Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

—affirms confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government;

—recognises the enormous contribution made by An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, TD, to Irish public life including his many achievements in:

—patient and skilful leadership of the peace process which has resulted in a restoration of democratic institutions in Northern Ireland and a new era in North/South and Anglo-Irish relations;

—implementing a policy framework which has produced sustained strong economic and employment growth which is the envy of Europe, and has laid the foundations for continuing prosperity into future generations;

—sustaining and renewing the vital social partnership model, including the negotiation of a 10-year Framework Agreement to deepen stability and confidence;

—providing record increases in investment in infrastructure and vital public services while providing prudently for future needs within a sustainable fiscal framework;

—ensuring Ireland's interests are protected and that we play a leadership role in the evolution of Europe through his strong record of achievement as a senior member of the European Council;

—prioritising climate change and securing a sustainable energy future for the country by working with partners in Government to reach our key environmental targets; and

—renewing policies and institutions to cater for the needs of a new and more diverse Ireland, while affirming and supporting the values and structures which are at the heart of community life, through his support for the cultural, sporting and religious and community organisations that make up civil society;

—recalls that the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments was established by resolution of Dáil Éireann and appointed by Instrument of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on 4th November 1997;

—affirms its confidence in the Mahon Tribunal;

—understands that the Quarryvale module of the tribunal has not run its course and that a substantial number of witnesses are still scheduled to give evidence;

—believes that members of the Oireachtas should not seek to predetermine the tribunal's report on the matters which it has asked the tribunal to investigate;

—maintains that it is the role of the members of the tribunal to make an objective assessment of the completed evidence and to make findings if necessary;

—commends the Government for refusing to be distracted from its agenda of taking Ireland forward with positive and inclusive policies;

—reaffirms that the Programme for Government is a five year programme and that the parties in Government will do their utmost to honour these commitments; and

—rejects the politically opportunistic motion of no confidence put forward by the Fine Gael Party.

In Easter 2000 I first became aware of an allegation that I had received a bribe of £50,000 from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan. I sued in respect of the allegation, the source of which was Mr. Denis "Starry" O'Brien. At the hearing of defamation proceedings, the trial judge found the allegation to be false and baseless. In addition, Mr. Tom Gilmartin has made allegations to the Flood tribunal concerning an alleged payment of £50,000 in 1989, which I believe is the same allegation as made by Mr. Denis "Starry" O'Brien, a payment of £30,000 sometime prior to 1992, and a further payment of a sum of £150,000, allegedly paid by Mr. Owen O'Callaghan to Mr. Albert Reynolds. Each of these allegations is false. Counsel for the Mahon tribunal has stated that there is no evidence establishing any payment by Owen O'Callaghan to me. After four days in the witness box that remains the position. There is not a scintilla of evidence of any such payments. This is so because I never received such payments.

These allegations are not the only allegations made against me by Mr. Tom Gilmartin. Among the more bizarre and lurid allegations is one that I procured two Ministers to blackmail another Minister in the context of tax designation. I will not dignify the allegation by revealing its sleazy details to this House but I can assure the House it is as baseless as it is vicious. The Mahon tribunal sought extensive information and discovery from me because of various allegations. It has involved a trawl of my financial affairs for a very extensive period. So be it. I have given it the information and documentation available to me. I attended a private session, which I was not legally obliged to do, and I have now given evidence in public. The tribunal will sift and assess that evidence and reach its conclusions in due course. Normally I would refrain from commenting on ongoing work of the tribunal but I find myself in a position where I must respond to calls for me to resign. Therefore, I will take some time to address the recurring questions and issues concerning my evidence.

Last Saturday, on the "Marian Finucane Show", I urged people to read all the transcripts of my evidence at the Mahon tribunal. I understand the difficulties the media have in compressing 18 hours of evidence into limited space, meaning that accusations are sometimes made against me by soundbite. I contend that for anyone interested in these matters, the most thorough and detailed examination of my testimony the Irish public can receive is to read the entire transcript.

Some simple facts must be restated. The lodgments under consideration by the Mahon tribunal took place within 30 days of the ending of my matrimonial proceedings, were completed within a two year period and were the only lodgments being examined in a career of more than 30 years in politics. These are the facts.

To many my affairs are unorthodox. That is because my lifestyle in that dark period was unorthodox. Many who have gone through the trauma of marital separation and legal proceedings will feel empathy with me. Mine was not a perfect life, nor a perfect family and matrimonial environment but as I emerged from that period I was assisted by friends and my affairs were regularised over a short period. Now those who stated they would leave matters to be adjudicated by the tribunal last October and May, seek to sit as judge, jury and executioner. One day they blow hot, the next day they blow cold. Last May due process was an excuse not to comment but today political accountability is the pretext for their questioning.

I have repeatedly stated that I looked forward to giving evidence at the tribunal. I have done so. With eagerness I take this opportunity to challenge my accusers on the opposite side of the House. I deal with their allegations, soundbites and glib criticisms. I will address the issues separately.

Regarding the $45,000 issue, after the conclusion of my evidence on Monday media reports and political commentary by some was to the effect that I was unable to contradict the dollar allegation. This is simply not so and such comments are based on a misunderstanding that I will expose. The salient facts in respect of the $45,000 are as follows. A bank official, Mr. Philip Murphy, who worked in AIB, O'Connell Street, has given evidence that there never was a deposit of $45,000. Ms Rosemary Murtagh, having been taken through the documentation in the AIB remit room, agreed that the hypothesis that $45,000 was remitted by the branch to AIB headquarters, was destroyed.

The money lodged came from Mr. Michael Wall from Manchester. He did not deal in dollars. Rather, he dealt in sterling or Irish punts. A variety of combinations of Irish punts and sterling gives exactly $45,000. Likewise a variety of combinations of Irish punts and sterling gives exactly $25,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 ad infinitum. The exact sum lodged in Ms Celia Larkin's account on 5 December 1994 amounts to the following foreign currency sums, when the range applicable that day is applied: 71.5 million Italian lira and 237,700 French francs. So far I have not been accused of having received lira or French francs but no doubt the Opposition will seek an inquiry into it.

See this speech in context