The revelations in last Sunday's edition of Sunday Independent relating to the transcript of a conversation between Deputy Michael Lowry and Mr. Kevin Phelan are quite dramatic and startling. Deputy Michael Lowry has made his statement and I do not propose to deal with that issue today. What concerns me most, as one of many Members who set up the Moriarty tribunal, is whether the tribunal was continually undermined in its efforts to get to the full truth of the issues it was investigating.

I want to refer to documentation Senator Diarmuid Wilson received from Mr. Phelan, providing detail of approximately 60 meetings attended by Deputy Michael Lowry in connection with the so-called Doncaster deal. The Senator has forwarded the material to the chairman of the tribunal and understands there are other related issues that will come down the tracks and has undertaken to send any material he receives directly to the chairman of the tribunal.

Taking this material together - the material the Senator received and the transcript of the conversation - one is left with an uneasy feeling that the tribunal was not told the full truth or that groups of people - witnesses - were meeting, telephoning and engaging with each other before giving evidence to the tribunal. I suggest, at a minimum, that that is both unhealthy and disturbing. Clear contradictions are emerging between what was said at the tribunal and what is now emerging in the material to which I have referred. These contradictions are very difficult to reconcile.

The tribunal was established by and is a creature of the Oireachtas. All of us have a solemn duty and obligation to stand by it and its chairperson and ensure it was enabled to go about its work unhindered and unobstructed, receiving truthful evidence and the fullest co-operation from all concerned. On behalf of the House, will the Taoiseach facilitate a re-examination of these issues by the tribunal? It is in his gift to do so.

Will the Deputy repeat his question please?

Will the Taoiseach facilitate a re-examination of these issues by the tribunal of inquiry by way of a motion in the House or whatever.

This is not a laughing matter, Deputy Rabbitte.

The Deputy should know well about obfuscating before a tribunal. All he need do is consult his former leader.

We are dealing with Leaders' Questions.

What is the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, so worried about? What is he so het up about?

If the Taoiseach wishes to reply, he should do so. Deputy Micheál Martin should resume his seat and we will see what happens.

It is a legitimate question. It concerns an Oireachtas inquiry, which is why I am asking it. We are all involved in this issue. The Government could bring a motion to the House.

The Deputy is clear on the fact that when a tribunal is set up by the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas has no further function in the matter. The report of the Moriarty tribunal has already been made. The allegations or comments made by the Deputy could have been applied to a number of other personalities in other tribunals also. The Moriarty tribunal made recommendations on breaking the link between big money and politics and this was achieved through the enactment on 28 July last year of the Electoral (Amendment)(Political Funding) Bill which effectively banned corporate donations.

The Government also supported a motion of censure against Deputy Lowry in 2011. The Government is working to prepare comprehensive legislation dealing with whistleblowers - an issue that was raised by the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, many years ago - and with the registration of lobbyists. The Government is well advanced in that work. Fundamentally, Mr. Justice Moriarty said he was making his recommendations to break the links between politics and big business. The programme for Government made clear the views of both parties in government. As I have said, the legislation was enacted last year. As Deputy Martin is aware, the Act imposes a ban on the acceptance of donations of more than €200 for political purposes from a corporate donor unless the donor has registered with the Standards in Public Office Commission. In addition, it establishes a register of corporate donors and reduces the maximum amount that can be accepted as a donation by a political party from €6,300 to €2,500 and the maximum amount that can be accepted as a donation by an individual elected representative or election candidate from €2,500 to €1,000. If any further relevant information about the transcript that was handed in comes to light, I agree that it should be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. It is not for me to judge whether there is validity or veracity in all of what was contained in the transcript. This House set up the Moriarty tribunal to deal with a number of specific issues. As the Deputy is aware, the House has no function in determining the outcome of a tribunal after it has been set up. In this case, Mr. Justice Moriarty produced his report two years ago.

No one has denied the veracity of the transcript. It seems to me that it stands as a bona fide transcript of a conversation between Deputy Lowry and Mr. Kevin Phelan. I have already referred to the documentation received by Senator Diarmuid Wilson, which details over 60 meetings between Deputy Lowry, Mr. Phelan and others in relation to the Doncaster deal. It is not for us to judge that particular documentation, but suffice to say there is enough new material for this House to revisit the issue. The tribunal was established by means of a motion proposed in this House by the then Government. That motion was subject to amendments from across the House. The Taoiseach knows what I am saying when I ask him whether he would facilitate a re-examination of this matter by Mr. Justice Moriarty. His comments about other cases may be valid. Will he bring a motion to the House on this specific issue? Does this not concern him? It concerns me.

You did not say that when he was supporting your Government.

The material that is before us now has emerged into the public domain. At a minimum, it casts doubt on the level of co-operation that was afforded to the tribunal and on the truthfulness of the evidence that was provided to the tribunal. The chairman of the tribunal did not see this material before he came to his conclusions. Does it not concern the Taoiseach that a tribunal established by the Oireachtas may have been hindered or fatally undermined? Is he not concerned that people were having discussions in advance? Does it not concern him that people knew who would or would not be turning up or giving evidence and what they would be saying? These fundamental issues go to the heart of what we should be about in this Chamber and in this Oireachtas. The Government has a huge majority in this House. I do not doubt that he will get the full co-operation of the House in this regard.

Could you put a question please, Deputy?

I have a very basic question. Will the Taoiseach bring a motion to the House inviting the chairman of the tribunal to examine the new material that has come into the public domain and to re-examine this issue?

I have no intention of reopening the Moriarty tribunal or any other tribunal that has reported to the House. I did not realise that the Deputy seems to be amnesiac in some respects. Claims have been made about the extent and veracity of information and knowledge given to other tribunals. When someone goes before a tribunal, he or she takes an oath to tell the truth. If people have access to information, I suggest they should bring it to the appropriate authorities.

It is in the public domain now.

I remind Deputy Martin that the same Deputy Lowry kept his Government in office.

Hear, hear.

When questions were asked about this secret deal on a weekly basis-----

That has nothing to do with anything.

When we called for the publication of-----

The Taoiseach obfuscates in this manner all the time-----

Hold on a second now.

-----to avoid answering questions.

The Deputy cannot have it every way.

The Taoiseach is not answering.

The Deputy's Government signed a secret deal with Deputy Lowry and a number of others.

The Taoiseach offered him membership of Fine Gael on many occasions. That is not the point anyway.

It would not publish any of the details of the deal-----

It was not a secret.

-----in the interests of transparency and accountability-----

The Taoiseach sat at the Cabinet table with him.

-----regarding the use of taxpayers' money to deal with various issues.

What is the Taoiseach's view of the tribunal?

That is the same person the Deputy is speaking about.

Does it worry the Taoiseach?

The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, was on the high stool.

He never got off it.

I have no intention of reopening the Moriarty tribunal.

Is the Taoiseach concerned about the degree to which it has been undermined?

It went on for long enough.

There was no secret deal in my case.

The high moral ground.

The chairman dealt with the report and reported to the House.

What about the people who are close to the Taoiseach?

The House passed a motion of censure against Deputy Lowry and enacted many of the recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal. We are preparing legislation to support whistleblowers and provide for the registration of lobbyists.

The Moriarty tribunal was quite critical of the Minister, Deputy Hogan.

If Deputy Martin, Deputy Kelleher or anybody else over there has information, they should bring it to the appropriate authorities so it can be dealt with.

It is obvious that the Taoiseach does not want to reopen this can of worms.

I would expect them to do that.