Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the clarification. The reason I have asked Mr. Keegan about that matter is I have huge respect for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, as I mentioned when its representatives were before us, but I think it got it seriously wrong in this instance. We are, however, also looking through the lens of the past. Let us look at the years when the judgment or tax ruling was made. There was no legislation stating the Office of the Revenue Commissioners was independent. In fact, the Moriarty tribunal recommended that, as legislators, we introduce it. The reason was it had found that the Taoiseach of the day, during the exact same period when the first Apple ruling was issued, had directly interfered with the most senior official within the Office of the Revenue Commissioners to confer a benefit of millions of euro on an individual by the name of Mr. Dunne. There is, therefore, an acceptance that there was political interference at the highest level with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners during that period. Mr. Redmond spoke about the independence of the Revenue Commissioners, but is it not a statement of fact that the Moriarty tribunal found that there had been interference during that period? There were many other allegations of political interference in the case of Ansbacher. For example, the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's brother-in-law, as Revenue appeals commissioner, reduced the former Taoiseach Mr. Haughey's tax liability which was in the millions to zero. Is it not believable that there could have been political interference given what we know about what happened at that time? We know what the culture of politics was back in the 1980s and how the Fianna Fáil Party worked in making side deals and having regard to all of the things that have been noted since.