I call Senator Coghlan and congratulate him on his election.
Report of Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) and Establishment of Tribunal of Inquiry: Motions (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann:
— welcomes the publication of the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payment),
— 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.
—Senator Cassidy.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Ar dtús báire ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a chur in iúl duit agus don Chathaoirleach as ucht a thoghadh do chathaoir an tSeanaid. Tá a fhios agam go mbeidh chomhoibriú eadrainn go léir i rith na mblianta os ár gcomhair agus tá mé ag súil go mbeidh sé mar sin.
I congratulate Mr. Justice McCracken and his team on their superb handling of the tribunal of inquiry and their expeditious and welcome report and recommendations. I also welcome the Government's proposal to establish a further tribunal of inquiry, in particular the invitation to it to make whatever broad recommendations it considers necessary or expedient in light of its findings and conclusions about ensuring the integrity of public administration, compliance with company law, maintaining the independence of the Revenue, enhancing the role of the Central Bank, effective regulation of professional bodies and protection of the State's tax base. I am pleased the Taoiseach spent a great deal of time yesterday and today speaking on this matter and on an equally important matter yesterday. I was also pleased to hear him state that evidence of political impropriety was not discovered. He said it is essential that we proceed to deal with the matter without engaging in witch hunts or scapegoating one or two individuals. He also stated it is important these matters are sorted out expeditiously without having recourse to endless tribunals. I subscribe to those views.
I am pleased there was widespread consultation with the Opposition regarding the terms of reference for the new tribunal. Those terms are welcome with the exception of the matters we have put before the House by way of amendment. The matter must be dealt with by following the so-called money trail. The Taoiseach said the Ansbacher accounts will be examined, but the terms of reference in that regard are narrow. He also referred to the need to dispel the atmosphere of cynicism which exists. He said we must address the recommendations of Mr. Justice McCracken. The report states the tribunal considers it should be mandatory for any candidate for either House of the Oireachtas to produce to the Clerk of the Dáil or the Seanad, as the case may be, a certificate from such person's tax inspector that his or her tax affairs are in order and this should be accompanied by a statutory declaration to that effect from the person concerned. That is a particularly welcome recommendation.
I have tabled an amendment which is necessary for a number of reasons. The McCracken tribunal established that money was held on deposit in certain Irish banks by offshore banks in memorandum accounts, namely Ansbacher accounts, for the benefit of Irish residents. Only £1.3 million has been accounted for out of a total of approximately £40 million. It gives rise to serious public concern that such a large amount of money is unaccounted for, particularly when the nature of the accounts and the way they were set up were commented on unfavourably by the tribunal.
The Order Paper, in three separate paragraphs, referring to the terms of reference states: "bearing in mind the serious public concern arising from the report of the tribunal", "the fact that these accounts were for the benefit of Irish residents" and "noting further that the Dunnes Payments Tribunal was unable, by reason of its terms of reference, to investigate the source of the Ansbacher accounts other than in respect of sums paid by certain persons referred to in the said terms of reference". Despite those three statements, the terms of reference restrict the investigation and the proposed further inquiries to two named individuals. There is at least a prima facie case to include all the memorandum accounts in the terms of reference.
From Mr. Justice McCracken's excellent report it appears there was breach of all exchange control regulations. The Constitution expressly states in Article 40.1 that all citizens shall be held equal before the law. In view of the McCracken findings, the magnitude of irregular sums is incredible. We are not talking about payments of £10,000, £20,000 or £30,000. One aspect of the equality principle enshrined in the Constitution is that the Legislature should not be discriminatory between classes of people. In that regard I refer the House to the statement of the former President and Taoiseach, Mr. Eamon de Valera in the Official Report of 1937.
To uphold the equality principle it strikes me that we need a rational basis to underpin the distinction between focusing on two individuals and neglecting to look at the remaining unaccounted for £38.7 million. It appears once a prima facie case can be established it is unconstitutional in light of Article 40.1 to single out two individuals, necessary as that may be. Do the new terms violate Article 40.1 of the Constitution? The application of the principle of equality to the Legislature is clear. It is, therefore, the duty of the Legislature, when setting up such an inquiry, to treat all citizens equally. I can only presume discrimination in this instance is based on the fact of political involvement. Is that legitimate discrimination?
The honourable Mrs. Justice Denham held in the Supreme Court in the case of Howard v. the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland:
In addition to recognising the rights to equality of citizens, the concept of equality includes the concept that in the execution of their power the organs of Government shall act with due regard to the concept of equality. Thus, while accepting there might be specific exceptions, in general the position of a citizen as a person should not be lesser than a person in the form of a body corporate of whatever status.
I am not arguing a case for the two individuals concerned, as the tribunal of inquiry indicates that further inquiries are necessary. However, the affairs of people other than the two individuals involved should be inquired into because of the known existence and irregularity of the so-called Ansbacher accounts. I see no justification for a distinction regarding the remaining unaccounted for money in those accounts. I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendment.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach on their appointments. As a person whose granduncle was Cathaoirleach in the 1930s and 1940s, I have some appreciation of the honour bestowed on them. I am a member of a family that has had great involvement in political life for many years, starting with my granduncle, then my father who served in Dáil Éireann for many years during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and latterly my brother who served for a number of years in the Dáil in the 1980s. I am humbled to be appointed by the Taoiseach to this House. In my tenure here I will strive in so far as I can to bring integrity, honesty and decency to my contribution. It is particularly important that those criteria be emphasised in today's discussion.
I compliment Mr. Justice McCracken and his staff on the expedient way in which they took on this enormous task and on publishing a very valuable report. It is particularly important that it is written in a language everybody can read. We had experience in the past of tribunals which, having cost enormous amounts of money, produced vast volumes that basically amounted to very little. We now have a succinct report which gives damning information on events that happened in the recent past. It is worth bearing in mind that this information came to light only as a result of a family dispute. We should be able to investigate any matter relating to Members of either House, and the same should apply to members of the public service. It is extremely important that there is a system to investigate quickly a suggested impropriety on the part of a person in a position of authority and power. Over the years in public life a rotten apple got into the pack and festered, leading to an extremely serious position. The wrongdoings highlighted by the McCracken tribunal were alluded to earlier.
It is sad the public, who have always suspected that politicians, whether local authority representatives, Ministers or Members of the Oireachtas, are all the same, all on the make and that you could not believe a word out of them, seem to be vindicated. It is very sad that the public, whom we are supposed to be serving, feel that way about us. It is incumbent on us to do everything in our power to change that. We must bring about a situation whereby the public feel they are being represented by people whom they trust and that honesty, decency and integrity exist.
Earlier contributors made many suggestions about the tribunal which it is unnecessary to go over again. It is important we move forward and learn from the past. However, in order to do so we must learn exactly what happened in the past, which is why I welcome the establishment of this tribunal. It is extremely important we get detailed answers to some of the questions which have been asked over the years. This is particularly important in terms of the public's perception of us.
It is also important that the full rigour of the law is brought to bear in relation to any impropriety which is shown to have taken place. I read recently in the newspaper about an unmarried mother who failed to pay her television licence and was unceremoniously hauled off to jail in front of her children. Do we want to build a society which allows that to happen while at the same time not taking action on these other matters? We must take full action and anybody who commits a crime must be punished accordingly.
We must move forward and give the public the perception that we are acting properly. The terms of reference of this tribunal do a great deal in that direction. People have suggested the lengthy investigation of many matters. However, the terms of reference strike a good balance in terms of following the money trail and allowing us to investigate who provided money, how it was provided and where it went. It is important this be done so that any impropriety can be identified and dealt with at a later stage.
That balance is particularly important in view of our past experience with tribunals. The beef tribunal sat over a very extended period of time. Unfortunately, its only result was the charging of a journalist, while many members of the legal profession made vast amounts of money. That is not what a tribunal should be about; its purpose is to identify what actually happened. The terms of reference put forward in this case will go a long way towards that aim. I recommend the tribunal to the House.
These Houses are awash with people from families rooted deeply in Fianna Fáil but who, like Senator Gibbons and I, felt driven out of Fianna Fáil by the spectacle of what that party had become. We are beginning to see the resurrection of that party in terms of some form of re-engagement with what it used to stand for. Anybody who frequented Leinster House during the period I was a Member, from 1981 until my little accident in 1993——
It was a temporary little arrangement.
I think somebody else used that phrase about the Senator's party. People should be wary of using these throwaway phrases because they come back to haunt them.
There was something wrong with Fianna Fáil during that period. I was amazed by the number of people in Fianna Fáil, particularly in social contexts, who could not understand why somebody like me, who had a commitment to the Irish language and who was, as one person who is now a junior Minister described it, "sound on the national question"— I never got a precise definition of that phrase — was not in Fianna Fáil. The real shock was that I could never explain to that man, who is now a junior Minister, why I was not because my reasons were utterly incomprehensible to him.
I observed these events as a total non-participant in the political process: I was not a member of a local authority and I am not a member of a political party. I observed these events from the position of someone with considerable experience and with, despite what I might say from time to time, considerable loyalty to the political process. I believe passionately in party politics. Unlike some of my colleagues on the backbenches, I have never attempted to claim a moral superiority because I am an Independent. I claim the privilege of independence to say different things, but I have never claimed a moral superiority because I am not constrained by party loyalties.
I have great respect for party politics but I have no respect for people who use the excuse of party loyalty to ignore the reality staring them in the face. That reality was a party leader who was extraordinarily rich without any visible means of support. A considerable proportion of society chose to blink in front of that. One journalist, who many Members regarded — sometimes with justification — as a nuisance in the political process, asked the question over and over again but most people chose to ignore it.
We have now had revealed to us a spectacle which ought to make all of us involved in politics remember forever that what politics needs first is the trust of the people. That seems a cliché or an old hat expression but we have all lost that trust. Anybody who has contested any election — even one as ephemeral and intangible as the postal ballot for the university panel — will realise that most intelligent young people regard it as an entirely sordid operation.
There is a tendency on all our parts, because of this belief that we are all corrupt, to claim sanctity for ourselves which is beyond the norm. We are not saints or any better than the rest of humanity. Our biggest problem, as I have often said in public, is that politicians must make their compromises in public while other people manage to do it privately. However, that is not the problem.
The problem is that the two biggest parties in this House would have the world believe they are more saintly than many of the rest of us. They do not think they are doing that but they believe — and I think the Progressive Democrats would be at one with them — it is possible to receive large donations from business without being influenced in any way in their conduct of public business.
I cannot claim that level of sanctity. I know I will always give a better hearing to people who help me in elections and I will always respond more quickly to their telephone calls and letters because they have a particular value for me. I would love to spend an hour — although the House would not thank me for it — analysing the complex motives behind that but it is the reality. I defy any Member to say it does not matter who telephones them in the morning, whether they are a supporter or whether they made a contribution.
Those who do not understand how the public see us have, in the immortal words of Jethro Tull, "got the whole damn thing all wrong". The public sees us as being in the pocket of business. It may see my friends in the Labour Party as being in the pocket of the trade union movement and see me as being in the pocket of Fidel Castro or some negative force. Unfortunately, the terms of reference of this tribunal will not eliminate that view. We will thoroughly investigate the misbehaviour of two people who brought the profession of politics into profound disrepute in a particular way. However, there cannot be corruption on one side only. Corruption requires somebody to accept payment, somebody who is prepared to give corrupt payments and somebody who is prepared to use the system corruptly.
In his column in The Irish Times Mr. Vincent Browne referred to a horrifying comment from a senior Government member that the reason the terms of reference of the tribunal could not be extended to investigate all the Ansbacher accounts was that so much hot money would leave the country on the spot that there would be a minor financial crisis. Mr. Browne has emerged from this scandal with his reputation enhanced considerably because he focused on the issue when others chose not to do so. I do not believe he is making up the quotation; somebody made that remark to him. It implies that the country's financial foundations are hot money illegally acquired, illegally banked and which cannot be accounted for in tax terms. That is a scandal and provides no basis for future development.
There are two main issues involved. First, I do not believe Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael when they maintain that donors do not influence them. They are no more saintly than the rest of us. I do not say, imply or hint that they act corruptly. However, their thought processes will be affected. An example is the powers of the Revenue Commissioners to investigate tax evasion. As the Taoiseach said, the Revenue Commissioners are empowered to seek access through the courts to the bank accounts of named individuals resident in the State. In other words, if they know who is fiddling and who they suspect of tax evasion they can look for their bank accounts. They cannot look for bank accounts in order to find out who is evading tax, which is how it should be.
There is a simple solution which is applied in Denmark. Every bank account should indicate the RSI number of the beneficial owner of the account, save for the accounts of plcs. This practice should apply as a matter of law. I challenge Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to agree to that proposal which would do no more than ensure that the owners of all bank accounts were identifiable and ensure that fair treatment applied.
The second issue is why banks advertise profound levels of confidentiality with their accounts. From whom are the accounts confidential? Why is there such an emphasis on confidentiality? Is it for commercial reasons? No. Confidentiality is a signal for tax evasion. It should not be appropriate for a bank to hint at tax evasion in its advertising. We have found corrupt people in the political system, yet we have only begun to look at the corrupt people who hand out the money. We are unwilling apparently to really pursue them in other than a couple of named cases. I invite the Government to indicate what it intends to do.
I agree with the amendments. At least the Ansbacher accounts should be investigated. Nobody has given a good reason for not doing so, other than the one given to Mr. Browne, the implications of which are mind boggling in terms of the way our society operates.
If at the next annual general meeting of AIB bank a shareholder attempts to ask why Mr. Haughey had a large debt wiped out, the shareholder will be told by the chairman of the board that he does not discuss individual clients' business. We will be left with the spectacle of one of the country's two biggest banks operating the standards which Mr. Justice McCracken attacked — a different law for the rich and the poor. Judgments against people for debts appear in newspapers for amounts between £1,000 and £5,000, yet a large multiple of such sums was wiped out for one individual. Will the shareholders of that bank be able to question the bank's behaviour?
The said bank has a dodgy ethical reputation. It was involved in the dodgy attempts to undermine the co-operative bank and stores in Britain. Did it use information made available to it illegally by disloyal servants of those companies? It never apologised for its behaviour. Incidentally, the same bank now maintains that there was no crisis involving the Insurance Corporation of Ireland some years ago. It has adopted the "What crisis? There's no crisis" approach which we used to associate with Fianna Fáil. Ethics have not taken deep root in many business sectors. Cute ways of avoiding tax are part and parcel of business. We must deal with that aspect if we are to make progress.
The proposed tribunal will do good work. The McCracken tribunal was a success. It was a model of how such matters should be tackled. His team of investigators did a wonderful job in unearthing information which had been tied up in a convoluted series of bank accounts. They did a great service to the country in what was not a pleasant story but an important one nonetheless. This tribunal brings that phase of the story to an end. However, we have not even begun to eliminate the culture which underlies the story. Unless we consider the areas of company law, corporate donations and transparency of bank accounts for the Revenue Commissioners, we will leave the fundamental problem untackled.
I support the motion for the establishment of a new tribunal in so far as it goes. I would prefer its terms were broader, in line with the amendments we have tabled. It is unfortunate that the first tasks of the new Seanad have been to agree legislation for an amendment to the Constitution which will facilitate the work of a tribunal of inquiry and to agree to the establishment of such a tribunal. The work of the tribunal will be almost entirely directed at the perceived wrongdoings of politicians. We have to examine scandals and allegations of politicians feathering their own nests. We are collectively being tarred with the one brush and accused of being in a corrupt profession. The perception in the public mind that politics is corrupt is serious and alarming. One hears it said that people always knew this was going on and now there is evidence of it. Politics is at a very low ebb and we must take all appropriate measures to investigate wrongdoing where it occurs and to ensure that procedures are put in place to make it difficult to happen again. If this should happen again, we must ensure there is a mechanism whereby there is an expedient and speedy investigation into it.
It is unfortunate that the allegations we are dealing with relate to politicians at the highest level: a former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, who has been Minister at various important Departments from Finance to Justice and a senior Minister, Deputy Lowry. In the newspapers today and yesterday there are reports of the Garda arresting a former Deputy and Minister on allegations of money laundering. That file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. These matters, when combined, cast a very dark shadow over proceedings here and in the Dáil.
We have a glimmer of hope in the report of the McCracken Tribunal that allegations of payments will be dealt with. Judge McCracken has done a wonderful service for the State, producing a report of marvellous clarity and brevity. No tribunal report should exceed 100 pages. I remember trying to wade through the report of the beef tribunal. That was a colossal tome of almost 1,000 pages which did not reach any substantial conclusions. Judge McCracken's report makes recommendations and it calls a spade a spade. The report recommends that the DPP should consider whether Mr. Haughey should be prosecuted for lying to the tribunal. The Government should go a step further and send the report to the DPP formally, with a view to the entire report being examined to see if there are grounds for further action to be taken in relation to deceit, tax evasion, company law and the various elements of criminality the judge detected.
We in the Oireachtas have a responsibility to look at the McCracken report's recommendations on our own affairs. The report makes recommendations relating to Members of the Oireachtas and a special committee of the Houses should be set up to see how that matter can progress.
The new tribunal has "following the money trail" as its central theme. That is the most effective way for it to go about its business as it keeps a focus on the issues to be investigated. The various sources — banks, building societies, offshore accounts, specifically the Ansbacher accounts — are specified. Those who benefited from these sources are specified: Mr. Haughey and Deputy Lowry, as well as any Minister in the designated period.
The tribunal is also to make recommendations relating to the Revenue Commissioners and how they exercise their powers, in particular with reference to why they seemed so lackadaisical in looking into instances of taxation not being an issue with regard to obvious assets and wealth. It is important to see how they have performed in the past with a view to future recommendations.
There are recommendations on how political parties have received donations, how company law has operated in the State, how the Central Bank monitors matters, on the various accountancy bodies — and I would like the legal profession to be included — and how offshore accounts operate. The terms of the tribunal are excellent and I have no complaints about them. However, there is scope, as there is with all legislation, to look at areas of either greater flexibility or specific issues. We are addressing some of these in our amendments.
The first amendment relates to certain controversial decisions about which there is an enormous amount of public disquiet. There may be areas that other Members wish to specify but these need to be brought into the open in order that, by doing so, we show we are not hiding any area of controversy where political decisions may have had a bearing.
We have specified the sale of lands at Carysfort, about which there was huge controversy. Questions arose as to the beneficiary and to how decisions were made about it. Glending Woods mushroomed in value as an asset from £2 million to £50 million and various decisions were taken in relation to the rezoning of that area. Senator Seán Ryan referred to the questions raised about rezoning of land in the greater Dublin area which were recently featured in "Prime Time" on RTÉ. Issues arising out of the sale of the Johnson, Mooney and O'Brien site in Ballsbridge were also the subject of considerable controversy. Export credit insurance, the grant of the mobile telephone licence and the grant of citizenship under the business migration scheme are all matters that deserve at least a preliminary investigation by the tribunal to see if there are grounds for a full public investigation.
Regarding the Ansbacher accounts, it seems absolutely incredible that we have limited the terms of reference of the tribunal to examine only Mr. Haughey's account or the sources of money of which he is a beneficiary, as well as those of other Ministers at the time. These are the two areas in which the £38 million which has been identified will be examined. No extra work would be involved in determining what the other sources or who the other beneficiaries of such money were. The account has been identified and is no longer an anonymous one. It is simply a matter of investigating what other politicians or members of the public might hold accounts in the Ansbacher accounts. We can be sure that such a secret account is for no good. It is just possible that there may be some legal intention on the part of some of the account holders but the likelihood is that this account is a tax scam and a slush fund, as the indications to date would seem to imply.
To say that, having the account before us, we are not going to probe into it seems to me to be absolutely astounding when no extra time would be required to determine who the beneficiaries and what the sources of the money were. That could be achieved in ten minutes.
I requested yesterday on the Order of Business that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burke, would grace this House with his presence to make a personal statement and answer questions as he did in the other House. That would be quite in keeping with Deputy Burke's remarks in the other House when he said that his intention was to make a personal statement to his colleagues and clear his name. Arising out of his personal statement in the other House the general opinion of all commentators is that Deputy Burke has not cleared his name in a satisfactory fashion. The matter boils down to one particular point, which is that the incredible situation has arisen where a member of the public, whom Deputy Burke had never previously met and was never to meet again, handed him £30,000 in cash in two brown envelopes for his own personal use. While there may be a plausible explanation, such an explanation was not provided to the other House, and we in this House would certainly welcome the opportunity to question the Minister here. The least we could expect from the tribunal is that it would seek to establish whether there is a prima facie case to be answered in relation to that money and carry out a preliminary examination to determine that. That is the gist of the amendment which the Labour Party has tabled.
In conclusion, I welcome the motion which is before us. I am not happy that this is the type of business the House must deal with during its first sitting but it is necessary to seek, in so far as it is possible, to establish further information in relation to matters arising from the previous Dunnes payments tribunal. Hopefully, we will begin the process of clearing the names of politicians which have been sullied over a period of time.
We seem to forget why we are here and what the initial reasons were for this entire situation arising. There was some friction in the Dunne family and, as a result of that friction, the family decided to have an internal investigation of their business and a private investigation of their accounts carried out. As a result of the report which was carried out privately for them, confidential information emerged which was subsequently leaked. From that, it emerged that particular payments were made to two politicians in a very irregular and highly questionable fashion. We are specifically dealing here today with payments made by one particular company to two specific politicians.
The larger questions which must be asked are how many and what other politicians received money and what other companies and organisations have paid senior and junior politicians throughout the years. That is an issue which has not been addressed either privately or publicly. Until all political parties and both Houses of the Oireachtas carry out a much broader examination of the entire situation in relation to payments to politicians we will not restore the public confidence which is required at this time.
This issue only came to light by sheer chance; one could say it was a freak accident. As a result of what emerged from the Dunnes Stores internal examination of accounts, it was decided that a tribunal should be set up specifically to investigate these matters.
The previous Government established that tribunal and must be complimented for the terms of reference which were put in place. The result was that the tribunal operated very specifically and clearly and within a very specific time frame. The cost to the taxpayer and the time limit involved was very tight and, as a result, we have a very fine tribunal report here today which makes very specific recommendations. Mr. Justice McCracken, his legal team and staff must be complimented on a very fine job carried out within the terms of reference presented to them.
As a member of a political party and the Oireachtas for some time, I resent the fact that all politicians are being tarred with the same brush and are being viewed by the public in a similar manner. We are all aware that 90 to 95 per cent of Members of the Oireachtas are extremely hardworking, reliable, genuine and decent people who lose more through their involvement in politics than they gain. That is a recognised fact. Unfortunately, a minority are doing the majority a grave injustice and until the majority of politicians in both Houses address the wider issue I raised here today none of us will have our names cleared. The onus lies on both Houses of the Oireachtas and on the various political parties to address that issue.
Individual political parties cannot stand apart from this. They have their own rules, regulations, constitutions and their own party pledges which candidates sign at various times, particularly when they are selected as candidates. Political parties must take a much stronger hands-on approach in relation to their candidates, their selection procedures and the general performance of potential candidates prior to their becoming candidates. There is an onus on political parties to exercise greater scrutiny in the interests of the majority of candidates.
We cannot have a two-tier situation in this country where some candidates in political parties gain very handsomely, in a financial sense, from donations made by individuals. One could say that the Ethics in Public Office Act prevents that from happening; it may do so up to a point, but if a person is of the mentality that they want to deceive they will do so. There is an onus on us, as politicians, to take action within our parties and within the Oireachtas to ensure this does not happen. We must seek fair play for everybody within the political system. That does not mean that some candidates within parties should have a massive slush fund to spend at election time while others go to their bank manager and go into the red to fight an election. This has happened but has not been publicly addressed. If we do not, as politicians, address that issue it will be the sword on which we will fall. There is a temerity and fear abroad in so far as we are very specifically focused on two specific cases here. While that is highly commendable and necessary, let us deal with the broader issue. Until we do that, we as politicians will not restore confidence in public life. There is an onus on all of us.
I do not intend to rehash the details of this report; they are on the record of both Houses. It is shocking that people in senior political office, who had the trust of the people, were so disingenuous in their behaviour in accepting massive sums of money which left them open to bribery or blackmail. Judge McCracken clearly reinforced that view in his report. He made a number of recommendations but it is not necessary to set up committees to examine them. The position is clear. Matters are either right or wrong and they can be easily addressed without a great deal of bureaucracy. Ninety five per cent of all decent politicians know what should be done. The report's recommendations should be unanimously accepted and implemented, and we do not need to set up a committee to do that. Initially, political parties could adopt the recommendations for future candidates.
The Houses of the Oireachtas should introduce legislation to copperfasten recommendations. They are highly commendable and we should not be afraid to implement them. One recommendation is that a tax clearance certificate be provided by individuals prior to their selection as candidates in an election. That should not pose any difficulty. We introduced legislation which demanded that tax clearance certificates be provided by licensed vintners before their licences could be renewed in the courts. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; if we can introduce that type of legislation for one sector of the community, surely we can apply it to ourselves. That should be done immediately.
Another recommendation is that the powers and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be extended to deal with the Ethics in Public Office Act. That is commendable, and I was glad to hear the Taoiseach say this morning that a referendum along those lines might be held in conjunction with the Treaty of Amsterdam referendum. I hope legislation to that effect will come before this House shortly and the powers of the Ombudsman will be extended to ensure he can take action on the Ethics in Public Office Act.
Another of the report's recommendations is that greater sanctions are needed in the Ethics in Public Office Act. To date only a cursory examination has been made by a committee of the House but it was not in a position to impose serious sanctions. That matter should be seriously examined and taken on board by both Houses of the Oireachtas and by the various political parties.
Although it was not in the terms of reference, Judge McCracken referred in his report to the funding of politicians and political parties. He stated it was not satisfactory for the taxpayer to totally fund political parties. Over the past 25 years a culture has developed in the political system concerning the funding of politicians. As a politician I do not understand the term "funding politicians". I understand the term "funding political parties" but as a politician who has always funded my own political campaign I question the culture that has developed. As every politician knows, if their paws are greased by any individual, regardless of the amount, he will never again be in a position to speak freely as a public representative. There is always the inherent danger that the funded politician will be beholden to a person who can call on him at any time to do or not do something. He may even be threatened about becoming involved in an issue. Political parties must be obliged to address this problem within their own structures.
This report is to be commended. It is a job well done. I am pleased the Government has now agreed to set up a new tribunal, the terms of reference of which were outlined in the House today. In view of the debate that has taken place here and the analysis of Members of the Lower House, I hope the Government will see fit to accept the amendments tabled by the Opposition. The more detailed the terms of reference, the better, and it is extremely important that the Government recognises that.
I hope the new tribunal will be chaired by a person of equal competence, ability and efficiency to Judge McCracken. I commend the Taoiseach for referring this morning to the appeal to the High Court in the Cayman Islands in relation to the Ansbacher account. That is important to enable Judge McCracken further examine that account. I welcome the statement by the Government that it will place all the resources necessary at the disposal of Judge McCracken to allow that appeal proceed.
I hope when we discuss the report of the new tribunal, we will have much greater detail. I hope also that we will have taken on board the recommendations made in the report of Judge McCracken.
Debate adjourned.