Seanad Éireann - Volume 149 - 06 February, 1997
Tribunal of Inquiry into Alleged Payments by Dunnes Stores: Motion.
Mr. Manning Mr. Manning
Mr. Manning: I move:
That Seanad Éireann,
Bearing in mind serious public concern about alleged payments made and benefits conferred by, or on behalf of, Dunnes Holding Company, other associated companies or entities and/or Mr. Ben Dunne and/or companies or trusts controlled directly or indirectly by members of the Dunne Family between 1 January, 1986, and 31 December, 1996, to persons who were Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas during that period or relatives or connected persons as defined in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, to political parties or to other public representatives or other public servants,
And noting the Interim Report of the Independent Person appointed pursuant to an Agreement dated the 9th day of December, 1996, made between the Government and Dunnes Holding Company,
Resolves that it is expedient that a Tribunal be established, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, as adapted by or under subsequent enactments, and the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1979, to inquire urgently into, and report to the Clerk of the Dáil and make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit, in relation to the following definite matters of urgent public importance:
(a) all payments in cash or in kind directly or indirectly whether authorised or unauthorised within or without the State which were made to or received by
(i) persons who were between I January, 1986, and 31 December, 1996, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas,
 (ii) their relatives or connected persons as defined in the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995,
(iii) political parties,
from Dunnes Holding Company and/or any associated enterprises as defined in the Schedule hereto and/or Mr. Ben Dunne or any person on his behalf or any companies, trusts or other entities controlled directly or indirectly by Mr. Ben Dunne between 1 January, 1986, and 31 December, 1996, and the considerations, motives and circumstances therefor;
(b) Such further matters as Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann might by further Resolution consider appropriate to refer to the Tribunal because they require further investigation, relating to other payments made to 'Relevant Persons or Entities' within the meaning of the Agreement dated the 9th day of December, 1996, made between the Government and Dunnes Holding Company, following receipt by the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann of any further report from the Independent Person appointed pursuant to the said Agreement whereupon such report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas immediately on its receipt.
And that the Tribunal be asked to report, on an interim basis, not later than the tenth day of any oral hearings to the Clerk of the Dáil on the following matters:
the number of parties then represented before the Tribunal;
the progress which has been made in the hearings and the work of the Tribunal;
the likely duration (so far as that may be capable of being estimated at that point in time) of the Tribunal proceedings;
any other matters which the Tribunal believes should be drawn to the attention of the Clerk of the Dáil at that stage (including any matter relating to the terms of reference);
And that the persons selected to conduct the Inquiry should be informed that it is the desire of the House that the Inquiry be completed in as economical a manner as possible, and at the earliest date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it;
And that the Clerk of the Dáil shall on the receipt of any Report from the Tribunal arrange to have it laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas immediately on its receipt.
Associated enterprises shall include:
(1) Ben Lettery Limited, Green Arch Corporation, Dunnes Stores Limited (which with Dunnes Holding Company shall be hereafter referred to as “the Dunne Companies”).
(2) Any company inside or outside the State of which any of the Dunne Companies was during the relevant period a subsidiary within the meaning of section 155 of the Companies Act, 1963.
(3) Any subsidiary of any of the Dunne Companies within the meaning of section 155 of the Companies Act, 1963, either inside or outside the State.
(4) Any director or shadow director (as defined by section 27 of the Companies Act, 1990, of any of the companies referred to at 2) or 3) above.
(5) Any company or other body or entity inside or outside the State which directly or indirectly within the relevant period was under the control of any of the Dunne Companies or any of the Directors thereof (whether alone or with any other person) or in respect of which the Directors of any of the Dunne Companies were either directors or shadow directors within the meaning of section 27 of the Companies Act, 1990, or any company or other body or entity inside or outside the State whose directors, officers or employees were accustomed to act and did act on the direction or control of any of the Dunne Companies or the Directors or any of them within the relevant period.
(6) Any company, other body or other entity inside or outside the State over whose operations or financial policy any of the Dunne Companies, their directors or any of them exercised a significant influence within the relevant period.
(7) Any trust company inside or outside the State which acted during the relevant period under the direction or control of any of the Dunne Companies or any of their directors or any trust inside or outside the State in respect of which any of the Dunne Companies or any of the Directors or any relatives or connected persons of such Directors either alone or with any other person were beneficiaries within the relevant period.
(8) Any other company, body, trust or other entity inside or outside the State controlled by Mr. Ben Dunne or any of his relatives within the meaning of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, whether alone  or with any other person or in respect of which any of the said persons, their or any of their relatives or any persons connected to them or any of them were beneficial owners or beneficiaries.
The Taoiseach John Bruton
The Taoiseach: I take this opportunity to congratulate the Cathaoirleach on his election and to express my sympathy to Members of the Seanad on the loss of Senator Liam Naughten, the former Cathaoirleach.
Speaking in the debate in the Dáil on 11 December, on the motion to set up the Buchanan examination, I noted that the common point in the contributions by Deputies from all sides was the view that the political process as a whole and the reputations of those who work in it had been tarnished by allegations regarding payments to politicians and public servants by Dunnes Stores and/or Mr. Ben Dunne. As I said then, I am determined that everything that can possibly be done will be done to remove that tarnish. I am also determined that it will be done as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible.
The basis for the allegations about payments appears to rest, in the main, on a report dated 12 April 1994, prepared by Price Waterhouse for Dunnes Stores and an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ben Dunne in High Court proceedings. There may, of course, be additional relevant information which is not contained in either document.
The concern arising from the media allegations of last November did not relate to the mere fact of the payments. There is nothing improper in political parties and politicians receiving or seeking donations for the funding of political activity, which is essential to the working of democracy; nor is there anything improper in individuals and companies contributing to politicians and political parties. Without such support, certainly in the past, it would not have been possible to sustain the level of activity required to maintain the political system as we know it.
The public concerns, which we all share, are twofold. First, that the payments may have been made either to influence decisions or as a reward for past decisions which may have benefited the donor. Second, that some of the payments may have been excessive and gone beyond what would be reasonable to support the normal political activity of any individual recipient or even any normal political party.
When the allegations were made, the Government moved with speed to allay public concern. However, we also sought to ensure that any moves made were the right ones. What is the desired result? It is to establish and expose the facts and to ensure that if there is any evidence of impropriety, it will be dealt with in the appropriate way in accordance with the laws of the land. The process in which Judge Buchanan is involved is, as I made clear on 11 December, “the  first and, I believe, the most appropriate initial step to establish the facts”.
In his interim report, addressed to the Cathaoirleach and to the Ceann Comhairle, Judge Buchanan completed the first stage of this initial step. I speak for all Members when I convey thanks and appreciation to Judge Buchanan and to those who are working with him. They are performing a public service and are doing so with efficiency, skill and speed.
The interim report deals with one of the sources of the allegations, the Price Waterhouse report. It addresses payments covered in that report that were made to Members or ex-Members of the Oireachtas and to the Fine Gael Party. The interim report also notes the limitations of the Price Waterhouse report. That report had been commissioned principally for the purpose of investigating certain transactions which had been undertaken by Mr. Ben Dunne without the knowledge or consent of other members of the board of the relevant company. It deals only with the circumstances of specific transactions selected by Dunnes Stores for inclusion in the report and into the accounting treatment of these transactions in the records of the company.
The Price Waterhouse report was limited from the outset and, in so far as Judge Buchanan's study was limited to the Price Waterhouse report, his report was limited by the limits placed by Dunnes Stores on that report. Anybody who complains that the Buchanan report does not answer every question should recognise that there are, and were, limitations from the outset on that exercise. We are now moving to an exercise which will have less limitations.
I am confident that Judge Buchanan will provide a similar report in respect of public servants as defined in the agreement with Dunnes Holding Company. The definition is broad and includes employees of any organisation which is publicly funded.
The Buchanan process is proving to be a highly cost effective means of clearing the ground and isolating matters that deserve the more serious treatment that only a judicial inquiry can provide. This has been done without getting involved in the expensive, adversarial procedures associated with compulsory disclosure. A tribunal costs about £10,000 or more a day. The cost of the Buchanan exercise so far, including the Judge's salary, pensions and so forth, will total no more than £30,000. It has been a cost effective exercise and the information it has disclosed, because it was disclosed voluntarily under a voluntary agreement, has come into the public arena quicker than would have been the case if one had chosen the compulsory route initially. Now that we are taking the compulsory route, we can do so in a more focused way because we are concentrating on matters that were not voluntarily disclosed. It makes sense in any proceeding in which one  is trying to get facts, to get as many as possible voluntarily, thus saving effort, time and dispute, before proceeding in a focused way to pursue the facts one cannot get voluntarily. That is the logical and sensible way we have proceeded.
We are also aware of repeated media allegations involving a very large payment to a political figure. On 3 December last, The Irish Times reported on its front page that a “prominent Fianna Fáil figure is believed to have received more than £1 million from Dunnes Stores in the early 1990s. The money was paid by several cheques with different bank accounts in London on a number of dates”.
On 12 December, The Irish Times further reported that details of these payments were understood to be contained in an affidavit drawn up by Mr. Ben Dunne as part of a legal battle. The newspaper story said that this document “provides his version of where £1.1 million in payments from the company were routed.” That is Mr. Dunne's version. The article continued “It is understood that he”, that is Mr. Dunne, “alleges that the ultimate beneficiary of the money was a Fianna Fáil politician”.
I know that the main Opposition party feels, because of an allegation about an unnamed Fianna Fáil figure, at least in that report, that it has been unfairly put in a position where it is considered suspect. This is not fair to the party in question or its members and it is important that the matter is brought quickly into the open so that all those to whom no guilt can be attached are allowed to clear their names. It is a matter of regret that it has not been brought into the open in the last two months.
There was also an allegation in The Star on 4 December that up to a dozen politicians received more than £5 million. The newspaper went on to state that members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and Labour had all received payments and that, additionally, a current Senator and a top ranking party official were among the beneficiaries.
The terms of reference proposed by the tribunal are designed to establish the amount of payments made to politicians, political parties and, depending on Judge Buchanan's continuing work and a subsequent resolution of this House, public servants. They are also intended, most importantly, to enable the tribunal to inquire, in respect of payments, into “the considerations, motives and circumstances therefor”. As I have said earlier, it is not the fact of the payments that is important, it is the suggestion that they may have been made improperly or corruptly to influence politicians and public servants in the conduct of their business as public servants. That is what needs to be established.
I am availing of this debate to respond to some of the points made in the Dáil about the tribunal earlier this afternoon. Those points may be made  in this debate and it is better that I anticipate them.
The main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, said that it was especially concerned that the tribunal proceed and report very quickly. It even wanted the Dáil to prescribe when oral hearings would start so that the tribunal would be put under pressure to work exceptionally quickly. I could not agree to this proposal but I do agree that it is urgent that the air be cleared through an early report. The tribunal will work much more quickly if information is volunteered to it rather than if people have to be forced to disclose information.
The Leader of Fianna Fáil made reference to reports in the newspapers of the sum of £1 million being paid to a senior Fianna Fáil person who held high office. According to The Sunday Tribune the money in US dollars, about $2.2 million in all, was paid into an offshore bank account controlled by a prominent accountant who included this senior Fianna Fáil figure among his clients. No suggestion was made in any newspaper report that the figure referred to had severed his connections with Fianna Fáil to date.
In the interests of speeding up the work of the tribunal, and the Leader of Fianna Fáil was most anxious that the work of the tribunal would be speeded up, he should consider going to the figure in his own party who has been named in The Sunday Tribune and in other media, and seek the truth directly from this person. This would not be an unreasonable request for the Leader of Fianna Fáil to make of a party member in view of the fact that he, and his party, have expressed such concern in the Dáil today that the proceedings of the tribunal be allowed to proceed quickly and not be delayed.
After making these inquiries, Deputy Ahern could make the results public, either by public statement or by providing the information directly to the tribunal and saving it a lot of difficulty. Deputy Ahern might also be able to confirm that the person in his party will give his fullest co-operation to the tribunal to deal with all these allegations, including the reports of offshore bank accounts and routes for the cash.
These allegations are in the public arena and everybody has a responsibility to dispel them if they can be dispelled. All should ensure that the public and the tribunal get the full facts. However, the leader of a party about one of whose members the allegations in question have been made, is obviously in a better position to ask that member to put all the facts on the table than is anybody else.
A party president has authority over all his party members, not just those who are members of the Oireachtas. This is clear under the constitution of most political parties. It is a pity that the definitive information was not put in the public arena in the past two months. This would have helped greatly in focusing the work of the tribunal, if indeed a tribunal would have been  needed at all if all the facts were put on the table when the allegations were first made. That has not happened.
Now a tribunal has been set up and the main Opposition party is expressing anxiety that it reports speedily and I agree. I suggest that, through its leader, it takes the steps I have suggested to get the facts into the public arena without delay. Otherwise, as both of the Opposition leaders indicated in the Dáil earlier today, a cloud of suspicion will continue to hang over politicians.
Any person who was a collectively responsible member of Government, serving in Cabinet with the Fianna Fáil figure who has been identified, would obviously have a particularly good basis for demanding public answers from a former Cabinet colleague, especially if that colleague is still a member of his party. If the newspaper reports are accurate, Deputy Ahern served in the Cabinet with the person in question and at a time when the moneys were allegedly paid, so he is in a position to ask that question if the person named is the relevant person. He thus has a right and a responsibility to ask questions and get answers. He does not need to leave the job to the tribunal.
In the Dáil today we had a long debate on the Order of Business where the whole focus was on the Leader of Fianna Fáil's anxiety that the tribunal report quickly. If that is his concern then he has a special responsibility to go to any identified member of his party who has information to help the tribunal report quickly. If he does not do that, there is an obligation on him to give us an explanation.
The terms of reference proposed for the tribunal have been carefully crafted and are, I believe, on the basis of the information currently available, the appropriate ones. I would particularly like to highlight the request to the persons selected to conduct the inquiry to note the desire of the Houses that it be completed in as economical a manner as possible, and at the earliest date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it.
No one can guarantee that the inquiry which we are now embarking on will provide the perfect solution or will necessarily provide conclusive answers to every question. It is an expensive process and it can be time consuming but it is the most effective one available.
We are dealing with fundamental matters of great public importance. To meet them we initiated a sensible, independent, sifting process directed by Judge Buchanan. Now we are moving to the next phase by bringing into play the most powerful and best tested weapon in the investigative armoury of the State, namely the independent, judicial sworn inquiry, to ensure that these matters of importance and public concern are given the fullest and fairest possible consideration.
Mr. Mulcahy Mr. Mulcahy
 Mr. Mulcahy: I would like to take this opportunity on my own behalf, and on behalf of my colleagues here today, to welcome the Taoiseach into the House and to thank him for taking time to propose this motion on what is undoubtedly a matter of great public interest. However, in keeping with the tradition of this House whereby we try to avoid partisan political speeches, I think we should look in a broad way at whether or not in this particular context the tribunal, as drafted by these terms of reference, will be able to serve the purpose it is intended to serve. We feel that when we called for this tribunal in December of last year, it would have been a more appropriate time to move immediately into a tribunal. The reason for that is clear: for every day and hour that these innuendoes are in public currency, the quality of public life in this country is, of necessity, undermined. Nobody wants that.
We are also faced with the possibility that this tribunal may be in progress during a general election and I am of the opinion that it would not be a good thing for this country if it were to be in session during a general election. There are other issues which are more important to the public— crime, unemployment, education, Northern Ireland — and those are the primary issues that must be the basis of debate and discussion in a general election. I think the Taoiseach would agree that it would be a mistake if this particular affair was allowed to gain centre stage in a general election context. Subject of course to the independence of that inquiry, it should be made clear that every effort should be made to determine the outcome of this tribunal well in advance of a general election.
I have noticed that there is a stipulation in the terms of reference that there should be an interim report within ten days; and if the hepatitis C tribunal is anything to go by, we could expect a relatively speedy tribunal. We could also be pessimistic and expect that a tribunal, perhaps involving very complex commercial affairs, could go on for a considerable period of time, and that is a fear we should address. I agree with the analysis of my party leader that Justice Brian Mc Cracken is admirably suited to untangling the issues in that tribunal.
I would like to return to one particular word the Taoiseach used and that was “decision”, because the key point in this is whether any decisions by any Members of the Oireachtas or any serving Government Minister were at any stage influenced by donations. I think that is one of the key concepts that people will be interested in and that will have to be examined by the inquiry.
Is the language in the terms of reference for this inquiry adequate to take into account the effect on decisions that may have been made? In part of the Taoiseach's speech he quoted, I think, from The Star newspaper. Another Sunday tabloid newspaper had a particular allegation or  innuendo to make about a certain Government Minister, which I am not going to honour by repeating here today. I agree that if names are bandied about in the public without firm authority or evidence, reputations can be destroyed where they should not be.
Is the Taoiseach fully satisfied that the wording in these terms of reference can fully deal with the effect that financial contributions, whether to individuals or to political parties, may have made on decisions? The only words relevant to that are the words: “...and the considerations, motives and circumstances therefor...”. Perhaps that is adequate but I would put a general question there.
I want to read into the record of this House the words spoken by my party leader at lunchtime today. In one short paragraph they encapsulate what I believe this tribunal should be all about. Deputy Ahern said:
I want the tribunal established without fear or favour to any Member of this House, past or present, or any former member of this, or previous, Governments. I wish to repeat, with one addition, what I said here on 3 December because I consider it vitally important. Politics and participation in public life is a career of public service. It is not an avenue of enrichment or life style enhancement from private donors even where they only want to help people perform in a particular manner. My party and my front bench are determined that financial scrupulousness will be strictly observed by all our elected Members without fear or favour. Anyone who abuses their position or knowingly flouts the rules will face the law of the land. The political fabric of our democracy is precious. The public are entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, their officials and above all, their Ministers.
I think the Taoiseach will agree that those are words eloquently spoken by Deputy Ahern and I have read them into the record of this House because I believe they encapsulate the spirit of what this tribunal should be all about.
I ask the Taoiseach to consider subparagraph (b) of the terms of reference wherein reference is made to such further matters as Dáil and Seanad Éireann might by further resolution consider appropriate. I think the Taoiseach will agree that during the term of this tribunal many other matters may arise which are perhaps outside the terms of reference but which would be considered relevant by these Houses. I would like to hear what the Taoiseach's general attitude will be, how welcoming and approachable he will be, to both sides of both Houses in relation to altering the terms of reference of the tribunal of inquiry if it  appears necessary to do so during the currency of that tribunal.
I am not sure of the precise number of tribunals that have been held in the State to date. We have had the Whiddy tribunal, the Stardust tribunal, the Kerry Babies tribunal, the Beef tribunal and the hepatitis C tribunal and now, for want of a better name, the Dunne tribunal. I do not know if there is an official or unofficial name for this tribunal, but I presume most people will refer to it as the Dunne tribunal. We, on this side of the House, welcome the setting up of this tribunal because it gives everybody — and this is an important point —the right to be heard and to put their case. To date, there have been lots of unanswered questions, innuendo, allegations and so forth.
I applaud the work of retired Judge Buchanan, but I think he was set a task without having adequate powers to deal with it. I want to repeat what we said earlier about the fact that this tribunal should have started earlier; but now that we have it, let us welcome it. People will attend the tribunal and they will be legally represented, able to defend their reputations, to explain their positions and to vindicate their rights. That is very important. I hope that during the currency of that tribunal there would perhaps be a lack or an absence of discussion on the subject until the tribunal reaches its conclusions. In the same way as it is inappropriate to discuss court cases while they are ongoing, I believe it would be better, and in the interests of justice for all concerned, if silence was maintained until this tribunal has completed its work.
This tribunal may be two months late, but it is better late than never. We fully support it and I am sure all on this side of the House will co-operate with it. I will not take this opportunity to answer in any part the tone or content of some sections of the Taoiseach's speech, but I am sure that will be a matter of reply on a different occasion. I and my colleagues warmly welcome the Taoiseach to the House today and welcome the establishment of this tribunal. We hope and assume it will be a good one which will finish before the next general election.
Ms Honan Ms Honan
Ms Honan: I welcome the Taoiseach to the House this afternoon. On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I warmly welcome the establishment of a tribunal into the Dunnes Stores payments affair. While my party is not completely happy with the terms of reference of the tribunal, I suppose there is no point opposing it because we have been calling for the past two months for the establishment of such a tribunal.
As our party leader said this morning, there is no point in engaging in the politics of “I told you so” because it would not get us very far, but it is difficult for the public not to be cynical. The Government is now trying to convince us that all along it would move from the political Buchanan tribunal to a judicial tribunal and that this was all part of the process. I acknowledge that the Taoiseach  made it clear from the first day that he had no fundamental objection to the establishment of a tribunal, but the Government accused the Progressive Democrats of indulging in opportunistic politics.
When members of my party tabled a Private Members' motion in the Dáil last December seeking the establishment of such a judicial tribunal, we were severely criticised by members of the Government. In the course of that debate on 10 December, the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Jim Higgins, said the Progressive Democrats were on “their high moral penny farthing”. He lectured us on how such a tribunal would be very expensive. I am sure it is of great comfort to the public that such a senior member of the Government is only interested in establishing the truth if it can be done at bargain basement prices.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, stated that a tribunal would be a potential disaster, a recipe for prolonged hearings with huge legal bills and the real prospect of journalists ending up in jail with no guarantee of satisfactory or complete answers at the end of the process. The Minister also went on to tell us that the result of our proposals would be enormously costly and a cumbersome tribunal. I am glad to see that both these people have made a U-turn decision and have now realised that what we were looking for was the only way we can ever get to the bottom of this story.
Much of what has been said about various payments to politicians is pure speculation and that is why my party pressed from the beginning to have this matter brought to a tribunal and cleared up quickly. A cloud hangs over politicians in this and the other House. The only proof we have so far of any payments are those to former Minister, Deputy Lowry, because there is documentary evidence to support it and we also have his statement to the Dáil. I would not speculate further because we are treading on dangerous territory.
The Government has throughout this affair shown a complete lack of judgment in dealing with the issues raised by it. It is now 70 days, well over two months, since the Irish Independent published its story detailing payments made to Deputy Lowry by Dunnes Stores for renovations to the former Minister's home in Tipperary. The public will be very cynical that it has taken so long and will believe that we did not want the whole truth of this matter to emerge. The Taoiseach, however, accepted from the beginning that there was a possibility that a tribunal would be needed.
There is no specific reference in the terms of reference establishing the tribunal to the individual at the centre of the initial allegations, Deputy Lowry. That is unfair because it puts us all in the same boat when we clearly are not, and we must wait until this tribunal reaches a conclusion,  which could take some time, to have our names cleared. It is like saying we are all in the same boat which we clearly are not.
On behalf of my party, I would like if the tribunal could be finished before the next election takes place because it would be unfortunate if it were to be ongoing during an election campaign. I realise that it is not possible to put a time limit on it as it would probably be unrealistic. None of us knows until the tribunal begins exactly what matters will need to be investigated and how long that will take. I hope it does not prove to be lengthy and costly. We have had a great example in recent weeks of the hepatitis C tribunal which was well handled by its chairman, former Chief Justice, Mr. Finlay. Other tribunals in this State did not come to a satisfactory conclusion or did not come to any at all. I hope this tribunal follows the example of the hepatitis C tribunal. We would then begin to see and know what exactly the situation is in relation to these payments from Dunnes Stores.
It is important to remember that the tribunal will investigate illicit payments. All involved in politics will realise that legitimate payments are made for election campaigns to many members of all political parties. These are legitimate and are not the payments with which this tribunal will be concerned. It is the making of illicit payments which needs to be investigated. It must be stated that every payment politicians or parties receive for election expenses is not tainted. Many people genuinely make contributions to all political parties because they appreciate that we live in a democracy. It is in our interest that we have a choice of political parties and politicians to vote for come elections and that political parties are not run on fresh air.
I welcome the establishment of the tribunal and we will all completely co-operate with it. The sooner it comes to its conclusions, the sooner the cloud of suspicion hanging over us is lifted.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Belton) Acting Chairman (Mr. Belton)
Acting Chairman (Mr. Belton): When is it proposed to sit again?
Mr. Manning Mr. Manning
Mr. Manning: At 2.30 p.m. next Wednesday.
Seanad Éireann 149 Tribunal of Inquiry into Alleged Payments by Dunnes Stores: Motion.