I thank the Dáil for this opportunity to set the record straight about a number of matters which have been the subject of intense comment in recent weeks. I will cover the relationship with Dunnes Stores, the funding of my house in Holycross and its potential implications, the circumstances surrounding my departure from Butler Refrigeration and the establishment of my own business. I will also cover the matter of political contributions by Dunnes Stores, my role as chairman of the Fine Gael Party and the party trustees, the awarding of the GSM licence to Esat Digifone, and other innuendoes and manufactured allegations which have been made against me.
Ideally I would like to have made this statement much earlier, but it will become clear why this would not have been possible. The matters are complex and involve others outside the House whose interests had to be considered. As a Minister and politician I discharged my responsibilities properly; these are the matters for which I am answerable to the House.
As a businessman I left unfinished commercial business behind me. In my business life I accept that I have been culpable in that I did not fully deal with the responsibilities arising from my business affairs in a timely fashion. When I entered Government in late 1994 I had to distance myself from my business almost without notice and in unexpected circumstances. When anybody with a business enters Government, the process of clearing up outstanding issues is extremely difficult.
I regret and I apologise to the Taoiseach for not bringing these matters to his attention before or after the formation of the Government. On taking up the office of Minister I made a declaration to the Taoiseach to the effect that I had availed of the tax amnesty and that, in so far as I was aware, all my tax affairs were up to date and paid. I now accept that some of my tax obligations are still outstanding. I apologise to the Taoiseach, the House and the public for failing in that regard. As people who make the law, politicians have a special responsibility to adhere to its letter.
I cannot recall any Member of this House ever making the kind of detailed and personal statement of business affairs which I am about to make. It is a painful and unpleasant experience but I have chosen to make my position clear. If I repeat myself it is only because I want the House to fully grasp the facts.
Much of what I have to say concerns my business relationship with Dunnes Stores. The relationship was formed at a time when Mr. Ben Dunne was chairman and chief executive of that company. Mr. Dunne had a style of doing business which reflected his personality. Since his departure from Dunnes Stores the current management, led by Margaret Heffernan and Frank Dunne, has initiated fundamental changes in the company's style and the manner in which the business of Dunnes Stores is conducted. I propose to outline the nature and basis of my relationship with Dunnes Stores as it was agreed with Mr. Ben Dunne and how it operated. In the interests of fairness I advise the House that the current management of Dunnes Stores dispute the validity of certain key aspects to my agreement with Dunnes Stores which predated their tenure.
After I was elected to the Dáil my employer at that time, Butler Refrigeration, with whom I enjoyed an excellent business and working relationship since I was 17, felt I could not serve the company and look after my interests as a Dáil Deputy at the same time so I ceased employment with that company on 31 December 1987. Over one year later, to my surprise as I will explain later, Mr. Ben Dunne approached me and told me he would be changing the way the refrigeration requirements of Dunnes Stores would be managed. He would be transferring the business from my old company. He gave me first option on this business and when I expressed reservations he told me if I did not take this opportunity it would go to another company which he named.
He proposed to pay for the refrigeration services provided in two ways. This was a dual agreement arrangement in which payment was to be made to my new company providing certain services and payment and bonuses were to be paid to me for separate professional refrigeration services. Agreement was reached on this basis and, from March 1989 to the present day, my company, Streamline Enterprises, and I provided multi-million pound services to Dunnes Stores. It is my contention that the net effect is that Dunnes Stores still owe me and my company money up to 1994 and 1995, respectively. No provision has been made for this in the company's accounts or in my personal tax returns as the amounts have never been established.
I purchased a house at Holycross in 1992. This house is in the joint names of my wife and myself and is mortgaged. As I was personally owed a considerable but undetermined sum of money, Mr. Ben Dunne proposed that Dunnes Stores would undertake renovation of the house. Dunnes Stores appointed the architect. Dunnes Stores appointed the contractor. It may seem incredible but the truth is that the total value of this work has still not been determined to my satisfaction. As recently as yesterday afternoon, Dunnes Stores through their solicitors stated that payments to their contractor, Faxhill Homes Limited, in respect of alterations to my house amounted to an extraordinary £395,000. I totally reject this figure.
My house, including the extension, is less than 4,000 square feet. Having been concerned about this matter I retained independent professional advice to assess the true value of the work done. I state emphatically it was only when I read media reports on 29 November 1996 that I became aware, for the first time, of the suggestion that charges against my house were offset internally within Dunnes Stores to the Ilac Shopping Centre. This is a matter for Dunnes Stores.
In the strongest and clearest possible manner I state that any money spent on my house was income payable to me in respect of nothing other than professional refrigeration advice and service. This had nothing to do with my role as a TD or subsequently as a Minister. It was not a loan, it was not a gift, it was not a handout, it was income. The work on the house was payment on account for professional services to Dunnes Stores.
It was my understanding that the taxation consequences of this could only be dealt with when final agreement was reached with Dunnes Stores. It was not designed by me as a tax evasion measure. It was not and never was intended to be a tax evasion measure by me.
I made numerous attempts to finalise outstanding issues with Dunnes Stores. A sequence of events within Dunnes Stores and, therefore, outside my control frustrated my efforts. As far as I am concerned there is unfinished business but business which I have been seeking to complete. No declarations in respect of these matters have yet been made by me because the value of what I earned under the terms of the agreement with Dunnes Stores has yet to be determined. To settle my tax affairs with the Revenue Commissioners, the value of what I received from Dunnes Stores has to be determined and the period to which it relates settled.
I have paid residential property tax each year based on the purchase price of my house. In the light of the true value of the work to my house which remains to be established I will also have to review the residential property tax returned in that regard. The VAT aspects of these trading matters will also be addressed.
Let there be absolutely no doubt that I intend to ensure that any taxation obligation is fully and promptly settled by me with the Revenue Commissioners. To ensure there is absolutely no delay in this regard, through my professional tax advisers, I have already had discussions with the Revenue Commissioners in the way open to all citizens of the State.
Having been publicly criticised to an unprecedented level I ask your patience and indulgence to enable me to take you through the sequence of events which led to the formation of my company, its legitimate commercial operations, the outline of services provided, the financial arrangements and method of payment and to the fact that despite all my efforts, I have unfinished business with Dunnes Stores and, therefore, with the Revenue Commissioners.
Among the allegations that have been made against me is the suggestion that I treated my first employer unethically. I began work as an apprentice refrigeration engineer with Butler Refrigeration in 1971. At that time Mr. Butler operated from a garage at the side of his house. I did the normal duties designated to an apprentice. I then moved on to refrigeration maintenance and progressed from there, on my own initiative, to sales promotion. This was an outstanding success. I went into sales full-time and later became sales manager of the company. The business was thriving and in the mid-70s Butler Refrigeration moved to a new extensive warehouse at Turtulla, Thurles. At that time we pursued one of the multiple groups with a view to expanding the business. After many advances to Dunnes Stores I finally received an urgent request to complete an installation for the company at its new store at Oakville, Clonmel. That work was completed satisfactorily. Following that, Dunnes Stores started to conduct large volumes of business with Butler Refrigeration and for many years I worked very closely with Dunnes Stores in the design, layout, installation, maintenance of refrigeration plant and equipment.
I enjoyed the confidence and trust of Dunnes Stores personnel right up to senior management. During this period I represented Butler Refrigeration on several occasions in various discussions with Mr. Ben Dunne. In 1987 I was nominated to represent the Fine Gael Party in the general election and was duly elected a TD. Shortly after my election it became apparent that Butler Refrigeration felt I could not serve the company and look after my interests as a Dáil Deputy at the same time. I ceased employment on 31 December 1987 and acted as a freelance salesman for refrigeration products. I agreed with Mr. Butler that I would retain the use of the car for a period and that whatever I sold for him would be subject to commission. It was during this time as a freelance consultant that I was contacted by a Dunnes Stores executive who had responsibility for Northern Ireland and England. He informed me the company was opening a number of new stores for food and textiles in England. He requested me to prepare the design and layout for the refrigeration plant and equipment, asked me to negotiate the contracts locally in England and to oversee the installation. I did this successfully on a consultancy basis for Dunnes Stores. I understand that my successful work was recognised and appreciated at the time.
The executive told me that previous to the opening of the Bradford store in November 1988 Mr. Ben Dunne, who had arrived on the shop floor and had seen me, asked what Butler Refrigeration was doing in England. He informed Mr. Dunne that I was no longer with that comnise pany but was acting as a consultant to Dunnes Stores. Mr. Dunne called me over and said he did not realise I had left Butler Refrigeration and that he would like to see me in his office in Dublin.
I tried unsuccessfully a few times to contact him and then dropped the matter. Two months later Mr. Dunne contacted me unexpectedly and arranged a meeting. This is a meeting I will never forget. He opened the conversation with me by saying he was very surprised I was no longer with Butler Refrigeration and that he valued the contribution I had made to Dunnes Stores. He said that several of his senior staff had confirmed the important role I had played and the interest and commitment I had shown to Dunnes Stores.
In his own inimitable style Mr. Dunne asked me the following questions in quick succession. He asked me how long I had been with Butler Refrigeration and I told him 16 years. He asked me if I had any pension rights on leaving the company and I responded no. He asked me if I had received any severance money and I said no. He asked me if I had received any redundancy and I said no. He asked me if I had received any lump sum and I said no. He proceeded to tell me that he had made a decision to change his refrigeration supplier and contractor and that he would give me first option on that business nationwide. My reaction was genuinely one of amazement and surprise. I said I would find it difficult because I would be competing for business against my old company Butler Refrigeration. He responded that he was making the change anyway, he was giving me first option and if I was not interested in his proposal he would offer the business to another company which he named.
After considering his proposals, and in view of the fact that the business was going from Butlers anyway, I told him I would manage some of the business and it was agreed that I would look after the Munster stores. He then called in his chief accountant and instructed him to provide whatever assistance and funding were needed to establish the business. I proceeded to establish the cost factors and at a later stage I returned to him for a further discussion in the presence of the Dunnes Stores' chief accountant. Mr. Dunne said that his objective was to reduce the refrigeration overheads and costs to Dunnes Stores and he was prepared to assist me in setting up a new company to achieve the savings he felt could and should be made. I agreed that my company would provide exclusive refrigeration services to the Dunnes Group. I committed my company and myself to sourcing the best quality, most cost effective equipment and the most reliable systems. I also agreed that the company would provide all refrigeration plant equipment, materials and components at cost price, I would design and arrange layout and technical detail for all new installations and major refurbishment, all installations and maintenance would be carried out by qualified engineers employed by me, a programme of preventative maintenance would be carried out in his stores, with a 24 hour emergency service, and I would advise the group on technical advances and industry developments to ensure that the most advanced systems were available to Dunnes.
In regard to remuneration, we discussed a number of options on which way to remunerate the company and me. Mr. Dunne said that I should leave it to his judgment to make a decision on profits but clearly stated that he would put the company in profit and also remunerate me separately for my technical advice and for the project management of the various jobs. There was also to be a performance bonus. It was agreed that my company's costs and outlays would be calculated annually, that there would be regular payments on account and at the end of the year auditors appointed on the direction of Dunnes Stores would check income against expenditure and any outstanding moneys would be paid by Dunnes. He gave me a commitment that he would personally review the performance and agree moneys due on an annual basis. Unfortunately for me, he never got around to doing this.
As our negotiating positions were far from equal, I did not feel able to press the matter very strongly. This inequality in the negotiating positions has been a persistent difficulty in this matter generally. There was no written confirmation of the agreement — all the arrangements were made with Mr. Dunne verbally. The relevant arrangements were made in the presence of the chief accountant of the Dunnes Stores Group. I asked to have the agreement formalised but my suggestion was dismissed by Mr. Dunne as being unnecessary and he asked if I did not trust him. My failure to get this agreement in writing is central to my present difficulty.
I began operations in the Munster area and it soon became evident that compared with previous years huge savings could and were being achieved. Mr. Dunne then decided that I should at the earliest opportunity take over the service and maintenance of all the stores in the Dunnes Stores Group. Arising from discussions with Mr. Dunne and the Dunnes Stores' chief accountant it was agreed that I should purchase a site and build a warehouse and that Dunnes would provide the necessary financial backing and credit facilities. A loan was advanced to the company and repaid by agreement over four years. This transaction was shown in the accounts of Streamline Enterprises.
The relationship worked very well in practice. Through my agencies, I sourced a substantial amount of new equipment which was invoiced at factory prices direct to Dunnes Stores. I initiated new policies and programmes for the Dunnes Stores Group and standardised all their installations. There was an acceptance and acknowledgement that there had been a dramatic improvement in the presentation of refrigeration and a huge reduction in the overall cost in refrigeration outlay for the Dunnes Stores Group.
To illustrate the full magnitude of the savings achieved, maintenance was the area where one would normally expect the lowest savings, yet we were able in our new enterprise to reduce the maintenance costs for Dunnes Stores nationwide by almost 50 per cent.
In the knowledge that I was owed substantial money but in the absence of any discussion as to the amount involved, I told Mr. Dunne in early 1992 that I intended to purchase and refurbish a house at Holycross. He said I had achieved excellent results, he was delighted with the performance and he would assist me financially in the purchase and refurbishment by way of an advance on the money owing to me which had yet to be quantified. He told me he would give his chief accountant instructions on this matter.
I was later informed that Mr. Dunne had appointed a Dunnes Stores' architect and contractor. I was advised by the Dunnes Stores chief accountant that after consultation and agreement on the plans I should leave all future arrangements, including the financial ones, to Dunnes Stores.
The question of planning permission has been raised. The work on the house at Holycross involved replacement and extension of existing structures and internal alterations. All outbuildings were already in existence and were only restored. I have instructed the architect to apply for retention permission for the extension portion which requires planning permission. I regret that this permission was not sought earlier.
In the meantime, Mr. Ben Dunne encountered personal problems. This is a suitable point at which to put paid to yet another of the countless malicious rumours circulated about me. I was not involved with Mr. Ben Dunne, not then, not ever. He was unavailable to me and to many other people for a prolonged period. As a result, I could not get a meeting to reconcile our financial arrangements. This was followed by Mr. Dunne's removal as chairman of the group in September-October 1992 and as chief executive in February 1993, a most traumatic and difficult time for the entire Dunne family.
Some time later in 1993, and following unsuccessful attempts to resolve the outstanding issues with senior executives in Dunnes Stores, I met Mrs. Margaret Heffernan by appointment in her office. I told her that moneys had been spent on my house by the company, with Mr. Ben Dunne's approval. Mrs. Heffernan advised that there were many problems relating to Mr. Ben Dunne's chairmanship of the company and his time in control, that the company was trying to assess the extent of the problems and that no issue, including mine, would be dealt with in isolation. However, she said she was determined to address all outstanding issues and that new systems would be implemented to ensure that orthodox practices and procedures would apply to all future Dunnes Stores transactions. Subsequently I heard that Price Waterhouse had been appointed to conduct an internal examination of the company's affairs. In addition, litigation proceedings had commenced internally in the company. As Dunnes Stores was essentially my only customer, there was nothing I could do to force the issue.
When the Price Waterhouse report was being prepared nobody sought any comment from me. I wish it were otherwise, as it would have given me the opportunity to answer questions in an orderly way before the report was selectively and maliciously leaked to the press. To this day I am in the invidious position of not having seen that report. However, I understand, after numerous inquiries, that apart from the house transaction there are two other references to my business in that report. The payment of £50,000 was income payable to me under my arrangement with Dunnes Stores, on which tax has been paid. The sums of £6,000 and £6,500 were paid as bonuses by Dunnes Stores for the staff of Streamline Enterprises, not including me. Those payments were made in cash, without deduction of tax.
During 1994 I had a number of discussions with Mr. Frank Dunne, including one wide-ranging discussion during the course of which I said I was unhappy that there were outstanding issues in respect of my house and that reconciliation of the account had not taken place. We both agreed it would be best to have a formal agreement and a new arrangement drawn up. He assured me a new formal agreement would be drawn up for the company. Interim changes were made which were of benefit to my company. In March 1996 Dunnes Stores agreed the terms of a new formal agreement for Streamline Enterprises.
The current management of Dunnes Stores disputes a number of aspects of this. Yesterday evening, through their solicitors, Dunnes Stores stated that no money is due to me personally or to my company, other than liability to Streamline incurred in the normal course of business since 31 January 1996, that Dunnes Stores relationship has been with Streamline and not with me and that they consider the payments to which I referred as irregular. Irrespective of this legal letter I have set out the agreement I negotiated with Dunnes Stores in 1989 through Mr. Ben Dunne in the presence of his chief accountant. There is disagreement about the moneys still owed to me and to my company for work done prior to the implementation of the new arrangement and a dispute in respect of the value of the work on the house at Holycross. In short, the moneys provided by Dunnes Stores in connection with my house in Holycross were payment on account for professional services rendered by me. The value of this part payment has never been finally agreed with Dunnes Stores. The extent of the moneys I believe to be owing by Dunnes Stores is obviously a contentious issue. Until these matters are determined I cannot assess all the tax implications of my arrangement with Dunnes Stores. When they are determined they will be met in full.
I did not make any secret of the fact that Dunnes Stores paid me for professional services by way of assistance towards my house. If someone were trying to hide income, would he or she not be more likely to put it in an offshore account? The last thing such a person would do would be to spend it on a very obvious structure of bricks and mortar for all the world to see. Notwithstanding the issue in dispute between us, I welcome the determined efforts of Dunnes Stores to bring a new order to its affairs and the Price Waterhouse report is part of this response. It allows me, and I presume many other genuine people, to put their businesses on a sure footing.
This is the substantial issue on which I wanted to give the House and the public an explanation, but other matters have been raised and allegations have been hurled which I want to put to rest. Since the issue of my house was raised the debate has moved to the topic of political funding. It is a fact, and no amount of political posturing can obscure this, that most political parties have long depended for their survival on contributions from the business and corporate sectors. It is also a fact that individual Deputies from all parties received contributions at election times to defray campaign expenses. The only political contribution I ever received from Mr. Ben Dunne was prior to the 1992 general election when I received £5,000 towards my election campaign. I received no other political payments of any nature from Mr. Ben Dunne or Dunnes Stores either before or since then. The moneys referred to in respect of my house had no connection whatsoever with my role as a politician. It was income, an entirely proper and legitimate payment, solely and exclusively received for professional refrigeration services to Dunnes Stores. To the best of my knowledge Dunnes Stores, Ben Dunne or any company in which he had an interest did not benefit from a decision I made as Minister.
In taking decisions as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, contributing to the conduct of Government business and in dealings with my colleague Ministers, I neither improperly sought nor obtained favours, exceptional treatment or benefit for anyone. I have always conducted my affairs as a TD and as a Minister with integrity and fairness and to the best of my ability. I have done nothing improper. As Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, I discharged my responsibilities in a scrupulously fair, impartial and objective manner. I treated everybody with whom I dealt, irrespective of their political viewpoint or position, with equal courtesy and consideration. My tenure as Minister was impeccable, my integrity uncompromised and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
When Deputy John Bruton took over leadership of Fine Gael he had to come to terms with the party's crippling debt. Later he noted what I had done for the GAA in turning around an apparently hopeless financial situation. In the face of hostility I initiated the Féile concerts which brought Semple Stadium from near bankruptcy to a healthy financial position. He asked me, as chairman of the parliamentary party, to take on the additional role of chairman of the Fine Gael trustees. Like all other political parties, or at least most of them, we asked for contributions from hundreds in the corporate sector. This included, as the Fine Gael Party has already made clear, Dunnes Stores. All moneys went towards reducing the party's debt.
The Opposition and others have mischievously questioned my integrity with regard to the competition for the second GSM licence. When I announced the competition in March 1995 my sole priority was to ensure the development of effective competition in mobile telephony in Ireland. To achieve this I was determined to put in place a selection process that would be fair, impartial and objective. My first and most outstanding difficulty was in assuring potential competitors there would be a genuine competition with equal opportunity for all. There was a widespread belief the matter was already a foregone conclusion as a result of an alleged agreement between one major player and a senior member of the previous Government.
Clear criteria for the successful applicant were disseminated to all interested parties. Andersen Management International, one of the most advanced and experienced international consultants in this field, were engaged following an open competitive process to provide advice.
A project team led by the Department and including officials from the Department of Finance and the consultants was given the task of selecting the successful applicant in accordance with the predefined selection criteria. The project team, of which I was not a member, included representatives with specific expertise to carry out a professional evaluation in accordance with the selection criteria. The terms of the competition were specifically approved by the European Commission. The entire process was executed on an arm's length basis and was hermetically sealed from any external interference. The project team reached a clear-cut professional decision based on the selection criteria. I was informed of the result of the competition by the secretary of the Department only on completion of the evaluation process which had been fully documented in the consultants' report. I want to state firmly, clearly and unequivocally in the light of media speculation and allegations made in this House that I did not seek to influence the outcome of this process. The most significant input for my part was to ensure a fair and objective competition which would yield the best results in terms of developing mobile telephony. I am confident the success of the project will be borne out when the operative service is launched early in the new year.
It has been alleged that my house in Carysfort, Blackrock was somehow financed in an irregular way. I bought that house at public auction the same way as anyone else could. It is fully mortgaged to a building society. I bought it because it made economic sense for a serving politician to have a residence in Dublin. In addition, I felt it was a sensible investment for the future. Also, I wanted somewhere private. After the current controversy my privacy has been so invaded through newspaper photographs and sightseers that privacy is no longer possible and I will almost certainly sell the house.
Similarly, arising from a saturation of publicity, my house in Holycross has become a place of pilgrimage. My family must now endure cars queuing for a gawk outside the gate. People feel free to walk around the front garden and peer in the windows. Some have chosen to make almost my entire life the subject of malicious comment, as if everything I have was handed to me on a plate without effort on my part.
In truth, there is nothing mysterious. I am proud of what I have achieved and I hope that I have shown that I have nothing to hide. As a teenager, like many others, I did not take school as seriously as I might have done. I left school without a leaving certificate. In 1971 my father died and I was determined to make something of my life. Without any hesitation I can say that from that day on I gave 100 per cent commitment to my business life, my life with the GAA and my political life. Anything I have, I have achieved through my own commitment and relentless hard work. I have never claimed to be perfect. I am human and like all human beings I have my faults, weaknesses and failings, but I do claim one core belief. Anything I sold was mine to sell. Anything I bought was mine to buy, bought with my money earned by me in the course of legitimate business.
I read from last Saturday's newspapers that my brother has now been dragged into the frenzy because CIÉ financed a tunnel at his farm. Quite simply the speed of trains has increased. CIÉ, following discussion with the IFA and the ICMSA before I became a Minister, decided to do such work throughout the country to reduce the potential danger of animals crossing the lines. My brother's farm, along with others in the area, is affected in this way. It is perfectly obvious that this had nothing whatsoever to do with my public office. It was just another unfounded innuendo.
I enjoyed working with my colleagues in Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left. The Government truly is working as an effective partnership. The three parties come to issues from different perspectives, but take decisive actions behind which they all loyally stand. Within the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications I was proud to move towards the creation of a semi-State sector which is strong, viable, customer focused and ready to face the competitive challenges of the future.
I was told in this House that my tenure was unremarkable. Any fair assessment of my short tenure in office will show European Union approval for a phased injection of £120 million in equity into Bord na Móna to eliminate the company's huge debt for which I secured the Commissioner's approval, the second GSM operator entering the market within weeks from now, the KPN-Telia-Telecom Éireann strategic alliance was put in place, we have witnessed a vast reduction in telephone charges, I was involved in the successful implementation of the cost and competitiveness programme at the ESB and I encouraged CIÉ to face up to the reality of the marketplace. I assisted in bringing stability to the industrial relations situation at TEAM Aer Lingus. I gave strong support to the development of our State and regional airports and I launched the public consultation process for the light rail project and publication of the draft legislation to create a legal framework for the project. My initiative of a major strategic review of the future of An Post was completed and approved by the board.
As to why I chose to resign, to fully understand why I chose this course of action the House should remember the role I played in forming the Government late in 1994. My party had been in Opposition for more than seven years and the country was faced with the prospect of a permanent Fianna Fáil Government where the only change would be that of its coalition partner. I was determined that this cycle be broken. From my discussions with the Labour Party at that time I developed a deep respect for its leadership. I became convinced that it could form a good working partnership with Fine Gael. When Democratic Left joined those discussions I could see the potential for a competent Government based on trust, which is what the country has had for the past two years. In Government there are three genuine parties committed to policies who have the practical courage to accommodate their partners' deeply held views, in such marked contrast to the alternative facing the people. This is a good Government, our country is prospering and there is no clear point of principle on which the Opposition can seek to tarnish the Government. In the absence of real debate on substantial issues, politics has descended to vulgar abuse.
The decision to resign was mine and mine alone. I wanted to do the right thing by the Government. As all in this House know, politics moves at high speed so that any procrastination or delay on my part would have damaged the Government. As a Minister it was not possible for me to answer the plethora of questions in the charged atmosphere that prevailed that weekend. It was just not possible to provide commercial answers within that time. I considered it would not have been possible, while a Minister, for me to explain what I genuinely believe to be a proper and legitimate transaction but nevertheless a complex one. I was satisfied that my business relationship with Dunnes Stores would be used in a political manner to destabilise the Government, that political motivation would have led to the Opposition asking endless questions while perhaps accepting none of the answers.
In addition, from my extensive involvement in the European Union Presidency, in the preparations for the highlight of our Presidency, the Dublin Summit, I knew it was critical that the Government must not be deflected by a matter of this kind.
Having put so much work personally into bringing this Government together, above all people, I felt that nothing should be allowed to destabilise it or to distract public attention from its work. It was for those reasons that on Saturday, 30 November, I chose to resign. I rang the Taoiseach inquiring what time that day his busy schedule would permit a meeting at which I would formally tender my resignation.
With regard to my political life — despite acres of newsprint and hours of radio and television coverage — nothing has emerged which demonstrates or gives actual testimony to any impropriety in carrying out my political duties, nor will it; it does not exist; there is no impropriety in my political work.
Yes, I am bruised but my spirit, commitment and determination remain as strong as ever. I acknowledge the generosity of spirit shown by many Members, including some on the Opposition benches. In particular I greatly value the depth of support and encouragement shown me by the people of Tipperary which have provided comfort to me and my family over these past difficult weeks.
I will continue to serve the people whom I am honoured to represent in as diligent and effective a manner as I can. I look forward to offering myself for re-election to this House. The people of North Tipperary, at the next general election, will be the final arbiters on this matter.
I convey my good wishes to my successor, Deputy Dukes, in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. I have no doubt he will bring his acute intelligence and widespread ability to the benefit of Government.
As I said initially, ideally I should have liked to have made this statement earlier. Indeed, I should have liked the message to have been much simpler and, therefore, easier to communicate in this era of the soundbite and banner headline. If required, in due course I will co-operate fully and answer questions before any committee of this House established to examine the Price Waterhouse report.
In conclusion, let me assure all Members that what they have heard is the truth, plain but not simple. I thank them for their attention.