Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

As to whether the Taoiseach should have answered questions, he had even less time than I had, namely, half an hour to glance at the report. It would have been very difficult to answer questions. If Deputy Martin wants a full debate in the House I have no difficulty with that. He should take the matter up with the Whips.

My only reservation relates to contemplated legal action and I am sorry the Deputy seems to be dismissive of this. I do not know whether such action will proceed but it behoves us all in the House to be careful. It is not our task to become embroiled in that. Having read the report I believe it should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as does Deputy Martin, and that is not a difficulty.

In regard to the conduct of the rainbow coalition Government, a process was put in place in accordance with the very best practice known across Europe. It was hermetically sealed and nobody around the table of that Cabinet had any knowledge other than that the best practice process worked and produced a result. The author of the report indicates he was not happy that it was ring-fenced from the Minister in question but as far as the Government of the time was concerned, everything had been done according to best advice. The project team and the consultants employed followed best practice as far as we were aware.

I agree with Deputy Martin that this raises serious issues about the traditional connection between politics and business. The words "pot" and "kettle" occur when I hear the Deputy's party so concerned about what has happened. It has been argued that Fine Gael delayed legislation to address this issue of corporate donations but it strikes me that this is exactly what was done with former Deputy Gormley and the Green Party.

I take the substantive point, which is serious. For example, I raced through the conclusions of the report and Mr. Justice Moriarty raises the point. He states:

What accordingly transpired was that, in separate Governments of entirely different political composition, it was possible for Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry in succession to show favour to wealthy or prominent individuals, and in recompense obtain payments or other benefits, in each instance bringing improper influence to bear on public servants for the end as sought. The duration and seniority of ministerial office held by Mr. Lowry was far below that referable to Mr. Haughey. Such improper benefits and payments as have been shown, in the case of this and the McCracken Tribunal, to have accrued to Mr. Lowry never reached the monetary scale or degree of fruition obtained by Mr. Haughey.

The Deputy is correct in pointing to a substantive issue in the context of the nexus between business and politics and I sincerely hope the programme for Government and schedule it has set out to deal with this will have all-party support in the House.

I presume there are still people in the House - as there certainly were in the past - who argued that the alternative was to fund politics from the public purse and threw their hands up in alarm as if this was something which could not be contemplated. It seems that the Moriarty tribunal report is another nail in the coffin of that kind of defence. As the Deputy has said, we must ensure the conduct of politics where it necessarily interacts with business. The Deputy understands that it is unavoidable that there should be some contact but for that reason it is all the more compelling that we seek to address the issue. I am happy the programme for Government does that in the most imaginative and thoughtful way that has yet come before the House.

See this speech in context