Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

The Taoiseach has no need to make that statement about himself as I will make it for him. He has done the State some service. Thousands of people on this island will live in peace and trust one another in part because of the Taoiseach's work. The Good Friday Agreement which he piloted through with former Prime Minister Blair wrote an end to years of hatred and misery. It required people of all traditions to relinquish the worst of their past and to express what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of their humanity". The Taoiseach had my full support and the support of my party in pursuing this worthy objective with all his diligence and commitment. I do not, therefore, deny that he has done the State some service.

In the past period, the Taoiseach has obviously been concerned that what he perceives as his reputation and legacy may be tainted, tarnished or even erased. He has lashed out at the media, the Mahon tribunal and everybody but the one person responsible for tainting that reputation. That person is the man who saw the equivalent of €300,000 in today's terms lodged in cash to his or his partner's accounts. That person is the individual whose explanations for the lodgements change by the day. That person is the one who occupies the highest political office in the land and whose credibility is now in shreds. That person is the Taoiseach himself.

When Members on all sides vote on the motion, they should ask themselves the simple question of whether they believe the Taoiseach. If they believe the Taoiseach and his many twisted and tortured accounts of how he came to lodge €300,000 in today's terms over a period of two years, if they believe that he cannot remember memorable events such as changing IR£30,000 into sterling and if they believe he gave the tribunal everything it sought when it sought it, they can vote confidence in the Taoiseach. That is the choice the Fine Gael motion gives them. However, if they agree with my party that the Taoiseach cannot be believed on these matters, they should not vote confidence in him.

On 3 October last year, Deputy Sargent stated in the House:

What the Taoiseach did in taking money from businesses and businessmen was and is totally inappropriate and improper. It was unethical and wrong.

Deputy Sargent was correct. Along with other members of the Opposition at the time, we said the Taoiseach was wrong. We now know that the money the Taoiseach lodged to various accounts between December 1993 and December 1995 amounts to €300,000 in today's money terms. The recent hearings focused on four of those lodgements, which equate to $45,000, £25,000 sterling, £20,000 sterling and £10,000 sterling. We have heard no credible explanation from the Taoiseach for these lodgements. People want to know where they came from. In the absence of such an explanation, the deep suspicion will always remain that these lodgements were a result of personal contributions made to the Taoiseach.

Last year the Taoiseach said repeatedly that he did no wrong. His Ministers to a man and a woman supported him. One year later, we now know that the amounts of money concerned did not just come from two so-called whip-arounds and an alleged dinner totalling IR£48,000 but rather a series of lodgements which amount to €300,000 in today's terms. However, the response of the Taoiseach and his Ministers is exactly the same: "I did no wrong"; "He did no wrong." That is the standard that those who vote confidence in the Taoiseach tonight will set for themselves and for their parties.

The scale may well be different from that of Mr. Haughey, but scale does not alter standards. It may well have happened at a time of change for the Taoiseach, but circumstances do not alter standards. If it was wrong in the case of Mr. Haughey, it is equally wrong in the case of Deputy Ahern. To take such moneys for personal use was simply wrong.

Nothing illustrates the brazenness of the Taoiseach more than his repeated assurances to the Irish people, delivered directly on television or in this House, that he has co-operated fully and freely with the Mahon tribunal. On 13 May 2007, in the middle of the general election campaign, the Taoiseach told the Irish people:

The tribunal has come back to me at various points and asked me to explain particular transactions in my bank accounts. I provided those explanations.

The Taoiseach did not provide those explanations; he did not provide them in private correspondence with the tribunal and he did not provide them at a private interview with the tribunal. That is why he had to attend the tribunal to give sworn testimony for four days in the past two weeks, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.

The Taoiseach says he fully co-operated with the tribunal, but that is not true. On 13 September, in sworn evidence, that is, the truth and nothing but the truth, he accepted that he had not supplied the tribunal with the comprehensive information it requested concerning cash lodgements being investigated by the tribunal over two and a half years. The Taoiseach said he freely co-operated with the tribunal, but that is not true. At the tribunal on 13 September, correspondence was opened which revealed that at one stage the tribunal threatened the Taoiseach with a summons because of his failure to supply information. The Taoiseach told RTE's Bryan Dobson on the Six One News on 26 September last year that he had provided full disclosure of all his records. That is not true. He did not include in a sworn affidavit details of the transfer of IR£50,000 to an account which his partner had opened for his benefit.

The Taoiseach's explanations of lodgements to his accounts over two years have been riddled with inconsistency and received with incredulity. He changed his stories on lodgements as the tribunal's investigations uncovered more and more hard facts. His explanations for critical lodgements are completely at odds with evidence available in bank documents. His challenge to the tribunal's view that $45,000 was lodged has been blown away. He agrees that five sterling transactions were memorable events yet he can remember no critical details. Anybody who would change that amount for sterling or withdraw a cash amount of IR£50,000 would remember the day and the purpose for which it was intended.

He told the tribunal he could have lodged money with a bank official whom he then admitted he had never met. He told the Irish people on the Six One News last year that the money he had saved was gone, but he has admitted to the tribunal that when he first received £22,500 in December 1993 he already had £70,000. His explanation for the so-called Manchester dinner is simply incredible. He cannot identify the date, cannot remember who was there and there is no documentary evidence to support the notion that the event took place as he described it. He told the Irish people he had fully co-operated with the tribunal but it is clear that he withheld critical information. He told them that he freely co-operated with the tribunal but it is clear that the tribunal had to threaten him to secure co-operation.

A recent opinion poll, for what it is worth, indicated that 32% of the Irish people believe the Taoiseach. I wish those people were asked: "Which story do you believe?""Which version of these fairytales do you believe?"

See this speech in context