Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Sep 2007

Vol. 638 No. 1

Leaders’ Questions.

An Ceann Comhairle

In anticipation of Leaders' Questions, including questions on the Taoiseach's appearance before the Mahon tribunal, it is enshrined in the Constitution that the Government is accountable to the Dáil. Standing Orders reflect this constitutional provision. However, it must be recognised that the House has set up a tribunal of inquiry to inquire into certain matters. In respect of those particular functions, there has been a delegation of sorts to the tribunal, for the time being, which must, in turn, report to the House. To that extent, the accountability provision is fulfilled.

However, we must be realistic. I understand that in the political domain there may be a wish by the party leaders to question the Taoiseach on the Mahon tribunal. Therefore, it would be nonsensical of me to refuse that political imperative. It would be equally remiss of me not to remind the House that certain functions have been delegated to the tribunal of inquiry. When addressing questions to the Taoiseach on this matter, it should be in everyone's mind that the tribunal has been asked to look into certain specific matters. It would not be right for any Member, or Members, to seek, during the course of questions, to replicate the functions of the tribunal or to seek to establish the truth or untruth of given allegations of misconduct.

Deputy Pádraic McCormack

What about the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a question for the substantive motion before the House should Members wish to make such an allegation. Pending receipt of the report of the tribunal, it is my intention, if the leaders so wish, to ensure the balance is maintained, that there is accountability and that common sense prevails without allowing Members to stray into the specifics of the tribunal. That is as fair as I can make it. I call Deputy Kenny.

Deputy Pádraic McCormack

Does Deputy O'Dea know that?

Deputy Tom Hayes

He is not in the Chamber.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I welcome the Ceann Comhairle and the Taoiseach back to the House after the recess. I congratulate Deputy Gilmore on his first day as Labour Party leader in the House. I am not sure what the Ceann Comhairle meant by all of that but common sense and the truth are imperative to what we must do in the House as much as anywhere else. I will abide by the Chair's ruling.

What I have to ask is relevant to comments made in the House by the Taoiseach. I am in order by requiring accountability and accuracy to the House. What I will say relates to comments that were first made in the House. I do not have the time that Mr. Des O'Neill, SC, had to question the Taoiseach forensically but I have two questions that are as important as any the Taoiseach has been asked.

The first relates to the large amounts of cash which the Taoiseach received between 1993 and 1995. We now have the benefit of statements made in the House, statements made to the media and evidence given on oath to the Mahon tribunal. We are thus able to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of those statements. I have two questions for the Taoiseach. First, is it his intention to make a personal statement to the House and correct misleading statements that he has made to the Dáil in the past 12 months on this issue? Second, does he still say that he fully and freely co-operated with the Mahon tribunal?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach has three minutes.

The Taoiseach

I shall not need that length of time, and I do not accept that I have in any way misled the House. As regards any matter I may have expanded on, I do not believe that I have misled the House.

As regards the second question, as far as I am concerned I have totally and absolutely — and my legal team believes the same — co-operated with the tribunal in every way that I possibly and physically could.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I did not ask the Taoiseach's legal team, I asked him. I shall give him two examples. On 22 September 2006 the Taoiseach said in this House: "I have provided all documentation requested, sworn affidavits, given statements of evidence and had no difficulty with this." That is what he said. We now know that he did not provide all the information and that he had difficulty. Otherwise the tribunal would not have called him back for private interview or to public hearings.

On 27 September 2006 the Taoiseach also told this House that he had not broken any tax law. However, on 14 May this year he told reporters that he had recently made a payment to the Revenue Commissioners relating to the payments and the gifts that he received in early 1990. Misleading statements were not confined to this House. On this day last year the Taoiseach told RTE on the "Six-one" news that the money he had saved was gone. However, he agreed with the tribunal that when he first received £22,500 in December 1993, he had nearly £70,000 at that stage.

Finally, on co-operation with the tribunal, the Taoiseach agreed under oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that he had not supplied it with the comprehensive information it requested concerning cash lodgements the tribunal was investigating over a two and half year period. We know now, from the evidence at the tribunal, that he did not disclose in his sworn affidavit details of Irish £50,000, transferred to an account opened for his benefit by his then partner. I do not have the time to give the Taoiseach more examples, but I could. I ask him again, in view of the comments he made in this House, whether he is prepared to correct these misleading statements to the Dáil, of which he is Taoiseach. In view of what I have pointed out here, does he still stand over his statement that he fully and freely co-operated with the Mahon tribunal?

The Taoiseach

I shall be dealing with some of these issues at greater length. It is my view and the view of those who advised me that I made discovery in accordance with the requirements of the tribunal. The chairman of the tribunal has made it clear there are no suggestions that there are documents I failed to discover. The Deputy is making reference to two items, in particular to the money I transferred to Ms Celia Larkin. I shall deal with that issue later. However, it is my view that I made matters clear in the letter attached to my discovery documents on 7 February 2005, where I made reference to that issue.

On the issue of the Revenue Commissioners, there is no contradiction as regards what I said on 13 May and in this House at the end of September last year. The position is that it was my advice from two senior and eminent tax consultants that I had no tax obligation as regards the money I received on the basis of loans, with the intention of repaying — and subsequently paid back. Obviously I was in correspondence with Revenue, as I believe most people appearing before the tribunal are. I was advised that what I should do, on a no-fault basis, was to make a tax discovery on that and pay the sum, notwithstanding the fact that my case, and that of my tax advisers, is that I have no such liability. I did that and complied with the advice I received.

On the £48,000 I believe I received in all, I paid back with interest, almost £100,000 on the basis that the moneys were loans. I do not believe there is anything misleading in what I state.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before I ask Deputy Eamon Gilmore to ask his questions, I extend to him my warmest congratulations and wish him every happiness and success as the new leader of the Labour Party. I express my full confidence that he will follow the precedent set by Deputy Enda Kenny and obey the Standing Orders pertaining to Leaders' Questions.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his good wishes. I also thank Deputy Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach and Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin for the good wishes they conveyed to me earlier.

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence to express my sadness over the tragedy that occurred in Bray earlier today and I extend my sympathy to those affected. I do so because I live near Bray, where the accident occurred, and because, in my life as a trade union official, I represented and organised part-time and temporary firemen. I therefore have some understanding of the risks they take and realise how deeply affected the local community and the two firemen's colleagues must be by today's tragedy.

In putting my question to the Taoiseach, I acknowledge his achievements for this country. A year ago, the story broke that he had received large sums of money from private sources for his personal use and we now know from the tribunal that the total amount we are talking about is approximately €300,000 in today's terms. When the Taoiseach was challenged about this at the time, he said to us that he wanted an opportunity to explain to the tribunal what had happened regarding the money. We all waited to hear the explanation and he gave it as evidence at the tribunal over 18 hours over four days. I do not believe his explanation and I believe a majority of Members of this House do not believe it. Many Members on the Taoiseach's side, who are publicly loyal, and the majority of people do not believe the story he told the tribunal.

This issue is serious because there is national disbelief about the evidence the Taoiseach gave to the tribunal, which he gave on swearing a solemn oath to tell the whole truth. This national disbelief goes to the heart of trust and confidence in Deputy Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach. It is a resigning issue and would be in any other country. We cannot ignore that because, in the global economy in which we now function, these issues matter. Does the Taoiseach intend to resign from office and, given that he has stated he does not intend to continue in the office of Taoiseach for the full life of this Dáil in any event, when does he intend to resign and hand over to his designated successor?

The Taoiseach

I congratulate Deputy Gilmore on his first opportunity to contribute as leader of the Labour Party. I wish him longevity and a long period in office. I have had the terrible misfortune of dealing with so many leaders of the Labour Party I——

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I promise the Taoiseach he will not be dealing with any more.

The Taoiseach

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

There was the Workers Party and——

The Taoiseach

Seriously, I wish the Deputy well. Deputy Eamon Gilmore has served in this House with distinction since 1989. He has an onerous task and I wish him well.

I join Deputy Eamon Gilmore in expressing my sympathy to the families and colleagues of the two firemen who lost their lives while serving on the fire brigade.

I would like to respond to Deputy Gilmore's questions about the value in today's terms of certain sums of money. I received loans of approximately £48,000, in 1994 terms, from friends. Those moneys were repayable and I paid them back. The Deputy is obviously talking about other sums of money which I did not receive on the basis that they were loans. I paid back approximately £97,000, in 2006 terms, in respect of the loans I have mentioned. I have explained previously why I did not make the repayments earlier.

The tribunal and its legal team have made clear that the allegation against me is that I received either £150,000, £50,000 or £30,000 from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan in 1989, or at some time between 1989 and 1992. While there are many other allegations, that is the only one on which I have been questioned. I have to answer questions on that issue and not on anything else. I would like Deputy Gilmore to believe me — if he does not, I cannot force him to do so — when I say that I never received anything from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan, or anyone associated with Mr. O'Callaghan, for any purpose in 1989, 1999 or at any other time.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I never said the Taoiseach received anything from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan. My question relates to the disbelief throughout the country at the evidence the Taoiseach gave to the tribunal. I refer to the idea that the Taoiseach had no bank account for a long period of time and cannot remember receiving or lodging certain moneys. I refer to the suggestion that the Taoiseach got a bagful of money from a man who walked into his office. It has been claimed that this money, which was not counted by the Taoiseach, the man in question or the person who lodged it, was left in a wardrobe overnight. I would like to comment on the idea that one lodgement coincided with an even amount of dollars and another lodgement coincided with an even amount of sterling. We can take one coincidence, but to believe in two coincidences is a little far-fetched. The problem we have is that we do not believe the Taoiseach. We do not believe what he said to the tribunal. I do not believe the Taoiseach's story. I think his story at the tribunal was a cock and bull story and I think many people in this country agree with me.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Hear, hear.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

The problem we now face relates to the lack of belief in what the Taoiseach said to the tribunal. I wish I could believe his evidence, frankly. Where does that lack of belief leave him as Taoiseach of this country? How does the Taoiseach propose to continue to lead the country, given that a majority of its people do not believe the sworn evidence he gave to a tribunal that was established by this House? The people of this country have great affection for the Taoiseach, as he knows — they have elected him as the Head of the Government on three occasions. Like the people of Ireland, I have great respect for the work the Taoiseach has done for this country. However, he cannot take the people of this country for gullible fools. In light of the lack of credibility that attaches to the evidence the Taoiseach gave to the tribunal, how long does he propose to continue in the office of Taoiseach? That the Taoiseach will have to go to the tribunal repeatedly over the next few years to answer questions about various aspects of this matter will represent an obvious distraction from his day job. The question I have asked is particularly relevant when one considers that the House will consider a motion of confidence in the Taoiseach later today.

The Taoiseach

As Deputy Gilmore knows, I have had to attend a number of tribunals — not just the Mahon tribunal — over recent years to answer questions about various matters.

Deputy Damien English

That speaks for itself.

The Taoiseach

It is my obligation as a Member of the House — notwithstanding the fact that I am an office holder — to act in such a manner. That I will continue to do so does not create any difficulty for me or distract me from my job, although it might mean I have to work longer and more demanding hours at times. That is how it has been and how it is likely to continue. I assure the House that I will continue to do that.

I remind Deputy Gilmore that I have addressed the issues I was asked to address and submitted the information I was asked to submit in response to certain questions. It was not the case that I did not have a bank account during the period in question, as the Deputy purports to allege. I have discovered details of over 20 bank accounts which were either in my name, my wife's name, the names of my children or the names of people with whom I was politically associated. There was a period, between the time when I separated from my wife to the time when the resulting judicial case was brought to a conclusion in the High Court, when I did not use my bank accounts in the normal way. I can accept that people will say that was unorthodox, but that is how it was. I have given all the factual information on that to the tribunal. The details of what happened are quite clear to the tribunal because it has all the records of the accounts. The tribunal knows how I dealt with my affairs during the period in question. I cannot change that. When I was issued with a discovery order relating to the period between the start of 1988, which is almost 20 years ago, and the end of 1995, which is almost 12 years ago, I complied with the order by providing all the information in question. When I was questioned on that information, I gave an account of it which I believe to be totally truthful. I cannot do any more than that and that is the position.