Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the House for the opportunity to make this statement. A serious and unfounded accusation has been made against me. It is alleged that I delayed the workings of the Mahon tribunal for five years. This is totally untrue, it is a nonsense and, as I said yesterday, it is untrue.

The tribunal was established to find the truth about accusations of grave wrongdoing against people in public life and I have always co-operated fully with it. Not only do I abide by the letter of the law, I believe in the spirit of the law which established the tribunal. Establishing the truth of what happened in the past is essential to restoring confidence in the future. I support the process of establishing all of the facts and that public life should have the public's respect. I deplore the use of public office for private gain. The Oireachtas established the tribunal and has given it the means to deal with all matters raised. Clearly, it is doing so. It will be for the Dáil and Fianna Fáil to take appropriate measures in light of the findings made by the appropriate authority through due process.

Today, in making this statement dealing more fully with the specific allegation made against me, I respectfully ask that Members give the same consideration already given to the unfounded allegation against me. Being Taoiseach is an enormous privilege. It is a privilege based on the trust and confidence of the people. It is a trust I have never betrayed.

I now come to the ridiculous suggestion that I delayed the working of the tribunal. The fact is that the tribunal has been busy with other modules and is only now commencing hearings on the Quarryvale module. Therefore, no delay has arisen. To suggest that I delayed the tribunal for five years is absolute nonsense.

Some five years ago in my statement to the Dáil on 27 January 1999 about events 15 years ago, I referred to certain documents. In some cases, I read the entirety of those documents into the record of the House. In other cases, I read into the record relevant extracts and on 2 February 1999 my solicitors sent a copy of my Dáil statement to the tribunal together with other documentation. The substance of my statement in the Dáil was that the tribunal would be voluntarily furnished with the information referred to in my statement. This I did. I also mentioned that my statement would be sent to the tribunal. As I have already said, I set out the information either in extract form or in whole document form. In furnishing my statement, setting out in whole or in part the relevant documents, I thereby apprised the tribunal of this relevant information. Moreover, when asked to make discovery I duly discovered the documents available to me and furnished them to the tribunal. The tribunal was fully aware of the contents of the documents because they were quoted at length by me in the statement which it received. The giving of information to a tribunal is at the heart of co-operation. That is what I did, voluntarily.

On the substance of the matters referred to in the tribunal's letter, I had supplied the relevant information to the tribunal in sending it my statement and related material. I will now illustrate why this is so. Specifically, I read into the record of this House the contents of the letter dated 27 July 1989 from then Minister Pádraig Flynn to the Minister of State, Deputy Séamus Brennan. I also read into the record the official report of the meeting in the Department of the Environment and Local Government, which took place on 28 September 1989.

I read the complete text of the letter from the then general secretary of Fianna Fáil to Mr. Pádraig Flynn, dated 6 October 1998. I also read the text of the letter from Ray MacSharry, then Minister for Finance, to John Wilson, then Minister for Tourism and Transport, dated 27 May 1988.

Some months ago, the tribunal wrote to me asking for a narrative statement of all the information I had regarding Mr. Gilmartin's allegation and related matters. It did this when it started work on preparing for this module. The tribunal did not then specifically request me to furnish documents to which I had referred in my Dáil statement. I furnished the requested narrative statement and I attached another copy of my Dáil statement from 1999 setting out all these aspects in full or in part.

The tribunal also wrote to an official in the Cabinet secretariat. The tribunal requested the particular documents which had been referred to in my statement of 1999. This was the first time the tribunal had ever specifically requested these documents. The request was marked, "Strictly Private and Confidential — To be Opened by Addressee Only", in large black print. It was dealt with on that basis by my Department, which carried out a due diligence search of its holdings to ascertain if the records were in its possession. The search was carried out on a "need to know" basis.

The request from the tribunal related not only to specific documents but also, in regard to each document, to "the file from which the document emanated". In the case of five of the documents, my Department's expectation was that such files as existed would be held in other Departments. The tribunal was informed of the Departments likely to hold them.

In the case of one other document, it was clear, on the face of it, that it was a document which had originated in the Fianna Fáil Party headquarters and my Department also brought this to the attention of the tribunal.

I am informed that my Department has dealt with a number of requests for papers in connection with the work of tribunals and the courts. It rightly takes very seriously the conditions of confidentiality that accompany them. It has never felt itself at liberty to contact third parties about records being sought, for fear this might prejudice a tribunal's proceedings. Where it is aware records of interest may be in the possession of third parties, it brings this to the attention of the tribunal, which can then decide how it wishes to proceed in regard to them.

That is what happened in this instance. I was not informed about the request, nor should I have been, as the search related to records in the Department's holding and the relevant files related to the records. It is significant that the tribunal's request was directed to the Government secretariat rather than to me or my solicitors. I was only shown the correspondence in question this morning in light of the public disclosures.

As I have made clear, the correspondence between the official and the tribunal was treated in a confidential manner by this official, which was the appropriate way to deal with the letter, and this happens regularly in all the tribunals. I should also make it clear that this letter from the tribunal was no more than the tribunal seeking documents from sources, as I am sure it has done on hundreds of other occasions in the past and will do in the future.

The tribunal also requested discovery of me, as it likewise has sought discovery of many other people who have or may have information that is of use to the tribunal. I was asked, through this discovery, to furnish the tribunal with all documentation relevant to this module. I furnished to the tribunal all relevant documents that were in my possession or to which I had access. These included documents referred to in my Dáil statement of 27 January 1999.

The suggestion that I have delayed the work of the tribunal is untrue. The tribunal has never in any way complained to me about any delays or expressed dissatisfaction with my co-operation with it. The implication that I was unwilling to hand over these documents is unsustainable. These were documents that I myself presented to the House because they bear out my recollection of events. I disclosed their contents to this House and then, through my solicitors, to the tribunal. I have also furnished those documents available to me to the tribunal.

I welcome the opportunity to address some of the spurious political smoke which has been contrived by Members of the Opposition in the aftermath of the leaking of confidential documents, in particular the concerted effort that has been made by some Members to suggest I have questions to answer.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is disgraceful.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to continue co-operating with the tribunal and I look forward to the conclusion of its inquiry so that I can get the public vindication to which I am entitled.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the Taoiseach these latest allegations and revelations were made through the media, not the political process. The late Mr. Justice Hamilton remarked if the truth had been provided in reply to more questions in this House, there would be less need for tribunals of inquiry. I find it strange that the Taoiseach never saw the request from the tribunal to the Government secretariat, given that this was central to the tribunal writing to him in the first place.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

None of the letters from the various tribunals to the Government secretariat seeking papers, files and diaries regarding a number of events before them have ever been shown to me, on the basis that the tribunals mark them "Strictly Confidential". None of the letters has ever been seen by me. I am not saying the Deputy said anything in this regard and I am not replying to the Deputy but other Members have made comments. That is the procedure, which is being followed, and it is the procedure that the tribunals expect to be followed. Letters sent to the Government secretariat seeking files and records from various Departments and the Government are never shown to me for a good reason. I have been before the tribunals and I am the leader of Fianna Fáil. I am a political office holder and I understand why the tribunal did that. On every single letter that is the position.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ahern is the leader of Fianna Fáil and he is the Taoiseach pro tem.

We are addressing much more than the current allegations in the newspapers. We are dealing with how the Government is sacrificing two fundamentals of democracy — public trust and citizen participation — to advance its own political agenda and to achieve its own political ambition. We are addressing how the behaviour of the coalition parties, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, has transformed them into some sort of separate caste — the untouchables as they would have it — beyond the reach of this Dáil and the people.

The Taoiseach assured the nation in the House on 9 December 2003 of his particular brand of ethics. He stated, "Those of us who are in here try to stay here. That is the code of ethics." That is certainly true on the evidence but this country does not have to lower itself to the standards of Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats, to whom the senior Government partner has subcontracted its conscience.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where's Micky?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it not the case that, true to form, the Taoiseach sold his country out when he took my colleague, Deputy Cooper-Flynn, back into the Fianna Fáil fold, with allegations against her outstanding, to shore up his own political ambitions? Is it not the case that, true to form, in doing so, he put Fianna Fáil's private, party political interest ahead of the national interest, which is the public interest? Is it not true that, far from being an isolated incident, this is a repeating pattern, which is the political leitmotif of the Government?

On 8 October 1997 the Taoiseach reiterated in the House his commitment to integrity and also to justice in public life. He cited the need to "forgo short-term political advantage". He stated, "I am working to overcome the legacy of the past in a way that properly discriminates between the good and the bad so that we can have a public life in which we are proud and in which there can be trust." He lamented:

Due process has gone out the window. Is that the way we are supposed to run our democracy? Is that the way other countries run theirs?

Today I want the Taoiseach to stand by his lamentation, do his duty and allow full due process and, in doing so, stand by democracy and the citizens of this Republic. His Government, far from lamenting the death of the parliamentary process, has absolutely murdered it. To the Taoiseach, talk is cheap. He has not worked to discriminate between good and bad so "we can have a public life in which we are proud and in which there can be trust".

The Taoiseach seems not just privately to have tolerated law-breaking, aberrant and gross misbehaviour in his party, he has actively and publicly rewarded it in some cases, not just once but over and over, so much so that explanatory statements by him and members of his party are now "business as usual" for the House.

The Taoiseach, the discriminator between good and bad, appointed former Deputy Ray Burke not just to the Cabinet but to the third highest office in the land, despite the fact that he knew Mr. Burke had received money in dubious circumstances and, subsequently, that he had misled the Dáil and, therefore, the people. There was then the Sheedy affair. After that, the Taoiseach allowed Deputy Foley to remain on the DIRT inquiry, despite his having money in illegal Ansbacher offshore accounts. Then came the Lindzon passport affair and the interest-free loan to Fianna Fáil, while the Taoiseach, along with the former Minister, Pádraig Flynn, was treasurer of that party. Then there were the events involving the former Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. There was also the Taoiseach's habitual signing of blank cheques drawn on the publicly funded leader's account when Mr. Haughey held office.

It did not stop there. The discriminating Taoiseach and restorer of public trust proceeded to appoint former Deputy Liam Lawlor to the Committee on Members' Interests. How ironic. After that, the Taoiseach welcomed back Deputy Cooper-Flynn into his party, even though serious allegations regarding her were still unresolved. That was followed by the Deputy Michael Collins tax affair.

Hot off the presses today is the news that the Taoiseach appears to have personally sanctioned €750,000 for a marine leisure centre in County Kerry, despite warnings from the Department that doing so could open it up to future legal action. This centre was demolished last month because it breached the planning laws. However, according to the Taoiseach's position on ethics, in respect of which he has stated, "Those of us who are in here try to stay here", that €750,000 was small change and money well spent on, after all, buying the support of Deputy Healy-Rae, whose pet project this was.

In light of this litany of offensive actions, I put to the Taoiseach his own two questions. Is this the way we are supposed to run our democracy? Is that the way other countries run theirs? This appears to be the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats way of running this democracy. I suggest that not many modern democracies are run like it. This is a country which currently holds the Presidency of one of the most powerful social, economic and political blocs in the world, namely, the European Union.

I remind the Taoiseach that Governments are elected to govern, not just to appease. They are elected to do what is right, not just what is popular. They are elected to put the country, not the party first. Governments are elected to practise, demand and uphold probity, dignity, ethics and accountability in public life. I state this in the name of the people of the country because, in the end, this is not just about Government and Opposition; it is about securing public propriety, ethics and justice for the Irish people.

This is not a game. We are not children playing king of the castle, although at times the people could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. What happens in this House or what does not happen here has dire consequences on the streets and in people's homes. Tonight there will be 300 to 400 people sleeping rough on the streets of Dublin. There are old and sick people queuing up at accident and emergency departments where their wait turns from hours to days. It is our politics and their lives. These people listen to what happens in this House and they hear words, noise, jabbering and meaningless nit-picking over technicalities.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They say that politicians talk a lot but say nothing. I am saying something. If people are to have faith in politicians in public life, there must be real accountability and truth on the part of the Government, not mere verbiage uttered by the Taoiseach.

We are not canon lawyers parsing phrases, analysing words or debating about angels dancing on pinheads. We are supposed to be legislators leading the people. We are Teachtaí Dála, messengers of the people, and that is all we are. We have no power but that which comes from the people and them alone. We are democrats paid by the people to conduct the public business.

Did the Taoiseach follow up on his attempts to retrieve money meant for Fianna Fáil from the former Minister, Mr. Pádraig Flynn, from Charles Haughey, Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor? Does he recall a matter that is the cause of consternation throughout the country, namely, whether he met Tom Gilmartin in the presence of the former Minister, Senator O'Rourke, and the circumstances in which that meeting took place? Does he recall these events and is he prepared to indicate whether he did or did not?

The people who fought for the freedom of this country, who founded this State and who gave their lives for this democracy might look at the farce being conducted by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, these keepers of the public conscience, and the mess they have made of Parliament and wonder whether it was all worthwhile. If the House holds this Government to account, their efforts may just have been worthwhile.

On what dates did the Taoiseach receive the letters from the tribunal? I understand he denied that he received a letter from the tribunal on 18 November. In the name of the people, public trust and attempts to restore decency to public life and in order to lead with honour, I demand that the Taoiseach break with his litany of the past, abandon the series of actions he has taken, give up foregoing political advantage for his party, deal with the truth and recognise that he is, after all, fully accountable to Dáil Éireann and, through it, to the people of the country. They have almost had enough.

As a public representative, I am appalled at the level of disaffection, cynicism and apathy that is being bred among people when they look at this political——

Seán Power (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Opposition.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——series of actions and blame everybody for being the same. I have news for the Taoiseach. We are not all the same and we look at politics, truth and ethics in a different light from him and his junior partner.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Although, unusually, I have not seen the Taoiseach's script, he has denied that he delayed the work of the planning tribunal for five years and I am minded to accept that. I think the allegation, though, is transparently nonsense. The Taoiseach says that some in the Opposition have used spurious political smoke to make allegations. I honestly think the Taoiseach is using his share of spurious smoke now to hinge his script on the issue of delaying the tribunal for five years. Nobody can believe that; it is complete transparent nonsense. I accept what the Taoiseach says. I presume he means by that as well that he has not delayed the transfer of any particular document or whatever in his possession. If he says that, it is fine.

The bigger issue is how the Taoiseach responds to what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform described as issues of the utmost gravity. We are seeking, in this debate, to restore confidence in politics. That is a matter that ought to be of concern for every Member of this House, regardless of the side on which they hold a seat on behalf of the people. This debate is about restoring confidence in politics and re-establishing the great purpose of politics at a time when politics has been seriously damaged.

The first task of restoring confidence in politics is to establish that citizens are equal before the law. It is clear that our citizens were not equal before the tax law, whatever else might apply. For many years, our citizens believed that the purpose of Government was to make them equal before the tax law. They find now that instead of making them equal before the tax law, Government was indulging in the inequities of the tax law. Cabinet Ministers in the Government of which some here were members — the Ceann Comhairle will remember it — the Taoiseach, Mr. Burke, Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Flynn engaged in serious and substantial tax evasion. That is the biggest issue before us. For many years, when Members of this House raised issues related to disability or homelessness, to which Deputy Kenny referred, we were told that there was no crock of gold. That was the Ray MacSharry mantra which was taken up by his successors in this House. Now we know there was a crock of gold. In the past few years alone, €922 million has been retrieved as a result of the DIRT, NIB, Ansbacher and other inquiries.

We now find that transgressions were occurring at the highest level of Government. A Cabinet Minister sent his wife into their local bank to lodge £50,000 in a bogus non-resident account, saying that their address was in Chiswick, in London, and giving a big wink. A Revenue form was then signed. This is almost unbelievable but it is the reality of which we speak.

Last week the Labour Party proposed a motion on the question of emigrants, a subject dear to my heart. Anyone from my part of the country knows about the men in Britain who have fallen on hard times in recent years because they are no longer able to work in the building industry. Mr. Gilmartin was one of that generation but he did well. He was successful in Britain. He came back to Ireland at a time when we badly needed employment. He demonstrated great foresight in assembling a site at one of the most propitious junctions in Ireland. He was told that to have the land rezoned and his plans sanctioned he would have to pay Fianna Fáil. He said that every time he looked around somebody had his hand out, and he paid them. He said the Taoiseach asked him if he had made a donation and that he would deal with that matter in another venue. Despite paying them, Mr. Gilmartin was shafted and sent back to London with his tail between his legs while benefits were conferred on a rival developer. That is bad value for money on any basis, yet that is what happened.

I am prepared to accept that the Taoiseach has co-operated with the tribunal but restoration of confidence in politics requires him to do more than that. It is not enough, when something like this comes out, for Fianna Fáil to ring the wagons, engage in the timeworn strategy of muddying the waters and exclaim, "They are all at it, and if not it is because they do not have the opportunity and if they had the opportunity they would be at it too."

A few weeks before Christmas I listened here to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, who spent 20 minutes trying to draw a relationship between Deputy Cuffe's temporary embarrassment, for which he bore no responsibility, and the transgressions of Burke, Haughey, Lawlor and so on. The fact that the Minister, or whoever wrote his script, did so amusingly does not take away from what he tried to do. The style is to muddy the waters and claim they are all at it. Fianna Fáil knows it is in this up to its necks and the only way to survive the tribunal era is by muddying the waters.

The Taoiseach's response to this situation is not sufficient. He is required to deal with the circumstances as he knows them. Is the Taoiseach saying that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did not tell him of the matters he regards as of the utmost gravity? Is he saying the Minister went to The Sunday Tribune only when this story broke to protect himself and the Progressive Democrats and to say this was a matter of the utmost gravity? During Leaders' Questions, the Taoiseach replied to my question about the cheque but not to my question about tax evasion. It was with regard to tax evasion that the Minister, Deputy McDowell, said this was a matter of the utmost gravity and not with regard to the donation of £50,000 to Fianna Fáil or whoever — someone suggested the donation might have been made to Johnny Cash. When I was raised in Mayo there was a very admirable family of Travellers called Cash. Maybe the cheque was made out to them.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They were horse dealers.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has said he was "aware of the allegations of tax evasion against former Fianna Fáil Minister, Pádraig Flynn, for some time." He mentioned the allegations of tax evasion, not of taking the money. Did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform discuss this matter with the Taoiseach and, if so, what action did the Taoiseach take as a result?

There is very little point in saying to the House, as has been the mantra of Fianna Fáil spokespersons over the past three or four days, that everyone is entitled to due process and that these matters are not appropriate, as the Minister, Deputy Cullen, said, to this House but are matters for the tribunal. Deputy Peter Power repeated that mantra this morning. Of course everyone is entitled to due process but nobody appreciated that due process would take the number of years involved. Is the Taoiseach arguing that political activity on great issues such as tax evasion ought to be frozen in time until the planning tribunal has completed its work? He will be long on a Zimmer frame before that happens, and I will be with him, or near him, I hope.

Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They might be sharing one.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If they can get one.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach's decision to respond to the wishes of the House and the people by setting up a tribunal has proved — he could not have had foresight of this — to be the longest political touch-kick in history. It has insulated him from many of the great matters his party has been involved in and concerned with in the past. Six years later we do not know any answers to these questions and the proposition is now being put forward by his spokespersons that this matter cannot be raised in Dáil Éireann because it is a matter for the tribunal. We contest that proposition.

Therefore I ask the Taoiseach is this all he has to say. He read a script which I presume was being crafted for him for the past four days, although it shows no signs of it, and concentrated on an allegation that no one in this House ever made. Does he say that this is the extent of the action and that due process will look after the rest? Will he sack Deputy Cooper-Flynn? That is the only action people outside, including Fianna Fáil people and Fianna Fáil voters, want to see. They want to see action being taken by the Taoiseach as leader of the party and Head of Government. Will he sack her and when she gets her day in court and we hear due process, he can readmit her? Is that not what he does anyway with the ones who go voluntarily? Will he sack her or does he fear that when Mr. Flynn goes into the witness box he may have some things to say that are not in accord with the historical record of the House?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputies Joe Higgins and Sargent.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In his opening remarks in statements on the Gilmartin controversy in January 1999, the Taoiseach, when referring to the relationship between planning decisions and big business, said, "The people are entitled to the assurance that the public interest is paramount at all times and that such decisions are taken on legitimate grounds, having regard to employment, effects on the environment and other relevant considerations." Five years later, in this short debate that has been grudgingly acceded to by Government, we have yet another reminder of the depths of sleaze and corruption into which members of establishment parties have dragged politics for decades.

It is not just the activities of one or two individuals that have fuelled public cynicism about politics but a culture of greed and self-interest that ranges from political careerism to full-blown corruption, selling political influences and favours for money. I acknowledge that everyone is not at it, but such a culture has been facilitated by the close relationship between big business and Fianna Fáil, in particular, over many years.

That relationship continues to flourish, and we have only to look at the Government's disastrous housing policy to see how it does so.

Let us consider the consequences for the people for whom the Taoiseach expressed concern just five years ago. Property speculators and landlords are rewarded as land and house prices soar, fuelled by a housing shortage which this Government has failed to address through any direct State intervention. Legally and above board, but also immorally, Government policy fills the pockets of those who donate to Fianna Fáil. This does not require individual corruption on the part of individual Ministers, but it requires and represents a collective corruption of politics, when Government is conducted on behalf of vested interests, and where the wealthiest in our society can be certain that their interests will be served by Government first.

Five years on, let us look at the tax breaks which last week the Minister for Finance renewed for this particular sector in Irish society up to the year 2006. That is the real background, not the accusations thrown at individual Ministers.

Seán Power (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should withdraw that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A corruption of politics forms the background to this debate. The Government is fooling itself if it thinks for a moment that the public is not aware of that. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos at the end of last month, the Taoiseach warned Sinn Féin in a very clear statement to stay quiet on issues of corruption. The party has no intention of doing so.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is clear that obvious corruption should be debated in Dáil Éireann today. When these issues arise in the future, the Taoiseach must not again reach for the tribunals, as he usually does, as a handy prophylactic to protect himself from legitimate questions which should be put in the House. Corruption went to the heart of the leadership of the Fianna Fáil Party in the 1980s and early 1990s. It is obvious there is corruption in Fianna Fáil when a property developer who survived the bruising world of the Murphys and the McAlpines in London left a meeting of senior Fianna Fáil Ministers in 1989 thinking he had been to see the more dysfunctional wing of the Corleone clan. While Mr. Gilmartin may not have had his legs crushed on the way out, he was certainly arm-twisted for lots of cash.

When I became a member of Dublin County Council in 1991, everyone knew that planning corruption was rife. I and others shouted "Stop", while no one in Fianna Fáil did so. The Taoiseach was a treasurer, Chief Whip and senior Minister of Fianna Fáil, and became the party leader. He found his way around the Fianna Fáil Party as easily as a worn wheel around a greasy axle.

It beggars belief that the Taoiseach did not know about the blatant greed that his senior Cabinet colleagues and county council colleagues were guilty of. Senior members of Fianna Fáil were not shocked by the corruption of the 1980s because there was no dividing line in Fianna Fáil between the greed of senior Ministers and the businessmen who paid them off on the one hand, and the management of the affairs of State on the other. How could it be otherwise in a party which hired out the plushest Dublin hotel suites, where party fundraisers officially accepted the fat envelopes, referred to as political donations, from tycoons and financiers? This was legalised bribery whereby the rich and powerful bought from Fianna Fáil the influence to become richer and more powerful.

Substantial elements in the political and business establishment in the Ireland of the 1980s and 1990s were swimming in a sea of sleaze and corruption. They made fortunes from corruption and saved fortunes in tax evasion, but there were victims — the struggling working class communities floundering in misplanned housing estates without facilities and sometimes as a result without hope, as well as the poor, the old and the sick, whose hospital beds were virtually snatched from beneath them. Those who thrived in that morass of sleaze, some of whom remain as Cabinet Ministers today, should join those who have been found out, and resign. If they do not, the people should deal a crushing indictment on 11 June to all elements of the political establishment who have cheated them, and should also take down the hapless Progressive Democrats, who have no more bark or bite and who now seem eternally locked in the inseparable but deadly embrace of Fianna Fáil.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The enormous degree of forgiveness afforded to Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats by the Irish public to date is incredible. Since the dodgy dealings and political corruption came to light, Fianna Fáil has in one form or another been elected in 1992, 1997 and 2002. Along with that, the Flood and Mahon tribunals have effectively served as a railway siding where serious questions of corruption are left unanswered while the dodgy runaway train rumbles on.

It seems that one of the perks of being a Fianna Fáil backbencher is the right to carry what amounts to a blank cheque, endorsed with the authority of the party leader and Taoiseach, entitling the bearer to behave in the most unconscionable manner regarding the laws and institutions of this modern European democracy.

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should withdraw that.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach was asked a number of questions which have not been answered. When asked why he allowed Deputy Cooper Flynn to return to Fianna Fáil, he cited the Supreme Court appeal, notwithstanding the finding of the High Court. It seems that Fianna Fáil rules supersede High Court findings. That is very interesting. The Taoiseach still expects the public to roll over.

The Taoiseach was also asked why he went further, in terms of mileage and every other way, to embrace Mr. Pádraig Flynn and his daughter in County Mayo before the last election. He has not answered that question to any degree in this House. Is it credible to think that a present of enough cash to buy two houses had no strings attached? A cheque for £100, made out not to cash but to the Green Party, was sent to the party in the early 1990s. On investigation by a journalist, the donor openly declared that he sent the cheque to the Green Party as the price of having a rezoning proposal merely read. Is it credible then that a cheque for £50,000 could be made out to cash with no strings attached? Is the Taoiseach willing to take political responsibility for political sleaze in his party? It seems not. If justice delayed is justice denied, this is unforgivable.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why did the Taoiseach use the phrase "no delay has arisen" if he wanted to assert that he co-operated fully with the tribunal at all times? What was in the letter seen by the Taoiseach today, the letter sent to the Government secretariat? Did it remind the latter of the Taoiseach's previous undertaking to the House? What documents did the Taoiseach omit which the tribunal had to pursue subsequently from the secretariat, or were there any such documents?

Finally and most importantly, on the issue raised by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in his analysis and understanding of the gravity of the situation referred to by Deputy Rabbitte, when the Taoiseach considered that Deputy Cooper-Flynn had lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court and that therefore due process should apply, and when he spoke to her prior to her re-admission to the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party, did she give him any undertaking or was there any discussion between them in respect of her not having anything to do — good, bad or indifferent — with the grave issue of tax evasion?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The first question Deputy Kenny asked me was about my use of the words "no delay has arisen". I did not use those words for any particular reason. When I made a statement to the tribunal on 27 January 1999, I gave all the details in that case. Most of the details, some five or six points, I gave in full — the letter from Martin Macken, former general secretary, to Pádraig Flynn; the minutes of the meeting in the Department; and the letter between John Wilson and Ray MacSharry. The only one I could not give in full because there was no minute of it was one of the meetings where Mr. Gilmartin called in one day to three or four different Ministers. I checked whether there was a minute but none was taken and obviously I was not able to put the minute of that meeting on the record. That remains the position. There was no minute of that meeting. All of the other points I put either wholly on the record or certainly provided a sufficient amount of the detail to allow anyone to follow them.

In recent weeks and months the tribunal, in getting ready for the module that is to start in the spring, has been writing seeking information and the information it was seeking from the secretariat was not only in reference to the issues and the letters I mentioned but also to the files. They wanted the back-up files. The files were in other Departments; they were not in the Department of the Taoiseach and the secretariat just put them in touch. All of the references were references I had given in the substantial detail of those documents. At the time I had not given the actual documents but I had read them into the record. Our solicitors could have put on the back-up but they did not; they gave the entire document. When I was asked to do discovery in recent times, I did everything I could think of because the point was made to me that I had to do everything so I did those documents. I did many other things too. They were not of great relevance but they might be to the investigation so I covered all those matters.

On the question, and I accept Deputy Kenny is not saying this, that I am hiding behind tribunals, the reason I defend myself in this respect is that I do not hide behind tribunals. Deputy Rabbitte is correct. I did not think in 1997 that it would take all of these years. I cannot respond on one position as I am doing now. I would like to read the full content of those letters and the points but I cannot. I have the eight volumes of letters but I cannot defend myself in this. Perhaps people in the House think I am hiding behind it but the opposite is the case. I cannot use the information. I would like to give the entire eight volumes that I have to the House and make it available to Members because I am not afraid of anything in them, but I am not allowed to do that. The tribunal has emphasised, in its work in this module, that "to infringe the confidentiality of the tribunal is a very serious matter and may render a person liable to prosecution for hindering and obstructing the tribunal". I am up in lights in this because I am the Taoiseach and I had the volumes. I cannot do anything and I am not going to break the tribunal rules but it appears that half the town has the letters. Even from his questioning, it is obvious that people have given the information to Deputy Kenny. There is nothing wrong with that because it is all in the newspapers anyway but I am not allowed to give it or quote from it.

Deputy Joe Higgins and others may think I am hiding behind the tribunals. If this was finished, I could deal with the report. Regardless of what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or anybody else said, nobody is happy, nor am I, that issues are outstanding for five or six years with which we cannot deal or where Fianna Fáil cannot get its money back or take action.

Deputy Kenny asked me a straight question about Deputy Cooper-Flynn. Let there be no doubt about the position. I have always said that it is for tribunals of inquiry, following the process of law, to make findings of fact. Everyone is entitled to due process, and my legal people keep telling me why I have to follow due process, but in the event of the tribunal or other inquiry making a final determination of wrongdoing against Deputy Cooper-Flynn, I will have no hesitation in ensuring she will face the sanctions of her party as set out in our rules. That is the position, but she wants to state her position in the House, and she is entitled to that, but it does not mean that anybody is cosy about it.

To reply to what Deputy Kenny said earlier in his contribution, it is not a question of our having done nothing over the past few years. We have brought in new electoral Acts for general and local elections. We have the Prevention of Corruption Acts, the Standards in Public Office Act and we have a tough regime for dealing with Members in regard to everything. We all have to submit all our data, and rightly so. We now have to have accounts available for any donations we get. I agree with all of those requirements but people forget that and say we have been hiding behind tribunals and are doing nothing. We passed eight new statutes in this House which are now law; they are tough laws. We have our own Standards in Public Office Act and all these measures are in place. It is not a question, therefore, that we have not done anything. As politicians, we should not say that because people would be of the view that we did not do anything, and that is not true. I wish these tribunals were over and we could get on with dealing with the remaining issues but that is not the position and, unfortunately, I am constrained. That does not mean we have done nothing. I have had to deal with issues in my own party — I am not answerable to the House on that — and we also put matters on a legislative basis. We have taken tough action but in the meantime I am bound by the rules of the tribunal. This House has set up tribunals and it is not good enough for a Deputy of the House — I refer to Deputy Joe Higgins — to say we are hiding behind the tribunals. We set them up. I am duty bound to abide by them. I do not know how many people but——

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does not stop the Taoiseach answering questions on his responsibility.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An enormous number of people are dealing with these procedures and investigating them on behalf of this House. We delegated that authority from this House so the Deputy should not ask me to run a separate tribunal. I cannot do that.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We want to know what the Taoiseach did.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can give the resources. I can co-operate and I can help with the function——

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is filibustering.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——but I cannot set up a separate tribunal. I have to live by the strictures and rules, and the Deputy must understand that as a Member of this House.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the Taoiseach's responsibility. It is about what he did in 1999.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach indicate what is holding up the NIB inspectors' report? I understand it has been finished for some time. Why is it not being put into the public domain?

I want to ask the Taoiseach about the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who feels an unending compulsion to address the great issues of our time. The Taoiseach is now saying that in addition to that obligation, the Minister has been going around weighed down by the knowledge of this tax evasion for more than a year and never shared it with anyone. Did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ever bring this knowledge to the Taoiseach's attention or is he saying that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was seized of this knowledge and kept it to himself? I cannot reconcile that with the Deputy Michael McDowell I know. He would not have done that. If Deputy McDowell shared that knowledge with the Taoiseach, what action did he take arising from it?

I refer the Taoiseach to the Official Report, to which he also referred, of 1999 where he categorically denied that he had ever asked Tom Gilmartin for the financial contribution, either for himself or for Fianna Fáil. He also denied, equally carefully and explicitly, that he had ever asked Tom Gilmartin about a specific contribution of £50,000. Will the Taoiseach answer the question today? Did he ever at any stage ask Mr. Gilmartin in any terms if he had made a contribution of any kind to Fianna Fáil?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of the NIB report is a matter for the High Court. I understand the final report is due this summer. That is the latest position.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

After the elections——

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a High Court matter. There is no control over it. What was Deputy Rabbitte's second question?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was about the burden of knowledge on the Minister, Deputy McDowell's shoulders.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All Ministers and all Members have known for several years that out of all of these issues there could be serious positions about tax evasion. Nobody had any particular information and I got no particular information from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, or anybody else. It has been general knowledge, as somebody said here when Deputy Kenny raised the matter, that there are serious issues about this, but we will not know that until we hear it from the tribunal. There is plenty of hearsay about what might be involved in these issues——

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When did the Taoiseach hear it?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——but I still did not find out what happened. The matter is before the tribunal. Even in the newspapers last week there were different views. I thought for years that the cheque was made out to Fianna Fáil and in more recent times I heard it was made out to cash.

Deputies:

How did the Taoiseach find that out?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I heard it because, like everything else, it is doing the rounds from papers that have been leaked.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have to be careful with rumours.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Rabbitte's third question was about the £50,000. What is in dispute is precisely who was the intended beneficiary. The Deputy asked me if I asked Mr. Gilmartin about this matter. Quite frankly, I have no recollection of the conversation with Mr. Gilmartin. Mr. Gilmartin said he rang me to ask me to assist him. I think he also said he rang me again to thank me, so he did get some assistance. I think that is the point he made. I cannot recall Mr. Gilmartin saying to me that he gave £50,000, or gave anything, to Fianna Fáil or to Pádraig Flynn. I would not ask anyone on a phone call if they gave the money to the party, and even when I was treasurer of the party, I would not have asked if they would give money to the party or to me. I am absolutely certain about that. I appreciate the way the Deputy asked the question but I am quite certain I would not have asked him did he give a contribution to Fianna Fáil or would he give money to Fianna Fáil — I just would not do that.

Apparently what Mr. Gilmartin said in his evidence is that he was giving out about Pádraig Flynn. If he brought up the issue with me I might have exchanged discussion with him about it. I could well have done that, but I would not have asked him if he would give money to Fianna Fáil, to Pádraig Flynn or to me. I would not have done that. If he brought it up in conversation, I could well have engaged in conversation with him, but I have no recollection of that.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A very brief question from Deputy Sargent and then we are concluding.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I indicated earlier.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is correct, Deputy. Deputy Sargent may wish to give way to the Deputy.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask that both of us be accommodated.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The House made an order that there would be 15 minutes of question time and that time has now concluded. The Chair is obliged to obey the order of the House, as are Members.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The orders of the House have to be accommodating to allow Members——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Deputy does not allow Deputy Sargent to contribute I will move on to the next business.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I regret it is difficult to accommodate us. May I ask the Taoiseach if it is credible that a cash payment, which amounts to the price of two houses, would not have strings attached? Did that not ring alarm bells with the Taoiseach that would result in an investigation in terms of where the money is, why it has not come back to Fianna Fáil or whether there are tax evasion implications? Is it the case that the tribunal is the reason he felt paralysed or that he did not believe it was possible that a cash payment might be corrupt?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure what the Deputy is asking me. If Mr. Gilmartin had mentioned to me in 1989 that he had given a donation to Pádraig Flynn or to Fianna Fáil, I would have assumed he was giving it to Fianna Fáil through Pádraig Flynn in his capacity as treasurer. If a donation of £50,000 was given to a Minister which was not going to a political party. I can only visualise that if it was going to the political party it would be given to a treasurer. I do not think any individual would expect that it would be given without strings attached. There is no doubt that to get £50,000 in 1989, made out to cash, which did not find its way to the party of the treasurer, is extraordinary. There is no hiding that fact. That was a huge contribution which did not go to the party. Obviously the question arises as to what it was for, what it was about, but that is a matter for the tribunal to resolve.