Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with fellow Ministers, Deputies Quinn and Hogan and with Deputies Jed Nash and Michael McCarthy.

Within 24 hours of its publication the Moriarty report was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána, who are the bodies responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. The report is being studied by the Garda Síochána at present. It has also been referred to the Revenue Commissioners. This clearly illustrates that the Government regards the contents of the report as extremely serious.

As Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, I am particularly conscious of the responsibility that rests on all of us not to do or say anything that might undermine or interfere with the role of the Garda or the DPP and so prejudice possible future criminal proceedings. I remind the House that in the past a statement made by a Minister had such an effect.

My priority as Minister is to ensure that the criminal law is such that successful prosecutions are possible when criminal offences have been committed. It is not appropriate that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence should prejudge such matters. Therefore, in the circumstances, I do not intend to make any comment on the findings in the Moriarty report with regard to the conduct of Deputy Lowry or any other person connected with the licence granted to Esat Digifone or with regard to the dealings detailed in the report in which it is stated individuals were engaged. These matters are under consideration by the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions will decide independently whether any criminal charges should be brought.

The Taoiseach in his contribution has already referred to the recommendations for substantial reform contained in the Moriarty report, as also has the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Many of the reforms recommended already form part of the programme for Government and a commitment has been given to implement badly needed reforms in respect of areas addressed by the Moriarty report. The recommendations of the tribunal did not specifically address broader issues concerning the investigation and prosecution of white collar crime. This is a subject firmly in the programme for Government. The programme contains a commitment that rogue bankers and all those who misappropriate or embezzle funds or who are engaged in any form of white collar crime, will be properly pursued for their crimes and that the full rigours of the law will apply to them.

In his report, Mr. Justice Moriarty made a number of recommendations concerning the future operation of tribunals of inquiry. These recommendations broadly refer to matters concerning the duties and responsibilities of persons appearing before the tribunal as witnesses or requested by it to provide certain documentation. The programme for Government contains a commitment to reform and update legislation with regard to tribunals of inquiry. In this context, it is noteworthy that a previous Fianna Fáil-led Government published the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 but this was left languishing on the Dáil Order Paper for more than six years and never completed its passage through the House. I have arranged for its restoration to the Dáil Order Paper and the Bill will be dealt with as a Report Stage measure.

I am pleased that many of the provisions in the Bill as it stands would appear to address concerns expressed by Mr. Justice Moriarty and the recommendations suggested by him. Deputy Micheál Martin is the Leader of Fianna Fáil in this House and he pirouetted on the morality soapbox in response to the report. He failed to explain to the House why the Government of which he was a senior member failed to enact this important legislation over an extended period of time. In so far as any additional legislative changes are necessary to address the Moriarty recommendations, my Department will examine the recommendations in consultation with relevant Departments and the Attorney General, with a view to their implementation, as appropriate, within the context of the Bill now restored to the Order Paper.

In the brief time available to me, I wish to address two matters of importance connected with the Moriarty report, the response to it given by some of those involved in the tribunal hearings and also the response of Fianna Fáil. Members of the Judiciary are precluded by their independence and constitutional status from entering into controversy or responding to attacks made on them. However, such was the unprecedented and virulent nature of the attacks made last week on the tribunal chairman, who is a respected senior member of the Judiciary, and on the Judiciary as a whole, that I felt it was necessary for me, as Minister for Justice and Law Reform, to condemn the entirely unacceptable statements made.

In the normal course of the administration of justice, an unsuccessful party may often express disagreement with the decisions of a court. Individuals may also disagree with the conclusions of a tribunal whether a party to a matter under inquiry by a tribunal or simply someone commenting on its conclusions. In expressing views individuals are entitled to be critical and complain about the outcome. This is human nature, and is perfectly reasonable and proper in a democracy. What occurred last week went substantially beyond any critique that is acceptable and was intended to bring the Judiciary into disrepute and to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The personalised nature of the assault on the integrity of Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty by Deputy Lowry in this House last night is also entirely unacceptable. In so far as the Deputy or any other person alleges that the tribunal expressed opinions or reached conclusions for which there was no basis in evidence, a mechanism is available by way of judicial review to the High Court to have such matters addressed. That mechanism was previously utilised in the case of Kirrane v. Finlay. I am sure those who have made intemperate comment on the tribunal's report are fully aware of this possibility and it is for them to decide whether they wish to take any such action.

An independent Judiciary is something we have taken for granted since the earliest days of this State. I think it appropriate, given recent events, to remind Deputies just what that stock phrase means. An independent Judiciary ensures that judges' decisions are taken solely on the basis of law, independent of any fear, favour or influence, whether personal, political or media driven. The power of judges to uphold the Constitution and strike down aspects of our law is a fundamental bulwark against the risk of tyranny and oppression. Guaranteed this independence, the judicial system in a democracy serves as a safeguard of the rights and freedoms of all the people. We have been well served by our independent Judiciary and to imply otherwise - indeed to accuse judges of conspiracy and bias - is entirely unacceptable and wrong. To make reference to the availability of appeal system within our courts to suggest the judges are incapable of reaching proper decisions is also incorrect, as Deputy Lowry suggested last night. The appeals system is an inherent part of our judicial system, just as the possibility of judicial review is available to those who believe they have been wronged by a tribunal. I will not be found wanting in protecting and ensuring their independence is strengthened and secured.

I now turn to the responses, in particular that of the new leader of Fianna Fáil. On 9 March on the nomination of Deputy Enda Kenny as Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, reflecting on the outcome of the general election stated:

One of the clearest messages from the people is that they want us to reform the way we do our business in this House. Far too often, contributions here are about seeking attention rather than dealing with the serious issues at hand. The difference between permanent campaigning and daily business is sometimes difficult to discern.

He promised that Fianna Fáil's approach in the Dáil "will be to provide constructive opposition". His initial contribution in the Dáil last week on the Moriarty report, and as repeated both in his speech yesterday and on the Leaders' Questions this morning, starkly illustrate his incapacity to keep such promises or to change the traditional dishonest obfuscation beloved by Fianna Fáil Party members. On the one hand, Deputy Martin says that he accepts in full the Moriarty report and the recommendations contained in it and, on the other, he has consistently and persistently deliberately misrepresented and selectively quoted from the report. He has engaged in what can at best be charitably described as nauseating hypocrisy, selective recall and moral ambivalence. He seems oblivious to the political credibility gap of enormous dimension which contaminates much of what he has so far said. He is presenting as someone who has emerged after 20 years lost in a political twilight zone suffering from amnesia and oblivious to events in which he has personally participated. He seems even incapable of remembering the recent secret deal concluded by Fianna Fáil with Deputy Lowry subsequent to publication of both the McCracken report and part 1 of the Moriarty report designed to preserve and maintain Deputy Martin's ministerial status in Government until February of this year.

In his obsessive wish to inflict political damage on the Government and in particular the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Martin has predictably made heavy weather of the unwanted $50,000 donation by Esat via Telenor to Fine Gael in late December 1995. He has chosen to ignore that in February 1996 when the then leader of Fine Gael and Taoiseach, John Bruton, learned of the donation, as Mr. Justice Moriarty records at paragraph 62.04: "That donation was unwelcome to the party, and was rejected by the party leader." He also chooses to ignore that unknown to John Bruton instead of these moneys being returned they were retained in an offshore account by the late Mr. David Austin and, as the report records in the same paragraph, "subsequently introduced to party funds, disguised as a personal contribution by Mr. Austin". It is clear from the report that Mr. Jim Miley, based in Fine Gael headquarters, who received this sum on behalf of Fine Gael, believed the moneys received to be a personal donation by Mr. Austin and when in receipt of them had no knowledge of what had occurred in February 1996.

See this speech in context