An opposition attempt to have the £30,000 political contribution made to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Burke, included in the terms of reference of the new payments-to-politicians tribunal failed in the Seanad yesterday.
A Labour amendment, which sought to have the tribunal determine if there was sufficient evidence to warrant a full inquiry into the controversial donation, was defeated by 27 votes to 17. The Government Chief Whip, Mr Seamus Brennan, said that Mr Burke had taken the unprecedented step of coming before the Dail, made a personal statement, and submitted himself to lengthy questioning by his peers during which he opened up his political and personal life to the kind of scrutiny no member of the Oireachtas would wish to endure.
"Quite frankly, I now think he is entitled to take the view that having answered all the questions put to him, with no exceptions, anybody else with anything to say about him should say it openly and honestly, not in the corridors of this House or any other House," he added. Other opposition attempts to vary the terms of the tribunal also failed, and the Government's proposals were adopted, paving the way for the appointment of a judge to head the new inquiry which will investigate the financial affairs of Mr Charles Haughey and Mr Michael Lowry. Mr Sean Ryan (Lab) said that everybody was innocent until proven guilty regardless of the number of accusations made. The ire of commentators should be directed against the Government which was refusing to have the donation made to Mr Burke cleared up in the appropriate place. "And the appropriate place, as far as we are concerned and the public out there is concerned, is the new tribunal of inquiry." He believed, he added, that Mr Burke's name could only be cleared by an independent body like a new tribunal. "The existing terms of reference condemn Mr Burke to continue living under a political cloud, and I do not think he deserves that."
Mr Ryan said that alleged land rezoning scandals had been a matter of grave concern to the general public. "As far as I am concerned, builders and developers have taken over the planning process, particularly during the period in which development plans are framed. The sight of builders and developers crowding the foyer and public galleries of Dublin County Council, now Fingal Council, will always remains with me."
Mr Ryan said he believed that major contributions were made to political parties by those people during local and general elections. Since 1985 he had received a number of unsolicited cheques from builders and developers towards his election campaigns, but he had never cashed them. Mr Ryan added that if he and the Labour Party, which has opposed indiscriminate rezonings, "receive such largess from builders and developers, I do not think it is a stretch too far to assume that those more favourably disposed to rezoning are in receipt of substantially larger amounts."
Mr Joe Costello (Lab) said it was an "incredible situation" that a member of the public, unknown to Mr Burke, had handed him £30,000 in cash in two envelopes. "There may be a plausible explanation. It has not been provided to the other House, and the least we would expect from the tribunal is that it would seek to establish whether or not there is a primafacie case to be answered relating to that money."
Mr John Connor (FG) said Mr Burke had given an indequate explanation to the Dail for the receipt of a very substantial sum of money. He did not believe Mr Burke's explanation that a stranger had deposited £30,000 on his table and then walked away. Questions needed to be asked as to whether Mr Burke had inquired if the money was to be declared by the donor for tax purposes. An amendment moved by Mr Paul Coghlan (FG) to have the tribunal conduct a detailed investigation into the Ansbacher accounts was defeated without a vote. Mr Coghlan said that the terms of reference relating to the Ansbacher accounts were too narrow. "Only £1.3 million has been accounted for out of a total of approximately £40 million. It gives rise to serious public concern that such a large amount of money is left unaccounted for, and more particularly when the very nature of the accounts and the way that they were set up were commented on so unfavourably by the tribunal." There was a need to dispel the atmosphere of cynicism that existed and address the recommendations of the McCracken tribunal, said Mr Coghlan. Mr David Norris (Ind) said the whole reputation of tribunals had been rehabilitated because of the surgical and precise skills of Mr Justice McCracken. "The facts bring no joy to anybody."
He had noticed that the concentration in all the reports was on the political ramifications. "That is appropriate and proper. But I would like to ask: when are we going to have some of inquiry into the ethics of business life in this country?"
Mr Brendan Ryan (Ind) said the first thing that politics needed was the trust of the people. "We have all lost it. Anybody who has contested any election will realise that for most intelligent young people it is an entirely sordid operation." The public saw politicians as being in the pocket of business. "Unfortunately, the terms of reference of this tribunal will not eliminate that."
Mr Michael Finneran (FF) said the new tribunal would need to make recommendations on company law. This was a grey area over which there seemed to be a cloud. The accountancy profession needed for its own good to address some of the public concerns. To some extent, he believed, a tinge of compliance with irregularity had been focused on it. Mr Feargal Quinn (Ind) questioned the powers of the new tribunal: "Somebody, somewhere has made the disastrous mistake of thinking that these restricted terms of reference are a form of damage limitation. I believe that time will show them, instead, to be a form of damage escalation. "I have to say, once again, that I am disappointed in this Government, which briefly held out the promise of being a new broom, but which by its early acts is looking more and more like an old moth-eaten one." Mr John Dardis (PD) said the Committee on Procedure and Privileges must review the sanctions which could be imposed on members. In terms of being able to bar members, a most serious view must be taken in instances where the House was deliberately misled.