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

I wish to share time with Deputies Eoghan Murphy and Mary Mitchell O'Connor.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. The Moriarty report presents an unedifying picture of politics and public affairs in Ireland. One of the foremost challenges facing Dáil Éireann is to respond to the report's findings in a forthright and honest way and implement the recommendations for reform. The Government is determined to give a lead, not merely by referring the report for investigation by the Garda and whatever action the Director of Public Prosecutions considers necessary on foot of a Garda investigation, but also by giving prominence to implementing the far-reaching reforms set out in the programme for Government and enunciated by the Taoiseach during yesterday's debate.

The tribunal attaches no blame to the Government of 16 years ago but commentators have made the point that the current Government will be judged by the reforms it makes in the report's wake. I agree with that, which is why the Government is committed to the reform programme.

As I said last week, the report's findings are of the utmost gravity regarding the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. It is for this reason that I, on behalf of the Government, have referred the report to the Revenue Commissioners, the Garda Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have no doubt these institutions will urgently follow up on their examination of the report's findings.

I welcome the publication of the report. It is a comprehensive and exhaustive treatment of very complex matters. Mr. Justice Moriarty deserves to be commended on producing a report which, while very lengthy, is clear and well-structured.

Two of the unsuccessful consortia in the second mobile phone competition issued proceedings against the State in 2001. In 2007, pursuant to an application by the State, these proceedings were struck out by the High Court for want of prosecution on the grounds of delay. These matters are under appeal by the unsuccessful bidders to the Supreme Court. I am advised they are likely to be heard in the not too distant future. Deputies, therefore, will understand my ability to comment in this debate on the GSM 2 award process is of necessity somewhat restricted. I must, however, place on the record of the House that the report made no finding that the result of the second mobile phone competition was incorrect.

I want to give the House some context to the report and set out the involvement of the State, mainly in the form of my Department, in the proceedings of the tribunal.

The tribunal's terms of reference, as passed by resolutions of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 11 September 1997 and 18 September 1997, respectively, provided that the tribunal was required to inquire urgently into and report to the Clerk of the Dáil and to make such findings and recommendations as it saw fit concerning the specific factual matters of urgent public importance relating to alleged payments to Charles J. Haughey and Michael Lowry. Although the terms of reference made no mention of the second GSM licence, after certain private investigations, the sole member determined to have public sittings concerning Deputy Lowry and the GSM competition.

It would be useful if I gave the House some brief background to the second GSM competition. This is dealt with in considerable detail in the report. The then Government announced on 2 March 1995 an open competitive bidding process with a view to the granting of a GSM licence to a second cellular phone operator. The competition was to be overseen by the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. A request for proposals, RFP, for licence applicants was also announced. The RFP was the grounding document for the GSM competition, setting out the criteria to be used to select the winner. Winning the competition entitled the winning applicant to the exclusive right only to negotiate for the licence. It did not necessarily mean that the licence would issue to the applicant. Further negotiations were required for that. The competition was dictated by EU law to break a monopoly.

A project group, formed by the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and including representation from the Department of Finance, was set up to oversee the competition. The competition documentation was provided to the European Commission to ensure it complied with EU competition rules. The Commission raised objections about the cash bid element for the licence, suggesting it could act as a barrier to market entry. Informal negotiations between members of the project group and the Commission led to a compromise whereby an open-ended auction style fee for the licence was replaced with a fee to be determined by the applicants but subject to a maximum of £15 million. Accordingly, following discussions and correspondence, the approach of using a maximum fee for the licence was accepted by the Commission. This ensured the Commission's requirement that no unfair burden be placed on new market entrants was satisfied. The Commission otherwise endorsed the parameters of the competition.

The then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications engaged, by way of competitive tender, Andersen Management International, AMI, leading GSM consultants and experts to assist with the process. The project team was thus made up of the members of the Departments of Transport, Energy and Communications and of Finance, as well as AMI. This group ran the competition. Esat Digifone Limited, Esat, was announced as the winner by the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications on 25 October 1995. After successful licence negotiations, the GSM licence issued to Esat on 16 May 1996.

After an extensive private investigative phase, involving officials from both Departments and including a meeting with officials from the Attorney General's Office, the tribunal decided to conduct public hearings in the matter. These public hearings commenced on 3 December 2002. The last day of public hearings of the tribunal was 5 November 2010. Over those eight years, the tribunal held some 163 public hearing days in batches. Some 20 witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the State. These comprised officials and secondees to the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and the Department of Finance, the Office of the Attorney General, and also Mr. Richard Nesbitt, SC, counsel to the Department. Professor Michael Andersen, lead AMI consultant to the process, also gave evidence. Accordingly, a total of 94 days of evidence was given by officials of the State and supporting experts out of a total of 163 days of the GSM module sittings.

In addition, the State side through the Office of the Chief State Solicitor engaged in voluminous correspondence with the tribunal over the period. This included lengthy and detailed legal submissions on various issues arising, as well as extensive exchange of letters on many issues arising. The cost of the tribunal to date incurred by my Department, including legal costs, is approximately €3.3 million. This is additional to the direct costs of the tribunal itself.

The House will expect me to deal with the report as it relates to civil servants involved in the process. It is not my task to conceal the shortcomings identified in the report but, on the substantive issues, it is very clear. For example, the report acknowledges that the officials with whom Mr. Lowry interacted had "no means of knowing that Mr. Lowry was conveying information to Mr. O'Brien, or any other interested party, and had no reason to suspect Mr. Lowry's motives". The report referring to the two officials most directly involved in the project group stated, "the commitment and engagement of those officials could not be faulted". Also, the sole member observed:

It is undoubtedly the case that the tribunal's investigations were personally and professionally discomforting for those officials, who, through no fault of their own found themselves at the intersection of an irregular and improper relationship between politics and business, in the persons of Mr. Michael Lowry and Mr. Denis O' Brien, of which they had no knowledge at any time.

The sole member added, "It is Mr. Lowry and Mr. O'Brien who were at fault, and had either of them seen fit to respond to the tribunal enquiries openly and honestly, those officials would have been spared the spectre of public scrutiny of their actions".

In this context the report finds that the then Secretary General advised the Minister at the outset of the process to be cautious in dealing with interested parties. The report is critical of some aspects of the process. In view of the court proceedings to which I referred earlier, I do not intend to comment on the sole member's observations in this area which may be an important part of any future court proceedings where the State will be defending its position. I note, however, in passing that in some instances where the sole member was critical of the execution of the process he remarked that some actions were made "unwittingly" and that the implementation of the process by some officials was "no doubt actuated by a desire for a decisive, efficient and productive process, and one that would secure the policy objective of delivering a second operator".

Elsewhere, the tribunal remarks that it "does not believe that the evaluators ever consciously intended to approach the evaluation otherwise than fairly and with open minds". This is not to deny these criticisms by the tribunal of the administration of the process by the Department. In this regard, the tribunal suggests greater precautions should have been taken to segregate those conducting the evaluation from the Minister. This must, however, also be read in the context of the tribunal statement that the officials in question had no means of knowing Mr. Lowry was conveying information to one of the bidders.

It is neither possible nor desirable to end interaction between Minister and civil servants on material issues; however, if a process is agreed that is intended to ring-fence a particular issue, great care should be taken to ensure that it happens. There is much to ponder arising from the report in regard to the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to address this issue. The Government's commitment is to legislate for a reformulated code of laws that will spell out the legal relationship between Ministers and their civil servants, identifying the true decision makers and indicating their accountability for decisions taken. The powers and responsibilities of Secretaries General will be strengthened so as to assist them, if needs be, in standing up to political masters who are less attentive to the requirements of due process and sound administration.

What we have suggested is that the Secretary General will have statutory authority to ensure that the Department and its officers perform their functions in a non-political and impartial manner, in accordance with law and with the highest ethical standards of conduct and integrity and with any prescribed code of conduct. In this scenario the Secretary General would be required to ensure that risk management and other internal controls are in place so that public funds are safeguarded; functions are performed effectively, efficiently and economically; laws, regulations and approved policies are complied with; records and reports are adequate, reliable and accurate. The independent statutory responsibilities of a Secretary General will extend to taking the necessary steps to safeguard that all persons concerned -Ministers, advisors and civil servants - perform their functions in a way that avoids the unlawful or irregular use of public funds or resources, or that are otherwise contrary to fair and sound administration.

In line with its remit, the report makes a number of recommendations set out under the headings of political funding, company law, revenue matters, regulation, and tribunals of inquiry. I will presently address these matters, especially those relating to the intersection of politics and business. First, I wish to deal with the issue of regulation in so far as the area of communications is concerned. In this context, I note that the tribunal has made no recommendation on the future conduct of competitions in the telecommunications sector. In fact, the position in this regard has changed fundamentally from that which obtained at the time of the competition for the second GSM licence.

ComReg is now the statutory body responsible for the regulation of the electronic communications and the postal sectors in accordance with Irish and EU Law. It was established in December 2002, under the Communications Regulation Act 2002. ComReg has a range of statutory functions and objectives with regard to the provision of electronic communications networks and services. One of their key functions is to ensure efficient management and use of the radio frequency spectrum, which encompasses the award of spectrum for mobile telephone licences.

Section 11 of the Communications Regulation Act provides that ComReg shall be independent in the exercise of its functions, although in certain circumstances ComReg is required to comply with policy directions issued to it by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. ComReg's licensing of use of the radio spectrum under national legislation is subject to the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications. The framework requires that ComReg ensure that the allocation and assignment of such radio frequencies is based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria. It also requires that ComReg establish open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedures for the grant of licences and cause any such procedures to be made publicly available. Additionally, the framework requires that, where ComReg decides to use competitive or comparative selection procedures for the grant of a limited number of licences, such procedures are fair, reasonable, open and transparent to all interested parties.

Finally, as regards member state involvement, the framework requires that member states guarantee the independence of national regulatory authorities by ensuring they are legally distinct and functionally independent of all organisations providing networks and services. Member states have to ensure that their national regulatory authorities exercise their powers impartially, transparently and in a timely manner. In summary, the current arrangements for the licensing of spectrum are administered by an independent regulator who is free from political or ministerial interference.

In the areas of energy and broadcasting, which are also part of my ministerial portfolio, independent regulators are also in place in the form of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the Commission for Energy Regulation. These regulators are also statutorily independent from the Minister of the day in the performance of their duties. More generally, there are lessons to be learned for the conduct of public administration. Public procurement processes have evolved since the competition for the State's second GSM licence. I have already outlined the significant changes with the introduction of independent regulators in my own area. We need to examine whether there are further changes in procurement that should be made following this tribunal's investigations.

I would like to comment on the report from the point of view of, as the report puts it, "the intersection of the worlds of politics and business". The members of this House and the general public find themselves, according to the report of the tribunal, contemplating an incident in which a senior office holder has betrayed public trust. The fact that a Minister's actions while in office had been described as venal and disgraceful after 14 years of investigation has now been well aired in political, media and public discussion. The problem lies at one single place in Irish life - the point at which business and politics meet. We in this House and in particular those of us in Government regularly make decisions that affect the fortunes of corporate interests. We are entrusted by the people to make those decisions in the public interest. In broad terms, good public policy decisions will also create a healthy environment in which businesses operate but the decisions we make may also regularly benefit or hinder particular businesses to a very large degree. Politicians, as a by-product of particular decisions we make, in passing can enrich particular businesses and individuals. It is this fact that requires us to be particularly vigilant, stringent and transparent about how we police that point where we interact with the commercial world.

It is now clear to everyone in this House that we have failed to do this adequately. No Government has a monopoly on poor standards in this area, as we see from Mr Justice Moriarty's reports. We must now as a House resolve to deal with this matter once and for all. The Taoiseach set out that agenda yesterday. As well as the struggle to restore our country's finances, the Government must also rebuild the reputation of Irish politics. To this end I hope we will now have the full support of this House for a number of important measures that will further regulate the relationship between business and politics. First, we intend finally to introduce legislation to ban corporate donations to individual candidates, politicians and political parties. This is not to say that all such donations in the past have been made for improper motives but it is reasonable for the public always to be sceptical of the reasons why businesses choose to fund politicians and their parties. For this reason alone, the practice must end.

We plan to regulate lobbyists and lobbying. Businesses, industry groups and individuals make representations and arguments to Government and individual Departments and Ministers every day. It is important for those making the case to ensure they can get a hearing and for those making decisions who need to hear from those with expertise and interests in the area. This lobbying must be open and transparent. It is important for the Government to know precisely what interests are represented by anyone making a case to it. It is important also for the public to know who is making representations, to what end, and to whom. We will therefore propose a register of lobbyists and other regulation of how lobbying is conducted. We will also introduce protection for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing in the public and private sectors.

I will turn briefly to the length of time that has elapsed since this House first decided to have these matters examined. I do not think there is a better example of our current inability to examine matters of public importance and reach conclusions quickly than the length of time the Moriarty tribunal took to report. In saying that, I do not criticise the tribunal or its chairman. The sole member deals with the reasons for the delay in his report. However, we must find a way to deal with issues such as this quickly and effectively. The Government has pledged to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution to give Dáil committees full powers of investigation. The Abbeylara Supreme Court decision currently limits the ability of Dáil committees to hold investigations into crucial issues of public concern, such as the banking crisis. That is an issue we intend to address.

In addition, in the case of criminal investigations, my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, has already announced work on a package of reforms to enhance the powers of the Garda Síochána in the investigation of white-collar crime. More generally, one must ensure that the law and regulation prescribe that there is a healthy and arms-length relationship between business and politics. If money changes hands, it will be illegal. If business people exercise their right to lobby and make representations, let it be open and transparent.

In dealing with Mr. Justice Moriarty's account of this grave and frankly depressing episode involving Ireland's business and political life, I will make a positive point about the partnership between business and politics. It is business and politics, working together, that will lead this country out of the severe economic difficulties that it is facing. Each element of society has much to learn from the other, and our country and society have much to gain from working together. Today, let us in this House resolve that in future that relationship will be conducted openly and in an atmosphere in which the public can be confident that it is free from any impropriety, or suspicion of impropriety.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not imagine that my maiden speech to this House would be on a matter of such importance to this country. I apologise if my words do not do the gravity of the situation justice. Like many of my colleagues, I stand as a newly elected representative to Dáil Éireann, elected at a time of unprecedented difficulty for this country, from the people's desire for a new direction in public life. I have been trying to figure out what that means for me and for all of us as public representatives. I was trying to understand the expectations people have and then the findings of the Moriarty tribunal were published. I have waded through the report and looked at the background documentation. It does not paint a pretty picture; crony capitalism, improper influence, a lack of accountability, low standards in high places. It is not what public service is meant to be. That is not why we were chosen to be here. The recent election can be understood as a direct reaction to the kind of practices described in the report. We cannot erase the contents of the report or the failings it catalogues. We should not try to. There are important lessons for all of us. We must ensure we take those lessons with us beyond the debate.

I commend the Taoiseach's swift reaction to the publication of the report, on the forwarding of the report to the DPP and the Garda Commissioner, on his clear direction of the recommendations emanating from the tribunal's inquiries, in the prompt scheduling of this important debate and the time allocated to it in this Chamber. I also commend the Taoiseach's statement on the matter yesterday and the ten key commitments to transparency and reform contained within the statement which are also contained within the programme for government and include the commitments recently outlined by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, in the Chamber.

We must extend the principles of open government and honest government throughout the corridors of power. We act for the people. They have a right to know what we do on their behalf and how we do it. Open government is good government. That is one of the reasons I stood in the recent election. With the commitments given by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste we will make a proper start in that direction. There is more that we can do. It was brought to my attention at the weekend that this country has still not ratified the UN Convention against Corruption. We are a signatory state but not a state party. When our country is under such scrutiny internationally, our failure to ratify and become a full state party to such an important convention is embarrassing. It might be seen by others as a lack of proper support for such standards on our part. We must move to rectify that immediately.

It is also time that measures under Article 12 of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption relating to trading in influence are transposed into domestic law. We are duty bound to do so under our international commitments but we are compelled to do so by the recent election and the necessity to find proper measures against white-collar crime. To protect the objectivity and integrity of the Civil Service we must adopt similar practices to those in the United Kingdom, whereby a senior civil servant can formally and on public record request written ministerial direction when he or she disagrees with a Minister's decision so strongly that he or she refuses to be accountable for it. Such occasions would likely be rare but would serve to indicate to the public where political considerations of the Minister in charge might be contrary to the best interests of the State.

It might also be prudent for us, as elected Members to this House, and as we share a collective responsibility to the people, to examine whether a mechanism may be necessary to allow this House to expel one of its own. We heard from the Taoiseach this morning that this would require a change to the Constitution. That option should be explored.

Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a new Deputy, elected in Dún Laoghaire I am saddened that my maiden speech to Dáil Éireann must address a scandal relating to disreputable political behaviour. I have spoken to many of my constituents in recent days and they want this matter dealt with as quickly as possible and the recommendations of the Moriarty report implemented as soon as possible. The events investigated in the report happened more than 20 years ago and everyone knows - even the dogs on the street - that the main protagonists, Deputy Lowry and Mr. O'Brien, are not telling the truth. People in my constituency beg us to move on from this scandal and get to the real issues that affect young people and families, namely, unemployment and emigration, mortgage repayments and arrears, mounting personal debt and the worry for families that they will be able to put food on the table at the end of the month.

During the past week we have heard horrendous criticism of Mr. Justice Moriarty. The remarks of Deputy Lowry and Mr. O'Brien are a very bad example to young people. It is not right that the integrity of our legal system and the Judiciary is treated with such disdain and derision. While Mr. Justice Moriarty is gagged in defending himself, we in Dáil Éireann must quickly set about implementing the Moriarty recommendations as a matter of urgency.

This corruption must never happen again. The people demand that the culture of politics changes utterly. This is not a time for cheap political point scoring. We, the Members of the 31st Dáil, must ensure that the type of corrupt behaviour outlined in the Moriarty report is not allowed to taint Irish politics again. During the general election the people made it known that they want political reform. The old politics which had such a corrosive effect on society is dead and buried and a new age has begun. That was made clear yesterday in the Taoiseach's speech when he outlined plans to ban corporate donations to political parties, reduce limits on donations to political parties, introduce a register of lobbyists and new rules governing lobbying, to create a whistleblowers charter and to reform the relationship between civil servants and Ministers. The parties, Ministers and Deputies who truly believe in new politics will be those who face these recommendations full-on and arrange for their implementation in legislation, rather than those who wish to debate scandals for political advantage. If the recommendations are not given due consideration by the Legislature, the whole purpose of a lengthy and costly public inquiry and the consequent report and recommendations will be lost.

There is much talk about political reform. The fact remains that the implementation of the tribunal's recommendations, or at least the due consideration thereof, is democracy. I hope the tribunal's recommendations will be dealt with by the Legislature in this House sooner rather than later.

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

I wish to share time with Deputy Dara Calleary.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

The findings of the Moriarty report are self-evidently absolutely devastating for Deputy Michael Lowry and others who are directly criticised therein. The report has very serious implications for the way in which the State does its business. It makes for very sobering reading. It casts a very dark shadow over the awarding of the most valuable licence awarded by any Government in the history of the State. It also casts a shadow over politics in this country. This comment is not to be interpreted in a party-political way because previous tribunal reports have cast a similar shadow and future ones may well do the same. We, as Members elected to this House, must face up to that in a very honest and forthright way.

With regard to the report, it is very clear that the integrity of the awarding of the GSM licence is now in shreds. This may have profound consequences for the State. It concerns me and, I am sure, every other Deputy in the House that legal proceedings are still under way in regard to the awarding of the licence. There can be no doubt that the case of the unsuccessful bidders for the licence has now been strengthened considerably by the content and conclusions of the report issued by Mr. Justice Moriarty.

It is deeply disturbing that the procedures and guidelines that were to be followed in regard to the awarding of the licence, which were adopted in March 1995 by the then Cabinet, were clearly not adhered to. The memorandum to Cabinet, which was approved on the day in question, refers to the process as a sealed process that would be entirely non-political and that Ministers would be guardians of the process, reserving the final decision on the awarding of the GSM licence for themselves. It is clear that the content of the memorandum was not adhered to, and we have all seen the consequences of that, as detailed in a forensic fashion by Mr. Justice Moriarty.

Mr. Justice Moriarty and his team are to be thanked for the work they have done on compiling such a comprehensive report. That does not take away in any way from our right, as Members of this House, to criticise the delay in and cost of the process, and to endeavour to arrive at a more efficient mechanism for getting to the truth if issues such as these ever arise again. Please God, they never will.

My party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, made a very comprehensive statement to the House last night on the Moriarty report. The views he expressed are shared by all members of our party. I welcome the fact that the new Government has referred the report speedily to the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Garda and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. That was a very important step and its speed is to be welcomed. It is regrettable that the significant matters dealt with in the report are only now finding their way into the hands of the competent bodies given that the licence was awarded almost 16 years ago.

The contribution by the Taoiseach yesterday when opening the debate on the Moriarty report was deeply disappointing. The Taoiseach is a man of integrity but he adopted an almost neutral stance on the report's findings. When challenged on the floor of the House this morning, he refused to state whether the Government accepts the clear findings and conclusions of Mr. Justice Moriarty in his report. The Taoiseach very deliberately steered clear of making any criticism or concurring with any criticism made by Mr. Justice Moriarty of any individuals mentioned in the report. That response was disappointing, notwithstanding the constraints that clearly exist owing to the ongoing legal proceedings.

Perhaps the Taoiseach's reticence in endorsing or accepting the findings of the report can be explained by the fact that the Fine Gael Party is criticised deeply in the report, particularly over the handling of the $50,000 donation from Telenor, the Norwegian sister company of Esat Digifone. Mr. Justice Moriarty makes it very clear in the report that there was a very clear pattern of significant and conspicuous financial support for Fine Gael by Mr. Denis O'Brien and Esat Digifone around the time of the awarding of the licence. That was designed to raise the company's profile and its chances of success in the licence competition. The report finds that Mr. O'Brien's companies donated over £22,000 to Fine Gael between January 1995 and June 1996.

Let us be clear that the tribunal found that Fine Gael concealed from it the $50,000 donation by Telenor. The donation was made in December 1995 and was not returned until 2001, six years later. One cannot but draw the conclusion, in the context of the report that has been issued, that the donation represented a thank you cheque from Esat Digifone to the Government for its support in awarding the licence thereto. Mr. Justice Moriarty makes it very clear in his commentary that, without the media disclosures that occurred in 2001, the matter would have remained hidden from the public. That is a pretty damning indictment of one of the main political parties in this country, which party is now the main party in Government. Mr. Justice Moriarty states: "No person or entity connected with the payments saw fit to notify the Tribunal of it, notwithstanding a substantial degree of knowledge of its clandestine circumstances and proffered return." It is likely that, without the media spotlight in 2001, the issue would have remained hidden from the tribunal in its work.

The tribunal was set up by the Oireachtas in 1997 by resolution of the Houses, as articulated by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte. It held public hearings for eight years. Both yesterday and in the days immediately following the publication of the report, we witnessed an unprecedented attack on Mr. Justice Moriarty and the entire judicial system. We are being asked to believe there is a State-wide conspiracy within the judicial system to stitch up certain individuals, and that the conclusions and findings of the report should not be believed.

The conclusions in the report concerning Deputy Michael Lowry are very damning and I do not have to read into the record again the conclusions of Mr. Justice Moriarty in that regard. Deputy Lowry will now have to address those conclusions and findings with the relevant authorities to whom the report has been referred.

The report states there were three financial transactions for the benefit of Deputy Lowry and that they originated from Mr. Denis O'Brien and companies associated with him. The sums in question totalled £867,000 sterling. The report goes into quite forensic detail on the flow of those transactions. It now needs to be established as a matter of fact whether those payments were actually made. The report is very clear in stating they were, and that they were for the benefit of Deputy Michael Lowry. Members of this House must accept the findings of the report in that regard. The money trail will now have to be pursued once again by the competent authorities.

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

That is the entire point. We were not to have a role. It was an independent competition and it would have been entirely improper if we had interfered.

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

The final decision was one for the Government, for every Minister acting with collective responsibility.

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

The outcome of the competition was reported to us. If we had second-guessed it, it would have been entirely improper.

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

The outcome of the process was announced and then brought to the Cabinet for noting. The Cabinet was given no opportunity, or did not insist on being given an opportunity, to have an input into the process. I have never served in the Cabinet, but I assume that on an issue of this importance, a report or an aide-mémoire would be placed before the Cabinet with a clear recommendation and a full report being set out. Members of the Cabinet would then have an opportunity to interrogate the report and ask questions of the relevant line Minister before deciding whether to accept the recommendation attached to it. Clearly, in this case the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, bypassed the normal procedure and members of the Cabinet allowed themselves to be bypassed and did not insist on having an input in the making of the final decision which was a matter for the Cabinet.

I will now speak about the conclusions and recommendations made in the report. I welcome what the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has stated and the Taoiseach stated yesterday about initiatives to be taken in the areas of lobbyists, whistleblowers and strengthening the role of Dáil committees, which is essential. We can never again allow a situation where the Dáil passes a resolution, establishes a tribunal of inquiry to investigate urgent matters of national importance and then 14 years later a report arrives on the Minister's desk. This is not to level any criticism at Mr. Justice Moriarty or any of his legal team because great efforts were made by those subject to the inquiry to delay it at every opportunity. They succeeded in many regards and it was 14 years before the final report was issued. We can never allow this to happen again.

I welcome the fact that the Government is committed to bringing forward a comprehensive ban on corporate donations. However, we must ask ourselves whether this goes far enough. Would the intended legislation prevent a person from making a personal donation? What would prevent Mr. O'Brien or any of his employees from making large personal donations? Are these also to be banned or will we go as far as insisting that, irrespective of the monetary amount, all donations to politicians or parties, whether from personal, corporate or trade union sources, be published? This is a challenge to be faced up to by all parties and every Member of the House. Are we prepared to go this far to ensure proper transparency in the system of funding for political parties?

I welcome the fact that we are having this debate and that the report has been published, the findings of which should be accepted. I also welcome the fact that the report has been referred to the competent authorities. There are great lessons to be learned not only in terms of the process used for the awarding of a licence in this way but also on how politics are conducted and we can establish probes in the future to get to the bottom of issues such as this in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I begin by genuinely wishing the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, every success in their new positions. I hope we trained the Minister of State well on the previous Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for the burden of office ahead.

It is a shame that the Minister begins office by having this landed on him and I hope it does not take away from the focus on the other important work the Department has to do. The striking feature of the report is the definitive nature of its findings. The judge has pulled no punches in the manner in which he has constructed the report. In a profession which is known for long language and words, the judge has gone back to basics. When reading the report, one is struck by the amount of time and effort he put in to proving his conclusions.

Last night I listened to Deputy Lowry who absolutely and passionately disagrees with the report. The same can be said for some of the other protagonists not in the House. It strikes me that we need a system for the independent adjudication of future disputes. It also strikes me in reading the report that it has been shown by Mr. Justice Moriarty that there was at the time a wrong relationship between the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, and certain protagonists. We need to ensure this did not affect other issues or contracts in the Department at the time. I refer specifically to the mini-CTC project inqiry, of which Deputy Rabbitte was a member and which was halted a result of the Abbeylara judgment.

The Abbeylara judgment needs to be finally dealt with once and for all. We have a date with the electorate next October for the Presidential election and it would be in our interests and those of the profession of politics, doing business in this country and proper parliamentary democracy if we were in a position on that date in October to present a referendum to the people on dealing with the Abbeylara judgment and whatever else needs to be dealt with to have a properly empowered committee system. We do not need to return to a situation where the work of the House is done in Dublin Castle; where it takes 14 years to complete; where it is challenged through the courts by people who have resources to do so and where after 14 years the work and reputation of every Member of the House, whether we like it and whether we were mentioned in the report, is sullied.

When the Minister is answering questions this evening, I would like to hear his thoughts on how we will proceed. During the time of the previous Government he stated he did not fully accept that the Abbeylara judgment blocked every inquiry. If he believes it does not do so, is it possible to proceed with the mini-CTC inquiry in order that we can draw a line under this episode also, particularly given the findings of the Moriarty tribunal report and that, to a certain extent, the same protagonists are involved? If it is the feeling of the Government that we can proceed with this inquiry, regardless of the Abbeylara case decision, it should be done immediately so as to move away and move on from this scenario.

The Government has challenged itself to produce a jobs budget within 100 days of 9 March. With all of the discussion on the Moriarty tribunal, it may be easy to forget that this is the number one priority. Equally, the House should give itself deadlines on the recommendations made in the Moriarty tribunal report. Within 100 days of 22 March, the date on which the report was published, the House should implement the various recommendations to which Deputy McGrath referred with regard to funding, strengthening the role of the Standards in Public Office Commission and the disclosure of small donations, including, ironically enough in the context of this discussion, to independent candidates and Deputies. Surely we have it within ourselves to implement those proceedings within 100 days of 22 March so that as Members of the 31st Dáil we can say we are drawing a line under the actions of a very few. I know many Members from all sides who were also in the previous Dáil. Moreover, knowing that many people the length and breadth of the country are elected as public servants and work in the interests of their country and their community, I am annoyed that we are all tarred with the same brush. It is a case of, "You are all at it". Until we draw a line under this report then we are subject to that charge. As Members of this Dáil we owe it to the many hundreds of people who have sat in this Chamber since the First Dáil, representing the interests of their community and their country. They went about their business and did their job to the best of their ability, not only in an intellectual sense but also and more important, in the moral sense. We owe it to them to draw a line under all of this culture. I know my party is up there as much as anyone else but as a Dáil we should unite in some way to draw a line and ensure this will never happen again. The reputations of 99% of those who have served in this House or who have served in council chambers around the country, can never again be sullied by the remark, "You are all at it". It is time, once and for all, to draw a line under this culture.

Mr. Justice Moriarty has given us a road map but it needs the practical input of politicians. I ask that the Ceann Comhairle consider instituting the commission as soon as possible and giving it the specific task of responding to the findings and recommendations. The Government's legislative programme will be published next Tuesday. I hope a deadline will be imposed for the implementation of legislation in the House before, hopefully, the Government will decide to put a referendum on committee confidentiality to the people in October.

I refer to the issue of those who have let down our profession and the lack of any power of the House to censure them. A motion of censure can be tabled and I believe such a motion will be debated next week but ultimately this means nothing as it will not cost such a person a cent of salary or expenses and, at this stage, any cost in terms of public standing. In the context of examining the Abbeylara judgment, the House should consider whether there are constitutional blockages to the House having the power to expel a Member. Such a power could be dependent on a two thirds or higher majority. Given the kind of majority being won now, I accept that safeguards will be necessary to stop such a power being abused. We have surely had enough incidences in the past number of years of individual Deputies and Senators letting down the Houses that it is time to resolve to put in place a process to enable such people to be expelled from the House, to enable the House to stand up for itself.

I was intrigued by the Minister's response to Deputy Michael McGrath as to what happened at the time and the role of the Cabinet. The contract in question was the biggest commercial contract in the State. I do not refer in particular to the individual members of the Cabinet at the time but there must be a process in Cabinet which does more than note a recommendation. I have not been a member of a Cabinet but in the case of major commercial or social decisions which will have an impact on the commercial revenue of the State - in this case there is also the impact of disaffected bidders - there must be greater security and greater involvement of the Cabinet so that checks and balances can be guaranteed. This report illustrates the need for such a process which is a concrete action the political profession could take. Since 1995, Cabinets have been faced with decisions which led to significant consequences. It is clear that Cabinet procedures in general need to be revised in order to be brought up to date to deal with our modern times. I suggest such a revision could be completed relatively quickly, given all-party agreement.

I note that tomorrow's business includes statements on the role of committees. I recently read the minutes of the former committee dealing with the mini-CTC project. This committee was making progress along the lines of the DIRT inquiry but it suddenly came to a halt. I suggest that the Government sets up properly resourced committees. We learned from the experience of the 30th Dáil that more is not necessarily better and that Members spent their time every Wednesday trying to attend every meeting but without the time to undertake proper research. I was fortunate to serve on the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation under the Minister of State, Deputy Willie Penrose. Members of that committee left party affiliations outside the door when necessary and we went about our business but this was not the case for every committee. The committees took on too much work without sufficient research resources. The point of a good, effective committee structure is that when an issue such as the current one arises, it will not take 14 years to come up with a comprehensive response. A good committee structure will allow us as elected parliamentarians with mandates to take charge of our own affairs within the House, to make an input into Government policy or into general public debate in a properly resourced and managed function. It was the absence of such properly resourced and managed function that has led to the 14-year delay and to the most extraordinary legal bill imaginable. If that money had been put into a properly resourced committee system, we would have a much stronger democracy and Parliament today.

The House has less than 100 days to unite. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, will take questions tonight on the conclusion of this debate and I believe the Taoiseach will also take questions about Fine Gael. However, then the debate will be over and we will all go about our business. The House will debate the economy tomorrow and committees will be constituted and that will be the end of it until the next tribunal report and perhaps the one after that. This is what has happened up to now. We owe it to ourselves as professional politicians, if we respect our profession and if we respect those who served before us in this House, if we respect their integrity and reputation, from the publication of the report on 22 March 2011, to decide to draw a line, once and for all and to stand up for our own reputations. We have it in our power to do this and we should not waste this opportunity.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Jerry Buttimer and Thomas P. Broughan.

I welcome Deputy Calleary's comment that we should not move on from this debate as if nothing has changed. The thrust of the Government's policy is to learn from this and to change the way the Dáil does its business. These findings are undoubtedly disappointing for those of us who were members of that Government. The tribunal finds that a selection process that was fully intended to be robust against any undue influence was subjected, according to the tribunal findings, to influence. I am very conscious that many of the issues addressed here will be further tested in the courts, whether in criminal proceedings or in civil actions. I am equally conscious that one of my predecessors in this Department was found by a statement to have prejudiced a subsequent case. It behoves us all to be very careful in what we say.

Nonetheless the tribunal's findings, conclusions and recommendations need to be taken seriously. As Deputy Calleary and many others have said, we must develop the additional failsafe mechanisms needed to police all the dimensions of the interface between various vested interests and politics. That includes cases where major decisions are taken that change the value of assets, including land, and the issue of licences. Much of the programme for Government is about addressing that and the recommendations of the tribunal add to the scope for doing so.

I believe the Cabinet approved a selection process that was well designed in order to be fair and set objective criteria for the selection of a successful applicant that would be the best applicant, balancing a range of needs. We had tenders to select international experts so that would be done to the highest possible standards and the system was designed to be independent. People have asked whether the Cabinet could have done better. There has been commentary about the fact that the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, got an early announcement by going to a sub-committee of Cabinet and the tribunal finds the decision of that sub-committee was understandable, based on the briefing its members received - it recognised they made a decision based on the information they received. However, the tribunal was critical that it precluded the opportunity for further scrutiny, which is a fair point and one we must consider.

However, the counterpoint that must be borne in mind is that a system of independent rating of applicants conducted by people of international reputation was set up in order to take it away from a political process. If, by contrast, a meeting of Cabinet was to unpick the ratings, reweight and change the procedure, there would rightly be a very significant investigation as to whether this was political interference in a system that was designed to be independent. There is a balance to be seen there. As we design failsafe mechanisms we need to recognise that when an independent process is set up, it is not possible then for others to make the decision themselves and alter that. That balance needs to be borne in mind.

Deputy Lowry made a long address yesterday and I believe his position is untenable in the face of these findings. I admit he hotly disputes many of the findings. However, contesting those issues here in the Dáil, which is not a judicial forum and cannot sift the evidence and adjudicate, is not a convincing way to challenge the findings of the report. If he wants to convince people he ought to have exercised his rights to contest these issues in the High Court where he has an entitlement to do so.

Deputy Calleary asked whether we should be taking on the powers to expel a Member, which is a difficult question and one we would need to take a good deal of time to consider. As the Taoiseach indicated this morning the voters clearly have a constitutional right to select people and we need to think hard about how we can raise standards. This has arisen in other areas and is worthy of consideration. I am not sure there is an easy or facile way of dealing with it. However, we can deal very effectively with many of the recommendations. On the issue of political donations, Fine Gael is committed to introducing a ban on corporate donations. It is wrong - as we read in the report - that corporate interests can adopt a strategy of promoting themselves and their interest with politics in a sustained way. That can only damage public confidence. I can say with confidence that donations never affected any decision I ever took as a responsible Minister, but that is not the issue. The independence needs to be seen to be there as well as being exercised.

To be fair to Fine Gael, in the past it made a decision unilaterally to give up corporate political donations and ceased to take those donations. However, as other parties did not follow, it became an issue of unequal competition in contesting elections if one party was adopting what now is broadly recognised as the correct approach and others were not. Credit is due to the Minister, Deputy Noonan, for taking that stand. While perhaps the political system has taken too long to come around to his point of view, we now have a very clear Government decision which will be implemented.

Equally the transparency of lobbying needs to be addressed. The capacity of lobbyists to go beyond their legitimate right to inform must be addressed by proper legislation that sets out how that is to be done. The programme for Government recognises a number of changes will strengthen how all of this works. For example, we are proposing a very clear distinction between the areas of political responsibility and executive responsibility. The commitment in the programme for Government makes it very clear that we will bring to an end the unacceptable executive practice where no record is kept of ministerial involvement with an issue and resulting decisions. We need clarity and that is an important commitment in the programme for Government.

The tribunal has raised issues of company law and the need to address the matter of responsible behaviour. My Department has drafted a massive 1,400-section company law review. It includes a head that will set out new fiduciary duties for directors, which will represent an occasion to address this matter. My Department will need to decide whether we proceed with that legislation in its present format or seek to take out a subset for early implementation.

In many other areas the programme for Government commits to real reform that will make a difference. As I have mentioned, the separating of the political decisions of Ministers from the executive decisions of implementation by the Secretary General will create a much clearer and better relationship. The introduction of legislation on whistleblowers will also give greater public confidence that the system will respond to any failings. This is an opportunity to make very significant changes. Of course people outside the House will be very frustrated that it has taken 14 years to produce this report. The programme for Government makes commitments to have better Dáil investigative powers, to deal with the spancelling of the Dáil as an investigative agency and to look at the new legislation for tribunals which has lain fallow on the Statute Book - it was produced but never implemented. We need to address those and this is an opportunity to put down a clear line and change the culture of politics for the better.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The massive Moriarty report before us is an horrific reflection on the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, Mr. Denis O'Brien, the Fine Gael Party, the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, and indeed the rainbow Government of the mid-1990s itself. In another of his poetic-type speeches the Taoiseach referred to key catchphrases of the McCracken, Mahon and other tribunals. He could have added another from the Moriarty report, namely "Denis was behind it", as the conclusions of this report are certainly summarised in the phrase.

At the outset let me salute Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty for his remarkable diligence, courage and great determination throughout the long lifetime of the Moriarty tribunal. Deputy Lowry referred to a Sunday Tribune poll of Deputies towards the end of the 30th Dáil asking if they had confidence in Mr. Justice Moriarty. I am proud to say that I was one of the 20% or so who answered the newspaper's question in the affirmative. The very comprehensive and painstaking report Mr. Justice Moriarty has produced is a clear vindication of that confidence. I accept its well researched and strongly argued conclusions and on behalf of my constituents I thank Mr. Justice Moriarty and his team for their service to the nation.

We have rightly had lengthy discussions about the great cost and duration of tribunals. I strongly favour the parliamentary reporter-style of Oireachtas investigations promoted by the Labour Party in the past and I admire the investigating magistrate-style of inquiries in civil law administrations such as France, Italy and Spain. Of course, we also now have the better focused commission of investigation-style inquiries under the McDowell legislation. As Dr. Elaine Byrne noted in a recent article in The Irish Times, the likely cost of the Moriarty, Flood and Mahon tribunals are still much lower than the billion euro or so of unpaid and evaded taxes revealed by tribunals such as that conducted by Mr. Justice Moriarty.

The second GSM mobile licence was a licence to print money. Everybody knew it at the time. I remember the atmosphere at the start of my first Dáil, the 27th Dáil, with programme managers and various flunkies running around the Dáil with their ears glued to mobile phones and the constant refrain in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the media to the effect that the new technology and EU regulations meant the inevitable sale of Eircom and an exciting competitive fixed line and mobile market.

It therefore beggars belief that the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and the rainbow coalition Government decided to issue a second GSM licence for derisory sums of between £5 million and £15 million. The system that was designed to sell off the second GSM licence is described by Mr. Justice Moriarty on page 1,062 of Volume 1 of the report as a "hybrid auction and beauty contest approach".

Yet, the process for the six applicants was essentially a beauty contest with all the serious difficulties of such competitions without the huge financial benefits which a simple auction would have brought the Irish people. I was the communications spokesman for the Labour Party in the 29th Dáil and it is clear that the auction approach has always ensured the absolute maximisation of revenue for the State for such valuable public commodities. A comprehensive 2001 review by the University of Virginia of the European mobile 3G universal mobile telecommunications system, for example, contrasts the beauty contest approach versus the auction approach.

The report describes how the beauty contest approach with its "lack of transparency means that government-favoured firms will be more easily able to win". It also states beauty contests are in fact "tacit attempts by the government to provide state aid". In fact, beauty contests appear to have most often been used in other states to favour an incumbent telecoms operator, which of course Esat was. In this case however, the Moriarty report clearly finds that the beauty contest approach favoured by the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, and the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications provided the circumstances whereby the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, by his "insidious and pervasive" influence helped to deliver the second GSM licence to Esat and Communicorp.

The debacle of the sale of the second GSM licence is, in fact, a case study in the massive inherent flaws in a beauty contest style approach. The first auction of 3G licences in the UK had 150 rounds of bidding by 13 companies over seven weeks and the process raised $35 billion for the British Treasury. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, spoke of a "hermetically sealed competition process" and that the Moriarty tribunal finds that the process itself worked.

In fact, the opposite of these two propositions is true. The trail of influence and delivery of key information to Esat and Mr. O'Brien is well documented in the report and the baffling and astonishing decision to change the quantitative weightings in Copenhagen in late September 1995 conferred a deeply unfair advantage on Esat. The profound differences in the project team clearly needed intense further research and deliberation, which did not happen.

The leadership of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications appears in a very poor light in the report. The disgraceful decision to guillotine the process by the former Minster, Deputy Lowry, was outrageous and the then Secretary General John Loughrey allowed himself to be bamboozled by the Minister. The then Secretary General seemed more concerned with presenting the result than inquiring whether it was the correct one. Even after the announcement in October 1995, the deeply flawed process was haunted by the changes in the financial structure of the Esat bid following the involvement of Mr. Dermot Desmond.

In many internal Labour Party debates I described Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael as the two side of the same coin and argued strongly against going into Government with either, especially as a minority party. It is therefore no surprise that Mr. Justice Moriarty draws a similar analogy in regard to payments to Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry and to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

During the period of the issuance of this second GSM licence, Fine Gael was busy rebuilding its finances and raising millions from big business. Deputy Michael Lowry was the chair of Fine Gael trustees and worked closely with the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, and his then right-hand man, the current Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny. It is in this context that the saga of the disgraceful $50,000 dollar contribution from Denis O'Brien through Telenor must be placed. Mr. O'Brien, who ironically was thought to be a Fianna Fáiler by the new Fine Gael Administration, immediately made it his business to get close to Fine Gael upon its entry to Government, and hence the sorry saga investigated by Mr. Justice Moriarty began to enfold.

Fine Gael's handling of the $50,000 donation was of course disgraceful as was its efforts to conceal it from the tribunal for as long as possible. I have always believed that he who pays the piper calls the tune and hope that all corporate, including trade union, donations will be banned. In the lifetime of Deputy Lowry's ministry, the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, did not seem to have these concerns, although he knew the Minister had availed of the tax amnesty.

The earlier part of the Moriarty tribunal report recounts the detailed way that Mr. Justice Moriarty clearly identifies and proves the money trail that existed and led from the head of Esat Digifone, Mr. Denis O'Brien, in particular, to the former Minister, Deputy Lowry. Mr. Justice Moriarty clearly concludes that a number of significant payments including £150,000, £300,000 and a "benefit equivalent to a payment" for a £420,000 loan, were received by Deputy Lowry through complex transactions involving third parties or companies the source of which was Mr. Denis O'Brien.

Mr. Justice Moriarty's damning conclusion is that a "reasonable inference" can be assumed that these payments were connected to the public office that Deputy Lowry then held, in particular as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, and with the sale of the GSM licence. There is absolutely no doubt that Mr. Justice Moriarty has produced overwhelming evidence in this massive report to back up his key conclusions on the outrageous and completely unacceptable ongoing financial connections and payments between Deputy Lowry and Mr. Denis O'Brien of Esat Digifone which followed the award of what should have been a multi million pound licence.

Mr. Justice Moriarty notes that Deputy Lowry summarily announced Esat Digifone as the successful bidder and on page 1,131 states: "The matter was not considered by Government until 26th October 1995, the day following the public announcement when it proceeded to Government merely to note the result already announced by Mr. Lowry". Of course colleagues clearly rely on accurate information being provided to them by other colleagues in the Government system or on any board or organisation. Those of us who served on boards will realise that. It is very unfortunate that the Cabinet was not made aware of the "concerns of certain members of the Project Group", as Mr. Justice Moriarty puts it including, "the significant departures which had been made from the evaluation methodology adopted prior to the closing date of the competitive process and possible consequences of those departures".

It is appalling, however, that a decision of this magnitude for a contract that was so valuable was announced at a Cabinet sub-committee called to examine aviation matters and including Deputy Lowry, the then Taoiseach John Bruton and then Ministers Dick Spring, Deputy Ruairí Quinn and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP. It is reported that the Department of Finance opposed the beauty contest and wanted an auction. If this is the correct view, why did the Department and the then Minister, Deputy Quinn not insist on the auction route?

Clearly the deep concerns of citizens about the fitness of purpose of the Department of Finance during the Celtic tiger bubble years will not be alleviated by this report. Of course recent reports have shown that Ministers were given correct advice in the Celtic tiger era but perversely chose to ignore it. Sadly, the conduct and conclusion of the 2G licence process again casts a poor reflection of the competence of the rainbow coalition Government.

I have always been opposed to the practice of political donations from whatever source. Mr. Justice Moriarty's report again highlights the appalling and pernicious effect of donations to political parties on Irish public life. From the recommendations section of the report, many citizens will angrily conclude that given the details of the corporate donations, there must be no continuation of the old Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael style politics as usual. A major good that can come from this shocking expose of another disgraceful episode in Irish public life if it is to end once and for all the destructive and pernicious influence of corporate donations on political parties and public life.

In the concluding portion of the report, Mr. Justice Moriarty outlines a comprehensive series of recommendations that must be considered with the utmost urgency, given the gravity of the matters referred to. In terms of political donations, I have already indicated what action the judge believes should be taken. I hope that Mr. Justice Moriarty's recommendations on strengthening company law in line with the 2006 UK Companies Act on additional implementation and enforcement measures as well a control of political donations and expenditure are adopted. There are a number of important recommendations in terms of the Revenue Commissioners too, in particular the recommendation that there should be an amending statutory provision to ensure the total independence of the Revenue Commissioners.

I welcome Mr. Justice Moriarty's comprehensive and far-reaching report. I commend him and his team for delivering it and hope that the House and Oireachtas will act urgently on the recommendations in the report.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important debate. It would be very easy for many Members to cower and not participate. It is important that we contribute not just to the debate but to restoring the body politic to the people. I am conscious that this report paints those in power and those involved in the granting of the second mobile telephone licence in a very poor light. However, I am confident, given the speeches I heard yesterday and today from the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Minister, Deputy Bruton, that the new Government will show leadership, act on the recommendations of the report and that this will form the basis, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, of the rebuilding of the new Republic. That is what people seek and desire in their political representatives - that they act for the common good, for people, and serve not only the few but all the people.

I am particularly pleased that the programme for Government contains a strong reform element. Apart from creating jobs, If the members of Cabinet do nothing else for the next five years but bring about meaningful political reform, they will have done the State a great service.

I pay tribute to Mr. Justice Moriarty and his staff for the publication of the report and thank them for their work. It is important that this report is published. It is important that we have deliberations on this report. No matter how unpalatable, no matter how difficult for people to read or to see, it is important that arising from today we rebuild the trust with people.

The speeches this morning of the Ministers, Deputies Rabbitte and Bruton, were honest. I listened to Deputy Bruton's reply. He was a member of that Government. I know the Fine Gael members of that Government and they are decent, honest people, and so are its members of the Labour Party. The tribunal report exonerates the members of the Cabinet for their role in this.

It is important that we pause and reflect, and act upon the report. Deputy Calleary made a good speech in which he mentioned the Abbeylara judgment. We must learn from the past and put the lessons into practice. If we do not reflect and act upon it, this report will have been a waste of time. God knows, it cost a great deal of money.

The tribunal's costs and duration were too great. That is my personal viewpoint as somebody who does not have a legal mind and who was not involved in politics as an elected representative until 2004. Something is not right when it takes 14 years or more for a tribunal report or others to come out into the public domain. There must be commonality. We must change the practice of the tribunals in taking this amount of time at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, an gnáth duine - the ordinary person footing the bill.

The Taoiseach spoke in the House yesterday of the costs of the tribunals. The cost is mind-boggling as was the delay. This should not have taken 14 years. It cannot be allowed to be repeated. We must take on board the views of all Members of the House and people outside the House in establishing a new type of tribunal where it will not take 14 years to publish a report.

This report presents an opportunity for us, as practising politicians, to reform how we do our business. The Evening Echo, in its editorial on Friday last, stated that the shocking fact is that the cost of the legal bills associated with the inquiry now stands at €45 million, that the taxpayer has paid for all of this and that this is something that must not be allowed recur. That is why it is important to seek common ground in ensuring that we do not come to this place again.

This report provides an opportunity for reform. Calls for political reform is what we heard on the doorsteps, from Cavan-Monaghan to Mayo, Louth, Dublin and Cork, in campaigning for the last general election. Deputy Calleary is right that all politicians are not the same. Not all take money from developers or from persons who want to influence Government decisions. We must stand up for ourselves as politicians, in that we are here to serve, and do the will of, the people.

I know most of the Members of this House and we all are decent and genuine, trying to do what is best for the people. That is why it is important that the commitment of the Government to ban corporate donations is fulfilled immediately. We must break the link between big business and government. The powerful elite cannot be allowed rule the roost and cannot be in cahoots with politicians anymore. We must learn from the past. We must move forward together to ensure that we do not revisit this type of scenario again. Otherwise, we will have failed the people who put is in here. The duty of the Government is to change the culture and ethos of the past and to learn from the mistakes.

I am mindful of the words of Edmund Burke, "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." I hope that those who are vested with the seals of office in Cabinet today will not abuse the power and trust that they have been given by the people and will work day and night to serve the good of the people.

The people demand change. They seek reform and accountability. They want a new style of politics and of corporate governance in business and in the banking institutions. There has been a clear breakdown in society over the past two decades - be it in the church, in politics and in business. None of us in this House today should be embroiled in this scandal. I very much regret that my political party is mentioned in this report but I am extremely conscious that the report is quite clear - I am sorry Deputy Broughan has left the Chamber - in Chapter 62.04, regarding the donation from Telenor. It states: "That donation was unwelcome to the party, and was rejected by the party leader." The report further states:

the Tribunal is satisfied that he [former Taoiseach John Bruton] sought to convey to Mr. Austin that acceptance of the donation was then entirely inappropriate.

The cheque was handed back, the then leader of Fine Gael, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, handed the file to the tribunal and my party took action against Deputy Lowry, removing him from Government and removing from the party of which he was a member, Fine Gael.

I compliment the Taoiseach for his leadership since the publication of the report and for handing the file to the relevant authorities. It is time action was taken, if it is necessary. The Government has committed to bringing about political reform and it cannot be merely a mantra. Those of us who are new to this House and to politics are conscious that the people want us to be proactive on political reform. Reform must come, be it in the shape of the banning of political donations, the registering of lobbyists, or a reduction in the number of TDs.

We cannot allow a situation to develop that will lead us back here with another report similar to what we have today. We must move collectively to ensure that. This is not - to borrow Deputy Martin's remarks - a Punch and Judy show. We are here, restoring trust and confidence in the body politic and that needs decisive and swift action. Does the Fianna Fáil Party share the commitment of the Government to ban corporate donations? Unless it does, it is not moving forward with us.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The intersection of business in politics must be transparent and above reproach. As the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, stated in his remarks, business and politics together will only help us get out of this recession, but, if I may borrow the phrase, there can be no cosy cartels. I am confident that the Government will restore the credibility and the confidence of the people in the body politic.