In the discharge of my public duties, the interests of the Irish people have always taken precedence over everything else. I believe the Irish people recognise that this is so. Over the past week, I have encountered people in different parts of the country and I have been touched by their sense of balance about this issue and their innate common decency about the personal dilemma that I had during 1993 and 1994.
Last week I put on the record of the House a number of the allegations that have been made against me at the tribunals. Each and every one of these charges is baseless. They are false and are no more than a tissue of lies. However, these allegations were made and the tribunal is required to investigate them in so far as they fall within its terms of reference. It is in this context that I have been co-operating with the tribunal and will continue to do so.
Those who have made up these allegations have gone to extraordinary lengths to set me up. For example, a forged letter, purporting to show that I had taken steps to open a bank account in Mauritius, was sent to the Moriarty tribunal. I can confirm that correspondence was subsequently forwarded to the tribunal which demonstrates the letter to be a forgery. I am placing these documents in the Library.
In order to assist the tribunal with the inquiries into some of the lurid allegations made against me, I gave all my bank and financial records to the tribunals for the years they requested. I produced all of my records going back for a long number of years which show I have not enriched myself through politics and have not abused public office.
I disclosed my financial records to the tribunal and it is deeply regrettable that these confidential records appeared in a newspaper.
The House will be aware that arising from financial pressures I encountered at the time of my separation, a number of my friends decided to come to my assistance. The loans I received from my friends totalled £39,000, that is, £22,500 plus £16,500. I wish to confirm to the House that on Friday I repaid each one of these loans with compound interest calculated at 5% per annum, and at a total cost of €90,867.
In my interview with RTÉ last week, I put into the public domain that I received a contribution arising from a function I attended in Manchester. I publicly disclosed this payment in order that the full facts relating to all payments made to me during a difficult personal and family time would be available to the public. I do not know the exact amount of the sterling cash I received. However, I know that when I changed this money to Irish pounds, it came to £7,938.49. At the time I lodged this money into my account on 11 October 1994, the sterling/punt exchange rate was 0.9883 — the sterling equivalent of the £7,938.49 was approximately Stg£7,845.61.
As is well known, I have always been a supporter of Manchester United Football Club. Since my youth, I have regularly travelled to Manchester. From 1979 to 1996, I would have attended roughly six Man United home games each season. I would travel with friends, sometimes by boat and sometimes by plane. Over the years, I have developed a very close affinity with that city and with its people. I have had a long-standing association with the Dublin Association in Manchester, the Manchester-Irish Festival and the Irish World Heritage Centre.
The function that has been the source of recent controversy was not a political function or a fundraiser. It was just a way for me to keep in touch with members of the Irish community in a city I visit often and have great ties with. I had attended similar dinners and social occasions previously.
The dinner was organised by the late Tim Kilroe in the Four Seasons Hotel in Manchester. I had a long personal history with Mr. Kilroe, whom I counted as a friend. At the end of the dinner, unsolicited by me, I was presented with cash of the order of Stg£8,000, made up by individual contributions from an attendance of approximately 25 people. Mr. Kilroe presented the moneys to me and I presume he had collected them as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Kilroe has since died and it is not possible to obtain any list of attendees or contributors at this remove, 12 years later.
I can confirm that Mr. John Kennedy attended the dinner, as he has publicly stated. As I attended various other functions in Manchester over the years, I cannot state with certainty who were the other persons in attendance. I do not want to name someone by mistake and then be accused of misleading the House.
I travelled to Manchester with a number of personal friends — as I did for all of the matches — and on this occasion, my friends also attended the function. Senator Kett was on this trip and attended this function. If the names of any other people who attended come to my attention and if I can be certain that they attended, I will pass their names on to the tribunal.
I did not receive the money as a fee for a speaking engagement. In fact, I did not even deliver a formal speech. I merely said a few words and engaged in an informal question and answer session. I did not solicit the money. I did not expect to receive it. I believe Mr. Kilroe organised a collection at the function for me because he knew, through friends, of my personal circumstances, and that he may have told others.
There are two fundamental issues that I now want to address: first, whether any code of ethics or conduct was breached; and second, whether there is any tax liability in respect of the receipt by me of the sum of approximately Stg£8,000.
The 1983 Government Procedure Instruction, which was applicable in 1994, is crystal clear. It states there are no formal guidelines on the issue of gifts to Ministers. The practice has been to accept relatively inexpensive gifts to mark occasions such as official openings. There was a practice relating to expensive gifts given to Ministers — that practice related to gifts given to Ministers by virtue of their office.
Indeed, section 15 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, which was not in force at the time of the Manchester event, reflects this principle by stating explicitly that the rules apply to gifts given to the officeholder "by virtue of his or her office" — personal gifts and donations are expressly excluded. The 1983 instruction did not address personal gifts or political donations. The sum in the region of Stg£8,000 was not received by virtue of my office. It was given to me personally by a group of approximately 25 people to whom I spoke in a personal capacity.
I shall explain why there was no breach of the Government procedure instruction. First, the trip was personal. It does not appear in my ministerial diary, which would be the case if it was an official trip. Second, no formal invitation was extended to me as Minister as Finance or sent to the Department of Finance. Third, the Department of Finance did not pay the costs of my travel or accommodation; I did. Fourth, no script was prepared by officials in the Department of Finance, as would normally be the case if I was giving a speech on official business and, thus, by virtue of my office. Fifth, I was accompanied on the trip not by officials, but by a number of friends who attended a Manchester United fixture. Sixth, I attended similar events before and after the 1994 one both while in office and out of office. Seventh, at the 1994 event, I was given approximately Stg£8,000. These moneys were not solicited by me. The above facts lead to only one rational conclusion. My attendance in Manchester and at the event was not in an official capacity. I was not at the event in Manchester by virtue of my office. The 1983 Government procedure instruction simply did not apply. I have received advice from counsel that I was not in breach of the 1983 Government procedure instruction. Counsel have stated clearly and unequivocally that paragraph 31 of the instruction did not apply to the Manchester event and the moneys received on that occasion.
I refer to the legal context in which these events occurred. The obligations that apply to officeholders under the relevant legislation and code of conduct are significantly more detailed now than in 1993 and 1994. However, the spirit and intent are broadly similar. At that time the Government procedure instructions envisaged that Ministers would not accept expensive gifts arising from the performance of their duties. The Ethics in Public Office Bill 1995 was prepared by a Government of which I was a member. In the case of gifts to officeholders the main purpose of the Bill, as described by the then Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Eithne Fitzgerald, in the House was to provide "that if a gift is given to a officeholder and if the value of that gift exceeds £500, that gift becomes the property of the State in cases where the gift is given by virtue of that office". There was no intention of inhibiting the normal relationships of support and solidarity between friends when there was clearly no intention of influencing or compromising an officeholder. This was made evident during the debate on this Bill. For example, in June 1995, concern was expressed by a number of Deputies as to whether it was appropriate that the fact that medical or legal services had been supplied free or below cost to a Member would be required to be disclosed. A particular possibility of whether legal services being provided in anticipation of ultimate payment on conclusion of a case or a tribunal of inquiry would require to be disclosed in respect of a year when the fee had not yet been paid. That was argued to be unacceptable.
These issues were repeated during the Seanad debate on the Bill in July 1995. The Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, assured Senators that "medical or legal services supplied free or at a discount to a value of more than £500 where this is provided by a friend or relative without any suggestion of trying to influence or create an obligation" would not require disclosure of any kind. She said, "If somebody's friends organised for personal reasons to pay for his or her medical treatment, they are not trying to influence that person in the performance of his or her functions and this would be exempt". Reading through those debates, this was the understanding under which politicians by sponsoring the Ethics in Public Office Bill 1995 were intended to be bound at the time of these events in 1993 and 1994. It was clearly understood that, in the appropriate context, politicians could receive gifts from friends without creating obligations or requiring disclosure. This was especially the case when the privacy of their personal lives reasonably required protection as in the case of legal, medical and, I would say, family circumstances. Ministers could also accept gifts of a modest character defined as less than £500 even if this arose in the context of official duties. Furthermore, under the legislation which the Government at that time put forward, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 1994, donations received for political as opposed to personal reasons could be retained and disclosed only where the individual donation exceeded £500.
Given my family and personal circumstances, which provided the context for the loans and gifts I accepted in 1993 and 1994 and given the clear intent of those who made these payments in respect of my personal purposes, I have considered the content of the ethical code in place then and since then. I consider that I had not breached my obligations as an officeholder in any way. Ministers from all political backgrounds can and do attend fundraising events and receive donations and personal gifts. Moneys are raised at such functions attended by Ministers but they do not attend in an official capacity or they do not raise these funds by virtue of their office. What matters is that funds are only received in circumstances which are legally and ethically permissible and, especially, that the receipt of the funds does not give rise to the expectation of a quid pro quo. The Manchester event did not involve any quid pro quo for anyone.
I have been separately advised by two eminent tax advisers that I have no tax liability in respect of the Manchester moneys. The funds were from persons based in the Manchester area who are not based in Ireland and, therefore, the sums were not chargeable to gift tax. In any event, the aggregate sum was less than IR£8,000 and this was well below the threshold for any gift tax that then applied, which was more than IR£11,000. Bearing in mind the small gift exemption of £500 which then applied, there would be no question of a liability to gift tax. The funds were later lodged to my bank account in AIB in Dublin.
There are few of us with the benefit of hindsight who would not change some of our past decisions. No one is infallible or perfect. If I had anticipated in 1993 and 1994 that my decision to accept loans from friends or the gifts of moneys in Manchester would cause such difficulties and media intrusion for my family and friends and would give rise to distortion of my motives and misrepresentation of my conduct, I would not have accepted a penny. As I surveyed events of the past two weeks, I realised that my judgment in accepting help from good and loyal friends and the gift in Manchester, albeit in the context of personal and family circumstances, was an error. It was a misjudgment, although not in breach of any law or code of conduct at the time. It was not illegal or impermissible to have done what I did but I now regret the choices I made in those difficult and dark times. The bewilderment caused to the public about recent revelations has been deeply upsetting for me and others near and dear to me. To them, to the Irish people and to this House, I offer my apologies.
