Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I wish to share time with Deputies Mattie McGrath, Thomas Pringle, Seamus Healy, Clare Daly and Luke 'Ming' Flanagan.

In my contribution, I will pose questions where I feel I need to be satisfied about conflicts. One of the roles of an Opposition Deputy is to hold the Government to account. As a consequence, I have questions for Fine Gael about those conflicts. I also have some questions for Deputy Lowry and for Deputy Martin.

I read a large part of the Moriarty report. I did not know what to expect before I put the disc into the computer, but found the report was well argued and logically structured. It was clear that when a conflict arose Mr. Justice Moriarty resolved it on the balance of probabilities.

I then listened to Deputy Lowry last night, who completely rubbished the report. In the time available to me, I want to ask Deputy Lowry a few short questions. First, how does the Deputy account for the fact that, according to the tribunal findings, "in advance of the closing date of the competition, Esat Digifone had available to it confidential information regarding the weighting matrix adopted by the Project Group, that it was not entitled to have..."? Deputy Lowry exonerated all of the public servants last night and I have a particular reason for asking that. I simply cannot reconcile that, in the context of his speech last night.

Deputy Lowry also spoke about Mr. Ben Dunne's "unorthodox" payments methods. Surely Deputy Lowry should have refused to be paid in that way because it led to tax evasion. I do not understand why he would not have refused that.

I suppose most of us aspire to financial independence. When we buy a house, we go to a bank to look for a mortgage, or at least people used do so. Deputy Lowry would have us believe he received £147,000 through an offshore account less than two months after the mobile telephone licence was granted in order to invest in property. Why was this money repaid on the day the McCracken tribunal was announced? I believe Deputy Lowry's position is untenable and if politics is to again become a noble profession again, he must resign.

This tribunal has cost a small fortune. What members of the public cannot understand is why, at the end of such a lengthy and expensive process, no one is seen to pay the price. When we see people going to jail for small debts such as non-payment of a television licence, the lack of sanction for such wrong doing as has been highlighted in the Moriarty report, and previously the McCracken report, is breathtaking.

As I stated, one of the roles of an Opposition Deputy is to hold the Government to account, and I have questions to pose to the Taoiseach and to Fine Gael. Does the Taoiseach accept the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice Moriarty on the meeting between Mr. Mark FitzGerald, the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, and Mr. Denis O'Brien at Lloyd's Brasserie in Dublin? The tribunal sided with Mr. FitzGerald's version of events. Mr. Fitzgerald, as I understand it, was a Fine Gael trustee and son of former Taoiseach Garrett FitzGerald. Mr Justice Moriarty stated it was "difficult in the extreme to conceive" of any realistic reason or motive why Mr. FitzGerald would give false evidence. If he accepts Mr. Moriarty's findings in this regard, has he raised the matter with the Minister, Deputy Hogan; if not, why not? If so, can he tell us the content of the conversation between them? Just before the general election, on 5 February, Deputy Hogan said the incoming Government could limit both the duration and terms of reference of a tribunal. He stated in The Sunday Business Post that the State's two main tribunals of inquiry would be given "no more than a few months" in which to get their houses in order and finish all their work. Furthermore, he said one of his party's first priorities in Government would be to write to the tribunals setting out a proposed timeline for their cessation. I understood a draft copy of the report was send to all witnesses, but I accept what has been put on the record by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, that he did not see that report. I believe it was fair to assume that he had, as a witness to the tribunal, but I will not press that issue. Has the Taoiseach - it will be he who responds on this debate - spoken to the Minister about his motivation for making his comments?

The tribunal found that payments made with regard to the infamous golf classic were by way of bank drafts - this pertains to Ms Carey's testimony. The tribunal report states this was "indicative of a desire for secrecy". Can the Taoiseach state why there was a desire for secrecy? I understand the total of the donation was £4000 and that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, was chairman of the organising committee. The largest donation given was £5000 for the Wicklow by-election in 1995. There appears to be a conflict of evidence over how this donation came about. The Minister testified that the donation arose from an inquiry made to him by Ms Carey as to whether Mr O'Brien or Esat could be of assistance to the party. He said it was in this context that he mentioned to her the forthcoming Wicklow by-election fundraising lunch. However, Ms Carey told the tribunal it was her understanding that Mr O'Brien had himself spoken to Deputy Hogan and had agreed to make the payment. In his report, Mr Justice Moriarty sides with Ms Carey's account.

I have two final questions before I conclude. Has Mr Denis O'Brien made any other donation to Fine Gael other than those listed by the tribunal and has the Minister, Deputy Hogan, ever enjoyed a business relationship with Denis O'Brien? Also, has the Minister met or communicated with Mr. O'Brien since the tribunal?

See this speech in context