Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)

Earlier today, Deputy Adams argued that by passing a motion of censure against Deputy Lowry, we would send a strong message to the public about the disdain of this House for the events and forms of behaviour that are described in the Moriarty report. What is the message to which Deputy Adams refers? Should we pass a motion of censure that imposes no consequences or penalties on Deputy Lowry? If we find him guilty in such a manner, will it be seen as trial by democratic vote? Should we show how indignant and affronted we are in Leinster House as a means of demonstrating that we empathise with the public? The last thing the people need is the bleeding hearts of politicians. In a situation like this, such an approach would do nothing to boost the country's morale or give people confidence that we are addressing the heart of the problem. This is no more than political posturing on the part of Deputy Adams, who has stolen a march on Deputy Martin on this occasion.

It is absolutely unbelievable that it has taken 14 years for the evidence to be heard, conclusions to be reached and the final report of the tribunal to be published. I remind the House that 17 civil servants gave evidence to the effect that they did not see or notice anything untoward. All of this was done at a cost of over €150 million. The matter has yet to be considered by the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The people's sense of justice has been offended in a manner that compounds the view that there is one law for an elite in our society and another law for the rest of the general populace. It is clear that the system has not worked. It has shown itself to be unwilling or unable to work to achieve justice.

Rather than repeating what has already been said, I would like to conclude by asking a couple of questions. The report finds that Deputy Lowry was up to his neck in it, but are the staff damned as well? Can or should they be exonerated, or is there a shadow over the conduct of officials in the entire Department in this matter? When I served as a member of a local authority, my observation was that tenders could not be interfered with. I would like answers to questions about such first principles. How did the whole system break down to the extent that we reached the point we are now at?

See this speech in context