Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Senators will be ad idem that probity in public life is a sine qua non. People who are involved in politics must be able to exercise decisions independent of pecuniary interests and influence. Unfortunately, that has not been the case throughout life. Politics in this country is overwhelmingly kosher. I have been involved for many years and there are very few instances to which I could point. However, this was about very serious breaches of the fiduciary duty that people have to the offices that they held. Like others, I would have no truck with that.

The tribunal clearly showed us that there is a need for an effective and fair investigative process which can deal with these matters in an efficient and timely way, and which can bring anybody who transgresses to account. There should be significant penalties and sanctions that would act as a deterrent to avoid any repeat. In that respect, let me say that we have passed legislation in this House which restricts the quantum that a corporate entity can pay to a politician. However, we can see from this report that individuals of those corporate entities are not limited to the same extent, and we need to look at that. Throughout my public life, I have held a view that if one wants to be independent and be seen to be independent, then one should not accept political donations. Any moneys raised should be raised from some kind of central system, either through the parties or centrally, for example, through SIPO. People who contribute should say to whom they want the money donated. A certain percentage would go to them and a percentage would go into a fund that would support the whole democratic process. We just need to look at that.

This report shone a light on these issues, but if we are to be objective about it, it also shone a light on the legal profession. I have been a long-time critic of these tribunals. People in these Houses will have heard me over the last decade being highly critical of the length of time and the costs, which in my opinion were absolutely unacceptable, as were the attempts made to keep those costs buttressed at levels that were never fair and never right. I criticised the last Government about this issue, and the current Government has done nothing to arrest the profiteering within the legal profession. It should not be allowed and within a properly structured democratic republic, steps should be taken so that such privilege is set aside in future.

I was not very long as a Member of this House in 8 October 1997 when, as one of my great regrets, I went on record to support the establishment of these tribunals. The length and the cost of them was wrong. We should have tackled the issues and the Garda Síochána and SIPO should have the resources to get to terms with them in a timely way. The tribunals were asked at that time to inquire urgently into matters of public importance. It took 14 years in one case and 15 years in another case. I used to drive home on a Thursday evening having left my office at 9.30 p.m., and I used to listen to Vincent Browne on the radio. He would have a re-enactment of what took place in the tribunals that day. It was highly entertaining but all it was doing was taking time and costing the taxpayer money. Most of what I heard had nothing to do with the issues that should have been examined. We need to recognise that, or else we will repeat the mistake of going the route of the tribunal in future.

I am not alone in thinking this way. I would urge people to read the Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. Flood, when the Murphy family claimed their expenses because they had been disallowed by the tribunals. Mr. Justice Hardiman was critical of the practices involved, and he was also critical of us and our propensity to establish tribunals, which he said did not compare with anywhere else in the world. He said there was a total disregard for cost and for not getting to the truth. He also implied clearly in the judgment that it infringed the due process to which every citizen is entitled.

Most of us here would know many of the people who have been mentioned in the tribunals. It looks to me as if the tribunal measured that if a person got a donation from any of these lobbyists at a time when there was not an election, it was a corrupt payment. If the person got it during an election year, it was regarded as inappropriate.

I would like to refer Members to page 3,132 in the appendices of the report, where two people are accused of making a statement to the chief witness, Mr. Gilmartin. Neither of those people was called before the tribunal, either to validate of repudiate the statements made. From talking to them, I know that neither accepts that the meeting ever took place. Another person serving in the Government of the day was accused by Mr. Gilmartin in the tribunal one morning of a very corrupt offence. He was absolutely appalled when he heard it. He contacted his solicitor, who got a barrister to go down to the tribunal. The tribunal refused him an audience until he insisted that he correct what Mr. Gilmartin said as being totally without foundation. There is not a word about it in the report. That raises some questions as to why that it is the case. Would it have discredited the witness?

I would like to finish by going back to Mr. Justice Hardiman's judgment in that Supreme Court case to which I referred earlier. He spoke about the separation of both the investigative and adjudicative process. He stated that an investigator may become so invested in that one witness as to become blind or insensitive to things which raise doubt as to his credibility.

I think we need to use this as a lesson to eradicate anybody from political life who is found guilty of taking bribes, which is a serious criminal offence. Such people should be dealt with accordingly. We also need to ensure that the light which was shone on the legal profession is also dealt with and that there is a system in place which will restrict the exorbitant costs and the extraction of moneys from the taxpayer. We are spending millions of euro every year on this during difficult economic times. People are paying taxes that they cannot afford which are being used to pay way beyond what is justified to barristers and others in the legal profession.