Bruton urges immediate action on tax evasion

In a statement issued yesterday, the Fine Gael leader, Mr John Bruton, said:

In a statement issued yesterday, the Fine Gael leader, Mr John Bruton, said:

The tribunal has comprehensively and authoritatively dealt with the terms of reference which were given to it less than seven months ago. The tribunal has not only established the facts relevant to its terms of reference but has also commented thereon in the clearest terms. The tribunal has also provided certain recommendations.

It is also clear from the report that not only will papers be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions at the direction of the tribunal but that the courts and the Dail itself will have to consider certain of the conclusions in the report.

As the person who was responsible for establishing the Tribunal of Inquiry, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr Justice McCracken and his team for the manner in which they carried out this inquiry. The precise and tightly drawn terms of reference have enabled Mr Justice McCracken to provide precise conclusions and make important recommendations on many of the key issues under its terms of reference. He has answered a number of important questions and identified matters which must be further investigated.

READ MORE

While the tribunal has made a number of clear recommendations in accordance with its terms of reference, it has drawn attention to other serious matters which require urgent and immediate action.

The Director of Public Prosecutions will have to determine whether or not Mr Haughey should be prosecuted for obstructing or hindering the tribunal;

the manner in which Mr Haughey was funded and the way in which he dealt with the receipt of those funds requires extensive and immediate investigation, not just by the Revenue Commissioners but also by a new tribunal of inquiry. This is particularly important in the light of the tribunal's statement that payments made to fund Mr Haughey's lifestyle are the type of payments which "could lead in some cases to bribery and corruption";

the tribunal's finding that it believes Mr Haughey deliberately shrouded in secrecy and allowed money to be kept offshore was an attempt to ensure that the Revenue Commissioners would never know of the gifts requires that the extent of these gifts and the identity of the donors be established to ascertain whether political and financial favours amounting to bribery and corruption have actually occurred;

the finding concerning Mr Lowry's evasion of "both taxation and exchange control laws of the State" requires further immediate action by the relevant State authorities;

it is necessary for the Dail to act in determining whether Mr Lowry misled the Dail in his personal statement in December 1996. The tribunal has expressly indicated that this is a matter for the Dail itself. A decision on this matter should not be delayed;

the recommendations in the tribunal report should be implemented in full and without delay, including the welcome recommendation on tax clearance certificates for future candidates for election.

The tribunal's findings have established conduct which is entirely unacceptable by both Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry. Such conduct is all the more inappropriate for politicians who have held the offices of Minister and of Taoiseach. It is a matter of regret that Mr Lowry was an elected representative for Fine Gael when such conduct occurred.

The tribunal in its recommendations has acknowledged that legislation, which has already been enacted by the Government which I led, should be highly effective in monitoring ordinary political donations. The tribunal recognises that this new legislation should be given a "reasonable period" to prove itself.

The conduct of Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry would not have been permissible if such legislation had been in place unless they were prepared to commit a deliberate breach of the legislation.

Fine Gael particularly welcomes the fact that the tribunal has adopted its recommendations that any breach of the Ethics in Public Office Act should be a criminal offence and supports the tribunal's view that persons found guilty of such an offence might be ineligible to become or remain a member of the Seanad or the Dail.

In dealing with contributions made to the Fine Gael Party and its members, it is clear that these were made solely for the purpose of assisting Fine Gael in providing a stable opposition to the Government. The report makes clear that in relation to Fine Gael and its members, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any "ulterior motive for the making of these payments".

The Government has said that it will give a full and speedy implementation of the recommendations of the report. Fine Gael is in full agreement with this and will do everything to assist such implementation. However, not only will the relevant agencies of the State be required to act on foot of the report, but it also clear that the Dail must itself act.

What is required is that the very high potential for political and financial favours identified by the tribunal in the manner in which Mr Haughey conducted his financial affairs and paid for his lifestyle must be brought out into the open. While the tribunal has apparently in Mr Lowry's case been able to deal with his full financial position, this is clearly not the case in relation to Mr Haughey. Without knowledge of who paid Mr Haughey, how much, and when, there can be no public confidence that the apprehended political and financial favours did not occur.

Ansbacher accounts and all other deposits of funds in respect of the funding of Mr Haughey's lifestyle must be further pursued by a new tribunal. As Deputy Des O'Malley has pointed out, the McCracken tribunal has dealt with only one donor and only three of the 25 years during which Mr Haughey's lifestyle was maintained both in and out of office. It is worthy of note that there were published concerns about Mr Haughey's financial position in conversations between his Ministerial colleagues dating back to 1982.

This tribunal has performed an extremely useful role in providing clear answers to some questions but, as many more questions remain unanswered, it must be seen as the beginning rather than the end of the process of investigation.