It is reassuring that immediately following the publication of the McCracken tribunal report yesterday the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government referred to the need for immediate further investigations relating to the matters raised by the report and that the Government on Thursday will consider the necessity for a second tribunal. I think this necessity is self-evident and, ideally, that second tribunal should be set up by resolution of the Dail when it sits on the 10th and 11th of September.
This report is quite short and to the point. It pulls no punches and makes clear and unambiguous findings. It is clearly set out and easy to read and avoids the complexities and other pitfalls that were evident in the beef tribunal report.
The terms of reference of the McCracken tribunal were quite properly relatively narrow. However, they were sufficient to make it clear from the report that major further questions now need to be answered. It is evident that Mr Haughey enjoyed a remarkably lavish lifestyle for over 20 years. Mr Dunne's munificence towards him would have funded this lifestyle for only two or three years. Who funded it for the remainder of the period, for much of which he was Taoiseach, leader of the opposition or a Minister?
As well as seeking to know who the other benefactors were, the public is entitled to know their motives. The strange and bizarre behaviour and motives of Mr Dunne, as found by the tribunal, could not be expected of other more calculating donors.
If Mr Haughey was prepared to countenance the approach by Mr Traynor and Mr Fox on his behalf to a number of businessmen for money, as suggested by Mr Dunne and as apparently accepted by the tribunal, the question arises as to which other businessmen were approached, and how often.
Indeed, the reference at page 51 of the report to "personal gifts of this nature, particularly from prominent businessmen within the State" echoes the concern of many people that Ben Dunne's largesse is but the tip of an iceberg, most of which is still hidden from view. This is reinforced by the tribunal's conclusion that Mr Haughey's "whole lifestyle" was "dependent on such gifts".
We cannot ignore the probability of a multiplicity of such payments, nor can a blind eye be turned to the motives of such other donors.
The public must now wonder whether they can have confidence in the integrity of a number of policy decisions made during Mr Haughey's tenure as Taoiseach. These include (1) export credit insurance and proposed grant assistance to the beef industry; (2) the Carysfort deal; (3) the Telecom site in Ballsbridge where very large cash transactions were involved, and (4) the operation of the passports-for sale scheme.
There is a very strong case for compelling Mr Haughey, by means of an inquiry, to give the public an account of his wealth and the financing of his lifestyle, the motives of his donors, and his involvement in the matters raised above and other issues.
Nobody is enthusiastic about inquiries for their own sake, or about inquiries with broad terms of reference, but the need for the public to know the real truth will not be met by dealing with this report and its recommendations in isolation.
In sending the relevant papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions the tribunal is clearly of the opinion that an offence may have been committed by Mr Haughey under the Tribunals of Inquiry Acts. We can only wait to see whether such a prosecution follows. Only the DPP can make that decision. Similarly, it is for him alone to decide whether there might be a prosecution for any related matters such as perjury.
Taxation questions arise in a very serious way from this report. The tribunal finds on page 69, for example, that the whole system whereby Mr Lowry was paid substantial sums on a personal basis and ultimately on renovations to his house "were designed to, and did, assist him in evading tax". The report describes Mr Lowry's way of doing business as "an appalling situation" and makes the telling point that if a person such as he can behave in this way without serious sanctions being imposed "it becomes very difficult to condemn others who similarly flout the law". This is surely a very overt effort by the tribunal to have the Revenue Commissioners pursue Mr Lowry to the greatest extent possible under the taxation code. If they do this to the extent of his being declared bankrupt, his seat in Dail Eireann will be forfeit and declared vacant with a consequent by-election in Tipperary North.
There are also serious tax implications arising out of Mr Haughey's financial activities where it is evident that substantial sums of money are involved. Presumably the Revenue will pursue that aspect of the matter with renewed vigour, given the evidence now available to them.
Chapter 9 of this report reviews the evidence of Mr Haughey and documents 11 occasions, in particular, where it considers his evidence to be unacceptable and untrue. How many such occasions existed in the past when his statements were untrue? We now know that what he said about telephone tapping in 1982 was untrue and that he was well aware of this at all times. What are we to think now of his evidence to the arms trial in 1970? Was justice done in that case?
Will those who strove might and main to support and maintain Mr Haughey during the various conflicts in his public career now acknowledge that they might have been wrong? It is by such acknowledgments and by being forthcoming about what happened in the past that the political system will cleanse itself of the way it has been tainted by Messrs Haughey and Lowry.
A good start would be to give an explanation of what I have described as the seemingly inexplicable decisions made on occasions by Mr Haughey when he was Taoiseach, particularly in the period from 1987 to 1989. As one who suffered severe sanctions for the crime of "unbecoming conduct" I will await with some interest the sanctions, if any, that flow from the conduct described in yesterday's report.
