under a cloud of suspicion. Thankfully, it is within our power to change that.
The new tribunal represents the best opportunity yet to get to the bottom of the allegations which have dogged Irish politics and politicians for many years. As such, the terms of reference should be as broad as possible. Unfortunately, the Government has chosen not to take that road and despite a lengthy debate in the Lower House the terms of reference for the new tribunal remain unduly restrictive. For this reason the Labour group has tabled a series of amendments which it hopes the Government will consider favourably. The key problem is that the terms of reference as currently framed approach the problem almost entirely from the wrong direction. Money is the key.
The money trails leading from the Ansbacher accounts should be pursued with ruthlessness. Not all of these trails will lead to politicians such as Mr. Haughey, Deputy Lowry or other figures in public life, but they will reveal illegalities on the part of the individuals involved. This process will throw light not only on illegalities which should be pursued in their own right but also on those which may lead, during the course of further investigation, to other potential abuses and abusers of the political and taxation systems.
From my reading of it, the terms of reference proposed by the Government seem to preclude the pursuit of these money trails unless the investigators have reason to believe that they lead directly — the key word — to Ministers or political figures. Private individuals, therefore, will be de facto immune to the tribunal's investigations. Crucially, other potential political figures whose links to the business world fall outside the scope of the Ansbacher accounts — they may include relations with people involved with those accounts — may escape punishment. It seems that if a matter is not starting directly out of the Ansbacher accounts, the Government does not want to know about it. The Ansbacher accounts are no longer a starting point for cleaning up the political system to the satisfaction of the general public, they represent the end in themselves.
It is beyond me how the Government believes that this will satisfy the public. The Government is aware of the issues which concern the public and these are cited in amendment No. 1 to the terms of reference which was tabled by my party. These issues are worth repeating and include: the sale of lands at Carysfort and Glending Woods; issues arising from the sale of the Johnson, Mooney and O'Brien site in Ballsbridge; the allocation of export credit insurance; the granting of the Esat Digifone licence; the operation of the business migration scheme and the alleged rezoning scandals in the greater Dublin area.
Over the past number of years the alleged rezoning scandals have been a matter of great concern to myself, the Labour Party and the public. As far as I am concerned, builders and developers have taken over the planning process particularly during the period during which development plans are framed and discussed. The sight of builders and developers crowding the foyer and public galleries of Dublin County Council and Fingal County Council will always remain with me. It gives me no joy to state that these people make major financial contributions to political parties and politicians during local and general election campaigns. Why do I say this?
Since 1985, I have received a number of unsolicited cheques from builders and developers towards my election campaigns. I want to place it on record that I never cashed these cheques, which remain in my possession. However, if Councillor Seán Ryan and members of the Labour Party who have opposed indiscriminate rezonings on a regular basis receive such largesse from builders and developers, it does not stretch the imagination to assume that those more favourably disposed to rezonings, such as Fianna Fáil councillors and the majority of their Fine Gael counterparts, are or would be in receipt of substantially larger amounts, particularly because their votes have made millionaires of a number of these builders and developers.
Politicians, whether they are engaged in national or local politics, should not place themselves in a position which could leave them open to charges of being under an obligation to any individual or business in any way. I believe that the Electoral Bill must also include people who put themselves forward as candidates in local elections. Until that happens, there will always be questions about contributions and the effect these have on the decision-making process. Rather than addressing the issue head-on, it seems the Government is content that the cloud which hangs over politicians and politics will remain.
My party has also called for an investigation into the use by Mr. Haughey, as leader of Fianna Fáil, of moneys paid to him through the party leaders allowance system from 1983 to 1992. As other Members pointed out, the Taoiseach conducted an examination within Fianna Fáil and declared himself satisfied with the position. The Taoiseach has been asked to do far too much, he has been asked to perform other people's functions. The moneys in question fall into a separate category from the ones which are subject to other lines of inquiry. The former Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, was right when he said last week that in perpetrating tax fraud one was stealing from the public purse; but this question is more complex, it raises the possibility that a man who has not paid the due amount to the public purse has been availing of its benefits, a form of double theft which warrants a full and independent investigation by the new tribunal.
Last week in the other House, after the amendment we had tabled was rejected by the Government, my party supported an amendment tabled by Democratic Left to have the donation of £30,000 in cash received by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burke, included in the terms of reference of the new tribunal. In the intervening days the statement made by the Minister has been the subject of many analyses in the newspapers, including the Minister's local newspaper, The Fingal Independent. There is consensus that the response given by him was unsatisfactory. I share this view. In accepting an unsolicited contribution of £30,000 from a business person he had not met previously or since, the Minister, an experienced politician, displayed a serious lack of judgment.
Some commentators have accused our colleagues in the other House of failing in their duty to tackle the Minister to a greater degree. Like the Minister, I was born and reared in Portrane. We went to the same school and played football together and my grandfather was the Minister's father's director of elections. I caution the said commentators that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, regardless of the number of accusations made against him or her. They should direct their ire at the Government which has refused to have the matter cleared up at the appropriate place, the new tribunal of inquiry.
I do not understand the attitude of the Government on this issue. It has done the Minister no favours. His name will not be cleared until the matter has been investigated by an independent body such as the new tribunal of inquiry. The proposed terms of reference condemn him to continue to live under a cloud of suspicion. He does not deserve this. I hope the Government will take this into consideration in looking at the amendments we have tabled.
The Minister claimed — this has been repeated by other Fianna Fáil figures since — that his actions in 1989 were being judged under a moral code put in place in 1997. I take exception to this. I remind him and others in Fianna Fáil that Members of this House had to fight long and hard, in the face of opposition from the major parties and the Progressive Democrats, to secure agreement to the changes proposed in the recent electoral and ethics legislation. What was the reason for the delay in enacting that legislation, which does not go far enough? My attitude to political donations of the kind received by the Minister has not changed since 1989. No politician should put himself or herself in a position where he or she can be compromised.
This motion, properly amended, presents us with the best opportunity to rehabilitate the reputation of politicians which has been tarnished by recent scandals. The Government should forego any short-term political advantage it sees in pursuing these limited terms of reference and accept the amendments we have tabled. The issue at stake is an important one. Politics is too important to be subject to public contempt. Each time I knock on someone's door I am told, "you are all the same". I resent this. This motion presents us with the best opportunity to convince the public that we are serious about cleaning up our act. If we are not prepared to defend the integrity of politicians we have no business complaining when others, particularly in the media, fail to do so either.
We complain when 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the electorate do not exercise their franchise in general elections. Up to 60 per cent fail to do so in local elections. They are disillusioned because of recent scandals. We should stand up and say that we want to clean up the system. So far as the Labour Party is concerned, the way to do it is to accept the amendments we have tabled.
I wish to share my time with Senator Chambers. I join the Leader of the House, Senator Cassidy, and of the Opposition, Senator Manning, in congratulating you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, on your election.
I compliment Mr. Justice McCracken on producing what is an excellent and professional report. It is both thorough and explicit. It is sad that we are discussing terms of reference for what is the third tribunal to be established within a short time. We can take a degree of comfort that the system works. Our democracy is a good one and a great example of what a young democracy can do. We are a fledgling democracy — only 70 or 80 years old. We have had problems but we are respected throughout the world and our system works well. It is for that reason that we must compliment the Taoiseach on his statement this morning and support him in the actions he is proposing to take. We must support the new tribunal and its terms of reference, which I agree with.
The truth must prevail and be brought to the surface. It is dreadful when it is suggested that a person holding the highest office in this land accepted a bribe of £1.3 million — perhaps more — or that one of our Ministers has accepted a bribe. There is no suggestion in the report that anyone involved gave favours. We have a democracy and a system of justice so we should accept that someone is innocent until proven guilty. This tribunal has all the facilities to demonstrate whether there was any misbehaviour and its extent.
Some of my colleagues referred to the business community. I am a member of that community and I wish to defend it. The business community is the backbone of the country. I remind Senator Norris that it makes substantial contributions to academic and other institutions. I do not agree with the suggestion that banks need to be investigated. Banks behave in a proper manner and work within the law. Some use the system cleverly but they are within the law and have every right to do so. Banks offer an important facility.
The Revenue Commissioners have many laws at their disposal and, as Senator Norris said, we should not tempt providence. They have authority which they have not utilised to date. If people are apparently living beyond their means, why do the Revenue Commissioners not take action to investigate? They have access to all the information, much of which is confidential, although some occasionally appears in publications. There has to be some degree of confidentiality. One does not know what information Revenue has at their disposal although I have no doubt they made decisions in the best of faith. Thankfully, the terms of reference of the new tribunal will discover whether they did or not. This tribunal and the last one are deterrents to misbehaviour in the future.
The business community have to make money, which is not easy to do in these competitive times. We are more regulated now than ever before, for indigenous and parochial reasons and also to conform to EU legislation. We should not jump to conclusions and tar everyone with the same brush. As a businessman, I sometimes feel that if I am in a certain place, I must be corrupt. There are many businesses which have done well and are held in high esteem nationally and internationally. I do not want anyone to have the misconception that any of these businesses behave improperly or that there is any impropriety on their part.
I welcome the Taoiseach's statement and this tribunal and I compliment him on his prompt and thorough action. I also compliment all parties for their accord in establishing what I hope will be the last tribunal of this kind for a long time.
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I welcome your elevation. I welcome and support the establishment of this tribunal, which is in the best interests of the political system and the people.
In the past, some people in rural Ireland supported political parties on the basis of their strong ideology and the principled ideas of the people who led them, who still play an important part in the political development of the State. While their position might be diminishing because of changes taking place, these people still look to political parties for credence, ideology, honesty and righteousness.
The essence of the last tribunal diminished the views of many Irish people as regards the political structure and changed their thinking on national politics. It behoves the Oireachtas, the Seanad and the elected representatives to put the State in order and restore the basic ideology of righteousness and ethics to the Irish people.
I welcome the Taoiseach's introduction of a second tribunal. In his visit to this House yesterday, he showed himself to be open, straightforward and anxious to deal with the situation in a fair and democratic manner. Everyone will receive their rights within the law and people will not be found guilty until it is proven they have done something wrong. It is right and proper that their legitimate rights are upheld.
There is a public perception that there is a twotiered society, with different laws for those of high and low status. The tribunal must allay that public misconception. If it follows the line of the McCracken tribunal it may be successful.
The Taoiseach stated the Ethics Bill will be amended to deal with politicians and people in public life. Money and power is at the base of this matter. Politicians must be protected by law and the structures within political parties. Money is corrupting although it is beneficial and a status symbol. To a large extent, people in financial institutions are protected by the structures of those organisations. Because of the new found wealth and the changes in society, political parties must put in place structures that will protect the interests of their members.
Mr. Goodman, who was at the centre of a tribunal that cost the State a great deal of money, was mentioned during the debate. It is easy to bandy about the names of people in business and discuss their contributions to the State. During Mr. Haughey's period in office Mr. Goodman was not given recognition at the tribunal for his contribution to the development of the agriculture industry and the State. He was treated unfairly even though he is a businessman who has made a major contribution to the State. While I accept there may be certain misgivings in this regard, people who should have stood by him hung him out to dry. I support the setting up of the new tribunal.
Debate adjourned.