Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

If Fine Gael stands for anything in terms of standards in public office, it had no choice but to table this motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach. Despite the direction in which Ministers are trying to steer the debate, the essence of the motion does not relate to the Taoiseach's handling of his brief in respect of issues such as Northern Ireland, the EU Presidency and the economy, or his ability to be a popular political leader. We know about his public achievements which, as the Government is aware, are not at question. The credibility of the Taoiseach, in the eyes of the public and the House, needs to be questioned following his treatment of the Mahon tribunal and his performances at public hearings to date.

With the exception of die hard Fianna Fáil supporters who have blind loyalty or are afraid to speak out, I have met nobody who has followed the tribunal and believes the testimony of the Taoiseach. His account of his personal finances in the 1990s has changed under the scrutiny of the tribunal in a manner that is not credible and does not stack up. Fianna Fáil speakers have said we should wait for Judge Mahon to draw his conclusions before we cast judgment, which seems fair enough. That would be a reasonable request if the Taoiseach's testimony was consistent with his previous statements, credible and supported by the evidence presented by the tribunal. That is clearly not the case, however. Given that we have just heard four days of testimony which blatantly contradicts the evidence the tribunal has assembled, it is simply not an option to wait up to two years for a report. The standards which apply to any other person appearing before a tribunal should also apply to politicians. The Taoiseach should be no exception — one would expect that he would want to lead by example.

The motivation behind the motion of no confidence can be put simply — if we believe the Taoiseach has, at best, deliberately frustrated the tribunal with selective amnesia and contradictory statements or, worse, not been truthful with tribunal lawyers under oath, we can no longer have confidence in him to lead our country. That is the issue at question. Although the Taoiseach publicly said in the past that it was unacceptable for office holders to take money for personal use, regardless of the sums involved, we now know of the personal "dig-outs" given to him. The money in question, worth approximately €300,000 in modern day terms, as many have said, was given to him in December 1994 while he was Minister for Finance and on the verge of becoming Taoiseach. When these questions arose last year, he made it clear that he would explain all the details to the tribunal when given an opportunity to do so. He gave the same performance during the election campaign, when he said he looked forward to appearing before the tribunal to clarify matters and give full explanations. Fine Gael believes it was right to allow due process to be upheld and to give the Taoiseach an opportunity to clarify matters. It is now being criticised — by Fianna Fáil Ministers, for example — for not taking a harder line at the time.

Now that the Taoiseach has had an opportunity to give a full explanation, over four days of testimony, there are more questions unanswered than there were before he started to give evidence. If his testimony is true, bank transaction and account details in the possession of the tribunal must have been incorrect on at least six separate occasions. Those who support him are saying they believe his evidence to the tribunal is credible and accurate and that he did nothing wrong in accepting the moneys as he did. Do Members really believe his account to the tribunal? Do they believe that a man walked into his office while he was Minister for Finance with a bag of sterling notes worth approximately £30,000? Nobody knows for sure how much money was in the bag because the businessman in question did not count it. The Taoiseach did not count it, despite keeping it in his safe for three days, and Ms Celia Larkin who also saw it did not count it, even though it was heading for her bank account. Do Deputies believe that when the Taoiseach drove Ms Larkin to lodge the sterling in a bank three days later, no receipt was asked for or given? It is suggested nobody saw the bank clerk count the money. We are expected to believe the bank was mistaken, by approximately £28,000 sterling, when it compiled its foreign transaction records that day. The records of the bank state just £1,921 sterling was exchanged on the day in question. Is this series of events really credible? I have referred to just one version of the financial transactions under investigation.

This is an unpleasant day in the Dáil. We have to make a political judgment based on the evidence before us. When Fine Gael bears in mind the actions of those who have gone before us, it has an obligation to hold Fianna Fáil leaders — in particular, a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach — to account for their actions. I want the understandable public cynicism of politicians to be challenged and in time replaced by a new trust and belief in the political system. Many may be willing to forgive the Taoiseach because of his popularity, but few believe what he said in the context of recent tribunal hearings. That such a set of circumstances is unacceptable for Fine Gael necessitates the tabling of a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach.

See this speech in context