An Opposition attempt to amend the terms of the Moriarty tribunal to have it investigate the Ansbacher accounts was initiated by the Fine Gael leader. Mr John Bruton said Fine Gael, Labour, Democratic Left and the Green Party wanted to see all irregularities in the operation of the accounts "fully and publicly" investigated.

Moving a motion in private member's time, he said the tribunal should investigate all the accounts initially as part of its private examination and then conduct a public inquiry where prima-facie evidence of tax-evasion or exchange-control breaches existed. The proposal was not confined to investigating procedures alone; it also allowed for investigation of individuals.

"Fine Gael believes that this approach is a fair one. Tax-law-abiding citizens should not have a public inquiry into their affairs because other people, without any connection to them, happened to have used the same banking facility for an improper purpose," he said. "Fine Gael believes that to do otherwise would run the risk of undermining Ireland's financial services industry."

Mr Bruton said in seeking to supplement the tribunal's terms of reference, the party had received legal advice supporting the view that this could indeed be done.

Section one of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, contained the following phrase: "Where it has been resolved . . . it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter described in the resolution as of urgent public importance and in pursuance of the resolution a tribunal is appointed . . . the instrument by which the tribunal is appointed or any instrument supplemental thereto may provide that this Act shall apply and in such cases the tribunal shall have all powers, rights and privileges as requested by the High Court."

Mr Bruton argued that the legislature by the reference to how the terms of reference might be contained in a "supplemental instrument" clearly envisaged that a tribunal remit could be supplemented. The Opposition case was further supported because the tribunal, although in being and active, had not gone into any public hearings.

No matter what the report of the officer appointed by the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Ms Harney, contained, it could not be published, even if it was discovered that the Ansbacher accounts were used by individuals or companies to evade tax. All the Tanaiste could do was to hand it over in confidence to bodies such as the Revenue Commissioners or the Central Bank, or set up another inspection process under a different section.

"In such circumstances, if beneficial owners of Ansbacher accounts used them to evade tax, contravene exchange controls or other illegal activity, their identity will remain concealed, at least until the conclusion of a Revenue investigation," Mr Bruton added.

The Labour leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn, accused the Government of showing scant regard for the spirit of social partnership.

"In the past six months, we have seen more than sufficient evidence that the Government fails to understand this basic requirement of citizenship. In September, they voted down our attempts to have the accounts under discussion this evening put within the terms of the Moriarty tribunal.

"Recent newspaper reports have indicated that the Revenue Commissioners are in possession of information indicating that many of our wealthier citizens are paying little or no tax. In the past week, information has come to light that one of the country's four major banks may have colluded with its customers to use offshore accounts to avoid tax liabilities.

"Accusations have been made that a member of this House played an active part in this process, accusations which have met with a deafening silence despite calls by members that the issue be cleared up. Admittedly, these issues are not all of this Government's making, but they are answerable for the lack of action to deal with them."

Mr Quinn said the Government's decision not to allow the tribunal investigate the Ansbacher accounts fully had undermined confidence among the public relating to the policing of tax evasion. "Nothing done by this Government since September has helped restore that confidence. In fact, the Government's policy seems to be one of absolute obfuscation," he added.

Mr Pat Rabbitte (DL, Dublin South West) said the decision to exclude from the tribunal's remit private individuals who were account-holders in the Ansbacher deposits was, whatever the motivation, wrong. "Effectively that decision conferred retrospective approval for tax evasion."

They did not know that all private holders of Ansbacher deposits had them for illegal purposes, but the preliminary private stage of the tribunal process would have established that without risk to the standing of any individual whose sole purpose was sanctioned legitimate commercial transactions.

"I repeat questions I have raised previously: was Mr [Des] Traynor the only accountant out there offering his expertise to wealthy clients and was Guinness Mahon the only bank involved in facilitating such clients? The latest offshore controversy involving National Irish Bank seems to give a very clear answer," he added.

He asked if consideration had been given to an examination of decisions surrounding the manner in which the Irish bloodstock industry had evolved over the past 30 years - what transactions had transpired between former Taoiseach Mr Charles Haughey and two individuals, Mr Larry Goodman and Mr John Magnier.

"Is there a record of these transactions? Both men or their enterprises have benefited from decisions made by governments in which Mr Haughey was a key, if not the key player, to the tune of millions of pounds," Mr Rabbitte asked.

Mr Trevor Sargent (Green Party, Dublin North) said that he had been recently asked half-seriously whether Ansbacher was the German for backhander. "If it were, it would certainly give the most plausible explanation as to the purpose of these accounts."

The Minister for Finance said changing the terms of reference of the tribunal would "almost certainly" expose it to further legal challenge and delay. Mr McCreevy accused the Opposition of a willingness "to debase the entire tribunal process in an attempt to gain some short-term political advantage".

The Minister said when the tribunal was established, Fine Gael opposed any suggestion of changes to the terms of reference. Mr Bruton rejected this and said his party proposed an amendment seeking to include the accounts but it was voted down.

Mr McCreevy said the motion betrayed "an alarming ignorance of the law governing tribunals of inquiry". The Opposition was seeking a change without any request from the tribunal. "We are now being asked to change the terms of reference in what I believe would be a very ill-advised attempt to influence the outcome of proceedings currently before the courts."

If the motion were passed it would mean that matters which the Oireachtas considered issues of urgent public importance "would be shown to be influenced if not actually determined by a litigant dissatisfied by a resolution of the Oireachtas", he said.

The Government would ensure that the Ansbacher accounts were fully investigated by the appropriate authorities. "This Government will propose the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry in any circumstances that justify it, but we will not surrender the right of the Oireachtas to determine when it is appropriate to establish a tribunal of inquiry in a vain attempt to appease any litigant or to influence any court proceedings."

The extent to which offshore accounts, including the Ansbacher accounts, facilitated tax-evasion would be investigated by the tribunal. "What will not be investigated is whether individual deposit holders in the Ansbacher accounts were themselves guilty of tax-evasion. Such an inquiry is an issue between the Revenue and the individual concerned."

The Opposition's resolution would set an "astonishing precedent" in which setting up a tribunal would be a "port of first call, a reaction of initial resort in any situation involving allegations or suspicions of significant tax-evasion or breach of exchange control".

It would be open to Mr Haughey, whose accounts were being investigated by the tribunal, to argue that the process of altering the terms of reference was "flawed or illegal". That would jeopardise the State's defence of Mr Haughey's current legal proceedings.

Mr McCreevy wanted to make clear his "complete intolerance of those who engage in tax-evasion and of those who assist or abet tax-evaders". To amend the terms of reference as suggested by the Opposition "runs the risk of compromising the operation of the tribunal and its effectiveness in getting to the bottom of the matter".

The tribunal could recommend any change in tax law it considers should be be made for the protection of the State's tax base from fraud. It could also make recommendations on offshore accounts. "I believe, therefore, that it is most important at this stage to allow the tribunal to proceed without further hindrance to complete the tasks already set out in its terms of reference."

Debate on the motion continues today.