Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

This debate is important and should not be trivialised by the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, because it gives us a special window on the future of Irish politics and the standards that we must all embrace. It provides a real opportunity for those on the other side of the House who have been conferred with leadership status or have leadership ambitions, like the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, to place a distinctive footprint on the political stage. It also allows those, such as the junior Ministers and junior Government partners, who present themselves publicly as being wed to principle, probity and the public good, to put substance behind their public posturing.

There are times in politics when people believe they must take a stand on what is right and proper. They must be brave, courageous and act out of real concern for the wider community rather than their own personal interest. They must display true leadership, conviction and integrity, even if that discommodes long-standing friendships, upsets personal convenience or threatens the preservation of patronage and power. They must eschew political loyalties, if that is required, to do what is right and proper.

The Mahon tribunal arose primarily as a result of the actions of dishonest, dishonourable and deceitful people who put their personal gain above the achievement of the public good that they were either elected, or employed, to serve. The dishonour they have conferred on what should have been a noble calling to the profession of politics, an honour and a privilege that has been given to us by our constituents, is incalculable. The actions of the few have cast a slur on all politicians and it will take at least a generation of politics before that slur is lifted. They have blighted us all.

What is equally important to recognise is that the Mahon tribunal arose because of an inadequate ethics and public standards regime. Since the mid-1990s, we have introduced a new regime of ethics in public office, which has played catch-up ever since. We have a bolt-on ethics regime, one which has evolved and developed as each political scandal unfolds, and we discover the inadequacy of the previous legislation. The ethics regime seems to be arriving breathless at each new scandal and requires the topical treatment of new legislation to allow it to prepare for the next ethics crisis. The Minister for Finance has impeded and frustrated the resourcing and reform of the Standards in Public Office Commission.

One section of the Government amendment deals with the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005. That Bill provides for the suspension, under section 9, and the dissolution, under section 10, of a tribunal of inquiry, on notice to the Chairman and after a resolution has been passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Bill applies to tribunals already established and any which may subsequently be established by the Oireachtas. Enacting this Bill while the Mahon tribunal is in session is an implicit threat to that tribunal and its operations. True independence of the tribunal requires that the Oireachtas does not purport, either by accident or design, to undermine or threaten it, personally, in terms of its members, or institutionally, as an operative body. The debate and enactment of this Bill should be delayed until the tribunal has concluded its business and presented its report to this House.

The Government amendment also supports the opportunity to discuss procedures and practices involved in investigating matters mandated by the Oireachtas. Fine Gael opposes this element of the amendment on the grounds that it formalises the explicit and implicit undermining of the tribunal by Ministers in this debate forum. This is nothing more than a cover for sniping at the tribunal in the manner which we have seen in the past couple of months, when the heat is rising in respect of the Taoiseach's evidence.

The Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil Ministers have, on many occasions, referred to leaks from the tribunal and cast a shadow of doubt over whether the tribunal was the source of the leaks of confidential information. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable. In response to these attacks by Fianna Fáil on the tribunal, Judge Mahon had to use up valuable tribunal time to engage in an intensive investigation to refute these attacks. This investigation involved questioning all relevant tribunal staff and Judge Mahon concluded that no evidence was found that the tribunal was in any way responsible for leaking any confidential information. However, Fianna Fáil continues to attack the tribunal and lay the blame for leaks firmly at its doorstep. What is Fianna Fáil's real motive? Perhaps it should look closer to home for the source of the leaks. In the words of Judge Mahon, perhaps the reason information was leaked was "to try and damage the Tribunal itself by allowing it to be suggested, or inferred, that the Tribunal has been the source of leaking of confidential material to others".

I am sure Deputy Noel Tracey can remember telling everyone, over the airwaves, that the tribunal was responsible for the leaks and that he even knew who was doing it. However, he was forced into an incredible and humiliating admission that he had no evidence, or any basis to form this opinion, once he was questioned by the tribunal. Again, this was a diversionary tactic by Fianna Fáil to keep attention away from the Taoiseach. I have no doubt that this tribunal will continue its work to find the truth, despite continued Fianna Fáil sniping and obstructionist tactics.

I support the amendment proposed by the Labour Party, particularly with regard to fees. The Government had an opportunity in 2004 to deal with the fees, if it was serious about reducing them. It went up the hill but came back down again when it discovered that its proposals were not acceptable to tribunal personnel and, effectively, that the tribunal could be closed down.

I wish to make a number of additional remarks concerning the passport issue that I raised yesterday. On 8 July 1994, Mr. John Hynes, chairman of the national lottery board, wrote to Deputy Bertie Ahern, then Minister for Finance, advising him that the National Lottery was studying the feasibility of a casino and invited his views. On 4 August 1994, Mr. Ray Bates, Chief Executive of the National Lottery, informed the Department of Finance that Mr. Hynes had informal contact with the Department of the Taoiseach and had been in touch with the Vector Ogden group about proposals which involved a casino on the Phoenix Park site. On 31 August 1994, Mr. Hynes briefed the Department of Finance, of which Deputy Bertie Ahern was Minister, on his involvement with the casino project. He indicated that he had a series of meetings with the promoters of the Vector Ogden group and that the real driving force regarding casino matters was Mr. Norman Turner. Mr. Hynes reported that he had explained to Mr. Turner that the casino project would involve amending gaming and lotteries legislation, something which successive Ministers for Justice had been loathe to do.

According to the Department of Finance file, "Mr. Turner said that he had had a series of meetings with Government Ministers, including the Minister for Finance, from which he claimed to have received assurances that there would be no problem about the amending of legislation".

Mr. Hynes's briefing on 31 August 1994 also involved confirmation that he had briefed the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on his contacts with the casino promoters. In the course of that briefing Mr. Hynes expressed concern about the scale of gambling operations envisaged. According to the Department of Finance file, the then Minister, Deputy Bertie Ahern, apparently shared Mr. Hynes's misgivings about the extent of gaming machines involved in the project but, other than that issue, there is no indication that he expressed opposition to the concept of the casino project.

See this speech in context