Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

The Taoiseach is wrong on two counts. First, Article 15.13 of the Constitution refers to not being amenable to any other authority; Article 15.12 refers to privilege. Second, the Taoiseach is not obliged to take anyone's legal advice. He is a client. His legal team should be quite prepared to set a number of options in front of him. The Taoiseach is then fully entitled to say he does not accept the advice or wishes to take another course. However, he has not done that.

On 27 September 2006, the Taoiseach told the Dáil that he had checked with the tax authorities long ago. In the light of discoveries and comments since, does he still stand by that statement? Did I hear the Taoiseach correctly, that he had not misled the Dáil on this or any other count?

The Taoiseach cannot have this both ways. He has occupied the chair opposite as Head of Government for over ten years, properly elected and duly appointed. He does not speak from that position as a private citizen but as Head of Government and Taoiseach. He is now seeking to prevent the Mahon tribunal from asking him questions on statements he made in the House. I cannot predict when the court hearing will take place or its outcome. As a practising politician, however, I know the Taoiseach is answerable and accountable to this House for statements he makes in it.

What are the statements made during 2006, or whenever, that the Taoiseach is concerned about and does not want the tribunal to question him on? That is his responsibility under the articles he mentioned.

When the Taoiseach made statements on certain matters in the Chamber in 2006, the tribunal subsequently wrote to him. His legal team responded and engaged with the tribunal. At that time the Taoiseach or his legal team had no point of principle to discuss and had no difficulty with privilege. Why has this difficulty arisen now? Why all of a sudden is there a point of privilege and a point beyond which the Taoiseach does not want to go?

This is the Taoiseach's second pre-emptive strike against the Mahon tribunal. The first was when he said it would be wrong for a tribunal to run during a general election. Four days after that, the opening statement of the tribunal clearly contradicted the Taoiseach's evidence on bank accounts.

This legal challenge is another pre-emptive strike. The Taoiseach says he now accepts his legal team's advice that he should not be asked questions on particular issues on which he made statements in the House. Why has this arisen all of sudden? What is it that he fears? Is there something in some of those statements that the Taoiseach does not want to be questioned about? I do not have the answer to that. The Taoiseach does.

What does the Taoiseach want out of this legal challenge? Let the court decide as it will. The Taoiseach sits there expecting the people to believe there is nothing going on. What are these statements — or utterances as they call them — that the Taoiseach does not want the tribunal to question him about? Of what is he afraid? He said he wants to co-operate fully with the tribunal and answer all questions comprehensively.

He had no difficulty with privilege in 2006 when his legal team engaged with the tribunal but now, all of a sudden, there is a blockage. The outcome of this challenge, whenever it may be in the High Court or Supreme Court, will delay the tribunal and add to its costs. It means there is something in there that the Taoiseach does not want the tribunal people to question him about. That means, in layman's terms, that there is an attempt here to constrict, restrain and obstruct the tribunal from asking the Taoiseach questions about statements he made in the House. However, he is at least accountable to the House on these issues, irrespective of the judgment of the court in due course. I ask the Taoiseach again to explain what those statements are so the Dáil may hear how he can be held accountable to this body, to which he was properly elected and duly appointed as head of Government.

See this speech in context