Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

Normally I welcome the opportunity to debate a motion. Tonight I do not have that opportunity as it is a shame the Taoiseach's behaviour has necessitated the moving of this motion of no confidence. I share my party leader's sentiments in acknowledging the work the Taoiseach has done in the last ten years, in much of which he had the co-operation of Fine Gael. It is right and proper that good work is acknowledged and I have no problem in doing so but it is equally important that the opposite is exposed, otherwise this House has no purpose and the notion of democracy in this country amounts to a fallacy.

Many in Fianna Fáil who have rushed to the Taoiseach's defence in recent days, believing their press office spin, have said the tribunal has ruled out making any charge of non co-operation against the Taoiseach. Clearly, this is not the case. In legal terms, the Taoiseach faces adverse findings that he has failed to co-operate adequately with the tribunal. Furthermore, it is open to it to declare that his testimony is unreliable and find in respect of the moneys lodged to his accounts over a two-year period, representing over three times his annual income, that there is no satisfactory explanation from him. It may draw inferences from this.

In political terms, the Taoiseach has made various statements in the Dáil and in public which are at variance with what he has stated to the tribunal. He is accountable to the House. He has not explained his ever-changing story of how he came by, in today's values, €300,000 in the two-year period 1994 to 1995. The tribunal outlined in its hearings the extent of the Taoiseach's lack of co-operation with its inquiries, the failure to disclose a lodgement of £50,000 to an account for his benefit, his failure to disclose that he had personally received £30,000 from Michael Wall and to indicate other lodgements and withdrawals, including the alleged purchase of £30,000 sterling.

Ten years ago this month in the Dáil the Taoiseach said:

It is unacceptable that people who have held high office and enjoyed a high degree of public trust should give evidence that is, in the words of the tribunal, unacceptable and untrue or deliberately conceal vital information from this House, or from a tribunal set up by this House.

There is no excuse for this. How little we have moved on in a decade. Last year he publicly stated he had supplied extensive material freely to the tribunal. In an interview for "Six One News" on RTE he said "I had to give full discovery of all my records." In the Dáil he said "I provided all documentation requested and had no difficulty with that." In his public statement of 13 May he said "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." We now know the tribunal did not accept that these statements represented the true position.

The failure of the highest political figure in the land, bar the President, to co-operate with a tribunal of inquiry established by the Oireachtas is surely a very serious matter. Desperate for something positive to latch onto in the past week, Fianna Fáil Ministers appear to have drawn comfort from statements from Judge Mahon on the issue of co-operation but they should read the transcripts in full. The position was set out by counsel for the tribunal on Friday, 14 September, a position with which Judge Mahon did not disagree, when, in respect of the failure to disclose the lodgement of £50,000, he stated:

It may be that it represents a breach of the discovery obligation. And in the event that it does, I'm suggesting that that is a matter which is open to the Tribunal to find at some stage when all the evidence as to what the circumstances surrounding this lodgement were.

The changes in the Taoiseach's evidence in the last week raise the question of whether he even co-operated with the tribunal in its public hearings. The many changes in his evidence may at times seem amusing but it is those very changes which undermine his credibility. Nothing illustrates his insincerity and his dealings with the tribunal more than the paragraph in a letter from his solicitor to the tribunal which states "Mr. Ahern does not accept that any of Miss Larkin's accounts were operated for his benefit". At the same time as his lawyer was writing to the tribunal, the Taoiseach was telling the people that Ms Larkin had opened an account into which he had transferred £50,000 to go towards the refurbishment of the house he rented from Mr. Wall.

The Taoiseach spoke about recollections. We have heard much about mistakes of recollection, partial recollection and mature recollection from Fianna Fáil and there will be a final analysis of this one too. The Taoiseach described his banking transactions and personal life as unorthodox. His personal life is of no interest to me and no one in Fine Gael has attempted to drag it into this mire. He made that choice himself and we have still not risen to the bait. What I find almost mind-blowingly incredulous is that we in this House and the public are expected to believe someone could receive the equivalent of €300,000 and cannot explain in an even semi-coherent fashion where the money came from. How out of touch is the Taoiseach that he treats such a massive amount of money in that manner? The same is true of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea. It is simply not believable that an explanation cannot be given.

See this speech in context