Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)

The Moriarty tribunal report, the travails of the tribunal, the various legal challenges and some of the really acidic invective, particularly that directed towards Mr. Justice Moriarty, confirm once again for the public, in a very depressing way, the unhealthy and corrupting relationship between politics and at least some big businesses. People's worst suspicion that there is an unhealthy insiders' boys' club version of politics running its writ in the State has been reconfirmed.

Deputy Michael Lowry says he is innocent of any wrongdoing and is entitled to defend his good name and reputation. He is equally entitled to challenge the findings of the tribunal. However, he was allowed yesterday, with the indulgence of the House, a full hour to launch invective and abuse not only against the tribunal and its process but also against Mr. Justice Moriarty in a very personal way. Rather than coming to the House as a Member to give an account of himself, challenge any factual errors and present an alternative case, he chose to heap abuse and invective in the course of one hour period.

The tribunal was established by the Oireachtas under terms agreed in this House. It has done its work and returned with his findings. It is incumbent on the House not only to accept those findings but also to follow the logic of that acceptance. It is for that reason Sinn Féin has tabled a motion of censure against Deputy Michael Lowry. We believe it should be a cross-party motion and that the Government should make time available to debate it. It is essential outside this rarefied environment that the electorate, the people, see very clearly that when findings of such a serious nature are laid before the House in respect of a Member thereof, the Dáil will act, even if the actions available to it are woefully inadequate. It is a matter of absolute urgency that the Taoiseach make good his commitment of this morning and allow for the motion to be taken. Ideally, it should be a cross-party motion.

Understandably, the vast bulk of media and political attention generated by the publication of the Moriarty tribunal report has focused on Deputy Michael Lowry, but there are wider considerations. The Deputy was the key Minister of the rainbow Government. The Taoiseach was a member of that Government, as were Deputies Richard Bruton, Brendan Howlin, Ruairí Quinn and Michael Noonan, all of whom are back in the Cabinet. The decision to award the licence was a major one and proved extremely lucrative. To that extent, those who were members of the Cabinet at the time in question need to examine their own role and answer therefor in accepting Deputy Michael Lowry's recommendations. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, who was Minister for Finance at the time in question, was a member of the Cabinet sub-committee on communications which had prime responsibility for the licence approval. According to the tribunal's report, Deputy Michael Lowry, as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, sought a meeting with the members of the sub-committee in October 1995.

The object of that meeting, on Deputy Lowry's part, was to seek the support of the Taoiseach, John Bruton, the Labour Party leader and Tánaiste, Dick Spring, and the subcommittee members for his proposal to begin exclusive negotiations with Esat Digifone on the GSM licences.

The Moriarty tribunal report states, "the party leaders and Mr. Quinn collectively approved the recommendation made by Mr. Lowry that exclusive negotiations should be opened with Esat Digifone". All of those there at the time later claimed that Deputy Lowry had told them that Esat Digifone had proven to be the only plausible applicant. In light of what we now know, that was, to say the least, a very contentious verdict at which to arrive.

In fairness to those other Ministers who gave their assent in 1995, they were clearly led to believe that there were no outstanding issues to be examined or resolved. The Moriarty tribunal report suggests that the documentation which Deputy Lowry used to persuade his then colleagues of the virtues of Esat Digifone's case were not perhaps what they seemed at the time. Nobody is suggesting, and I am certainly not suggesting, that there was any hint of impropriety on the part of any other Minister in that Government. However, they ought to hold up their hands and accept they were perhaps at least somewhat negligent in giving their approval, particularly given the huge value of the licence to the winner.

Another issue that touches upon the Government is the role of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan. He was a key member of the group responsible for organising fundraising on behalf of Fine Gael. In that capacity, he was the conduit for several substantial donations from Denis O'Brien. Mark FitzGerald was also involved in party fundraising and he recalls that shortly after one fundraising event in October 1995 he met the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and Denis O'Brien, at a meeting initiated by Denis O'Brien.

The transcript of the tribunal hearing of 6 December 2002 contains the following report of Mr. FitzGerald's evidence:

Mr. FitzGerald has informed the Tribunal that Mr. O'Brien asked to meet with him for coffee at a restaurant close to Mr. FitzGerald's office. Mr FitzGerald assumed that this might relate to a business matter about which he had shortly before spoken to Mr. O'Brien. Mr. FitzGerald has informed the Tribunal that he was surprised when he arrived to find Mr. O'Brien sitting at a table with Mr. Phil Hogan and the late Mr. Jim Mitchell. As he sat down, Mr. FitzGerald has informed the Tribunal that Mr. O'Brien asked him if he had heard any news on the licence.

If that meeting did take place, there are serious questions to be asked and responded to by all of those who were present, including the Minister, Deputy Hogan. Here, according to Mr. FitzGerald and Mr. Justice Moriarty, a person who had donated significant sums of money to one of the Government parties was meeting a Government Deputy and seeking to find out about a licence application that was potentially, and indeed proved to be, of immense value to Mr. O'Brien. This is something that surely warrants further attention and clarification from the Minister, Deputy Hogan, given that I understand he claims to have no recollection of that meeting ever having taken place.

Fine Gael is now committed to ending corporate donations and we very much hope this proves to be the case, but just as it demanded full explanations from Fianna Fáil regarding that party's relationship with corporate donors and favours that may or may not have been asked or performed, Fine Gael also needs to come clean on this aspect of its past. Indeed, it would appear from reports of large sums collected by Fine Gael for its most recent election campaign that we are not talking simply about the past. We are talking about close links between Fine Gael and big business that reach right up and into the present. We know that some of those who contributed recently to the Fine Gael coffers have included property developers who are now under the auspices of NAMA and the EBS, which had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

Given what we now know about favours sought and granted on the basis of similar donations from similar sources in the past, Fine Gael needs to show it has decisively turned its back on the seedy culture of financial ties between big business and politics. It needs to move rapidly to end corporate donations and ensure that any legislation provides for the full disclosure of all donations. As part of being clear about its past, Fine Gael should publish a full list of all corporate and business donations which it received as part of its fundraising for the recent general election campaign. This in itself would go a long way to restoring the trust of the people and of the House in its elected representatives following the revelations in the report.

See this speech in context