Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

The Taoiseach said, when his friends approached him about having a private function for him, that it would be wrong. He also said, when they suggested they would give him a gift, that it would be wrong. Why then, when it came to Manchester and this private function, was it a gift and apparently right? How did this change come about? A matter on which the Taoiseach had been very firm with his friends suddenly became all right in respect of Manchester.

With regard to the new explanation being offered for the Manchester payment, as far as I can detect, the Taoiseach is offering two defences as to why it was all right to accept the payment in Manchester. The first is that he was not there in a public capacity. Is the Taoiseach saying that, if a Minister goes to a function and there is not an official invitation or official script and it is not in the Minister's diary, he or she can accept anything given? Is that the new standard which the Taoiseach is applying? The second defence which the Taoiseach seemed to give for the Manchester payment was that it was a gift and not for the performance of his duties. Is the Taoiseach offering the new standard that a payment is only wrong if it can be shown that it creates precise obligations on the office holder? Surely, that is the test of whether this payment was corrupt, not the question of whether it was ethical.

The issue here is whether it was ethical to accept these payments. Is it not the case that it was not ethical because it was a private function, which the Taoiseach said was wrong, was a gift, which he also said was wrong, and was interfering with his capacity to do his tasks?

Is the defence being offered by the Taoiseach not the very same defence that was offered by Charles Haughey and, I am sure, would have been offered by Deputy Callely in the case of his misdemeanour? Is the Taoiseach not applying entirely different standards, belatedly and in retrospect, to his own case?

See this speech in context