Sir, - The imprisonment of Liam Lawlor has given rise to various reactions and analyses in the media, some of which compared his incarceration to that of Tony Gregory. However, while it is clear that Tony Gregory went to jail in defence of some of his poorer constituents, against whom the full rigours of the law had been unequivocally applied, it remains a matter of conjecture as to why, or on whose behalf, Liam Lawlor risked incarceration.
Firstly, any suggestion that Liam Lawlor's stand is a matter of principle, or any criticism of his imprisonment, will not stand up to scrutiny. He never raised, as a matter of public concern, the general conduct of the tribunals in the Dail itself. He voted to establish the tribunal in question but then refused to co-operate once he himself was called before it. He rejected the opportunity to protect his privacy by giving the required information in private sessions of the Tribunal. Finally, he refused to accept the judgements of the highest courts in the land that unequivocally rejected his position.
Secondly, during all of this, Liam Lawlor was able to use his wealth to secure far greater access to the courts than the street traders whom Mr Gregory had sought to represent. It is precisely such a comparison that goes to the very heart of the issue. A number of public investigations, including the tribunals, have uncovered an appalling malaise of civil maladministration, tax evasion by many wealthy members of our society and improper, and quite possibly criminal, payments to some members of the Dail and local authority councillors and officials. It is not too much to say that they have also revealed the class basis of Irish society, through which many of its professional and wealthy members have effectively been immune from prosecution for the commission of, or collusion in, financial crimes.
The successful conclusion of these investigations is therefore essential to restore confidence in our democratic institutions and our judicial system. A failure to do so is likely to have far reaching consequences for our society. In these circumstances, the imprisonment of Liam Lawlor was not only just but necessary.
Thirdly, the public perception of the legitimacy accorded to Dail deputies as lawmakers depends, in no small part, on their own adherence to the laws they make and the institutions they establish. Mr Lawlor's actions have been seen to bring the most important democratic institution in the State into disrepute and have impelled many in the Dail to call for his resignation as a TD. The reluctance of his erstwhile party colleagues to do likewise raises serious questions about where their loyalties really lie, about their support for the tribunals and their commitment to address the malaise that has been uncovered.
The Taoiseach's belated moves, under pressure from the Opposition, to remove Liam Lawlor from two committees of the Dail is an inadequate response. If Mr Lawlor is unfit to serve on these bodies, then how can he be considered fit to act as a member of the Dail? There is certainly an onus on Fianna Fail to answer this question. - Yours, etc.,
Ciaran Byrne, Skerries Road, Balbriggan, Co Dublin.