THE PD leader warned that the entire Government could become involved in the controversy surrounding Mr Lowry.
"Certain decisions were made by Minister Lowry on behalf of the Government, and that is why it is important it ensures that all the questions I raised are answered," Ms Mary Harney said.
She asked the Taoiseach if Dunnes Stores had paid over £208,000 towards the cost of renovating Mr Lowry's house. Were the details of the transaction fully reported to the Revenue Commissioners?
Could the Taoiseach assure the House that Mr Ben Dunne did not make representations to influence any decisions made by Mr Lowry as a Minister? Could the Taoiseach also assure the House that Mr Dunne did not derive any financial benefit from decisions made by Mr Lowry in his capacity as Minister?
Could he assure the House that Mr Dunne "was not, and is not, a shareholder of any company, either onshore or offshore, which gained from decisions made by Mr Lowry and his Department?" Did Price Waterhouse contact Mr Lowry when conducting its investigations?
Ms Harney recalled that on October 17th, 1995, she had asked the Taoiseach if it was appropriate that a Minister would appoint to a State board somebody with whom his company had serious commercial dealings. She had in mind, at the time, the appointment of a close associate of Mr Dunne to the board of the ESB.
At the time, Mr Bruton had replied that on his appointment as Taoiseach, he had taken the unprecedented step of requesting all office holders to furnish him with declarations of their financial interests. Had Mr Lowry made him aware of all the aspects of his relationship with Dunnes Stores was the Taoiseach aware that Mr Lowry continued to hold a loan from Dunnes Stores after he was appointed Minister?
It was important, and in the public interest, she said, that those questions be answered fully. The Taoiseach should also publish the record he kept of what Mr Lowry told him in assuming office.
She suggested that the Government appoint, under the Companies Act, an inspector to both Dunnes Stores and Streamline Enterprises. "It is not good enough that a Minister resigns from office and we are not given the reasons ... you should not resign because of embarrassment or because of a perception. You resign when something wrong has happened."
It was not good enough for the Taoiseach to say that Mr Lowry would co-operate with the Revenue Commissioners.
Ms Harney said she wished the defamation laws were such to have the Price Waterhouse report published, given that there was rumour and innuendo about other public persons.
"For as long as those rumours exist, everybody in politics is going to be tarnished by them. In bar stools around the State, they will be saying that they are all the same. Everybody is not the same. The vast majority of people in this House earn no more than their income. And that is a fact."
She said that for somebody to have £208,000 spent on his house would involve a company turnover of about £750,000 after tax, VAT, and other costs. "It is a considerable sum of money. But it is not because it is a considerable sum of money that it matters. Even if it were a smaller sum of money, the principle would be the same."
If it was a legitimate deal, why was it falsified in the accounts of Dunnes Stores? They would not get the answers to those questions from a secret Revenue inquiry. The public was entitled to more from a Taoiseach who had promised that his Government would be open, transparent and accountable.