Stating that two members of the Oireachtas had had to disclose the source of confidential information they received after being ordered to do so by a court, Labhrás Ó Murchú (FF) asked if a newspaper which had no mandate from the people enjoyed a superior position in the law. He believed that this matter must be debated in the House.
Mr Ó Murchú made his remarks after Opposition members had called for information on where the Taoiseach held £50,000 at a time when he had stated that he had no operating bank account.
Mr Ó Murchú said that two Oireachtas members had received confidential information about certain events in Donegal, which they had put into the public domain as a matter of public interest. The tribunal dealing with these matters had insisted that they reveal their sources, but they had been reluctant to do so. However, they had revealed the sources following the making of a court order.
A newspaper had been ordered by another tribunal to reveal its sources of information. It had destroyed the evidence and had refused to disclose the sources on the basis that the priority was to protect them. He understood the priority was to obey the law of the land.
John Hanafin (FF) said he supported what his party colleague had said about the breaking of a court order by The Irish Times. If a politician had broken an order by destroying evidence, what kind of hue and cry and mayhem would have been created in the media?
Terry Leyden (FF) said he was quite appalled at the hypocrisy of Fine Gael and Labour in relation to ethics in public office.
David Norris (Ind) said that the House should debate the sinister efforts to undermine politicians.
The attempt to impugn the reputation of the Taoiseach by uttering forged documents to the tribunal was a most disgraceful and criminal act.
Martin Mansergh (FF) said that the Opposition did not seem to appreciate that there could be a security dimension as to where someone kept their money.