Dáil debates

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Mahon Tribunal Report: Statements (Resumed)

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Liam TwomeyLiam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

Corruption has always existed in political life across the world. Everybody is aware of how Tammany Hall and what happened in Chicago in the 1920s completely corrupted the political system. In this debate we are discussing individuals who have been named in the Mahon report as well as the overall system and what went on in Irish politics in those years. The general consensus is that the era of Charles Haughey changed corruption from a crime into organised crime. Like organised crime whether it exists in the corruption of politics or in criminal activities, it passes most people by in the majority of cases. People are unaware of the corrosive influence of organised crime or the organised corruption that took place during the past 50 years and how destructive it can be on society. One benefit of reports such as the Mahon tribunal report is that they demonstrate how destructive organised corruption in Irish political life has been during the past half a century. We must ask ourselves how this came about, how aware we were of what occurred in our society in recent years and what was done about it.

Several speakers have already commented on certain press releases and the work of journalists and individuals who stepped forward and suggested this was going on in our political life. However, it appears nothing was done about it. We must ask ourselves whether corruption in Irish political life took second place to other concerns of the people. Why did the people vote Bertie Ahern back into power for three terms when issues were raised about his finances during the course of most of his second term and his third term as Taoiseach? Nevertheless, he was voted into power by the people. We must ask ourselves how such a scenario came about when people were shouting from the rafters about what was going on in his private life. We must ask ourselves how pervasive this corruption was. Was it a case of the sins of a few? Was it simply a few people, including some developers, speculators, lobbyists and corrupt politicians, who exploited a rather docile and naive political system in the country to make vast amounts of money for themselves? Did these people simply come together at the right time like the perfect storm and exploit the resources of the country for their uses?

It is necessary for us to delve a little deeper into it. We will make political attacks on each other in the House about who is more corrupt, who claims to be innocent and who is not so innocent. However, we must ask ourselves how this situation came about. One possible conclusion is that there is systemic corruption in Irish public life. We must not for one moment take the view that corruption exists only in the case of politicians. We must remember certain officials and public servants have been named in reports for participating in this behaviour. If there is a systemic acceptance of corruption in our public system from politicians and the leadership of political parties downwards, then there is a serious problem, a problem legislation alone will not solve. There is need for us to debate these matters. We must not simply attack each other politically. There is a need for us to move on from the Mahon tribunal and to delve into our society, the political system and the ethos of public life and to examine our perceptions.

Last night, I attended a discussion in Trinity College, Dublin on the Seanad. A comment was made to the effect that we need civic participation in every institution in the State in order that the public can trust and have confidence in them. We must get this message to the public. We must instigate civic participation.

I first heard about Liam Lawlor during the mid-1980s. An aunt of mine who lived in Dublin saw him on a television news programme. She laughed and suggested one could build a piggery in the middle of the Phoenix Park if one paid that man enough money. Nevertheless, it took years before anything came of it. She was not politically involved yet she knew all about Liam Lawlor and Charlie Haughey. Despite this, we had to spend millions of euro on inquiries to find out what every dog in the street knew.

There has been a mockery of the political system in recent years. The former Minister with responsibility for justice went up every tree in north Dublin looking for corruption but could find none. There was mockery of our political system when the then Taoiseach made Liam Lawlor chairperson of the ethics committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Since he had his tentacles on everything that happened politically in the city, the then Taoiseach would have known there were concerns about Liam Lawlor. This was the sort of corruption that took place in public life. It is associated with Fianna Fáil because that party was in power for 22 of the past 30 years. It held the levers of power in the country. When the corruption became endemic within the Fianna Fáil Party it had a disastrous knock-on effect for everyone in the country.

It is only right that the Fianna Fáil Party should examine what happened. Many of those involved although not corrupt were complacent. There was also a defensive attitude from many in the leadership of Fianna Fáil. They should have acted differently and more appropriately within their party at the time and they failed to do so. Some of the people who failed to act appropriately at the time represent the current leadership of Fianna Fáil, including Deputy Micheál Martin and Deputy Willie O'Dea. Such individuals have a good deal to answer for. They cannot hide behind suggestions that they did not know or that it should be left to the tribunal. I have no view about whether they were undermining the tribunal but they undermined public trust and confidence in the political and public Administration of the country by their carry-on during the past decade. As a result, they no longer have the confidence of the people. They cannot stand up and speak as if they were somehow disconnected from events. Unfortunately, they have no credibility and they must face up to this.

It is only right that Bertie Ahern comes in for significant criticism in the report. My former colleague in the Seanad, Eugene Regan, made a strong point and raised this issue when he was in the Seanad. He took the view that all the prevarication and justifications from senior ministers at the time were having a corrosive influence on people's views about politicians and the credibility of the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is coming through now and this is people's view of us now. Bertie Ahern was elected Taoiseach of the country in 2007 without a tax clearance certificate. He denied this and he hinted in his distinctive way with smoke and daggers that his legal affairs were in order. In fact, it transpired that he had no tax clearance certificate and that he was in discussions with Revenue Commissioners with regard to moneys he received in the 1990s. This was made perfectly clear in the Seanad. Mr. Regan wrote to the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, and the Revenue Commissioners but nothing was done about it by Mr. Ahern's colleagues in Government. They hid behind legal arguments and the tribunal. The result was that they undermined the authority of the Oireachtas and the Seanad and the public system in the country.

When people give out about politicians and public administrations and the institutions of State it is because some individuals in the country were corrupt to the core and destroyed trust in the system. Some of their colleagues in political parties made half-hearted justifications for these individuals and they allowed themselves to peddle the argument that we should hide behind legalistic jargon and argument and wait for the tribunals to report. The position we find ourselves in today is regrettable. Some of the individuals involved should be more honest with themselves and the people they represent.

With their corruption, people such as Charlie Haughey, Liam Lawlor and Ray Burke had an all-pervasive and corrosive influence on our public system. I first heard of these individuals in the late 1980s. I had to watch them throughout the 1990s. Then I came to the House and I had to listen to the arguments put forward to justify their behaviour. I hope that civic society and the people on the street have turned their backs completely on this behaviour. We must not allow ourselves to become complacent or to accept the smoky arguments put forward that such a person did not know this or that or did not realise it was so bad. We must not allow that to come forth. We must do our best to clear corruption from public life. We will do our best on this side of the House to get the legislation right.

We also need ordinary men and women to reconnect with the political system. We need them to say this type of behaviour is unacceptable and must be thrown out. When Albert Reynolds, for example, allowed Pádraig Flynn to resume a position in Cabinet, he became a part of the system more through complacency than through outright corruption. That was unfortunate and many others were like that. While they were not corrupt as individuals, their complacency towards corruption undermined the system further. We must take this on board and never let this happen again. We must put a stop to it straight away.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.