...the change of mind
The following is the transcript of an exchange between the Taoiseach, and counsel for the tribunal Des O'Neill on why he changed his mind about purchasing his home in Drumcondra.
Mr O'Neill: "...Can I put it to you that, in clear terms, last Thursday on oath, you offered the following explanation for your behaviour in taking out the money, and in the context of purchasing sterling - it's at the bottom of the second column on page 23280 - and it reads 'Because I changed my mind about proceeding with 44 Beresford and was now actively looking at acquiring a different property. I decided that I should return Mick Wall's contribution to him in that context, part of the £50,000 that was withdrawn on January 19th, for its then intended use in refurbishment of the house was actually used to purchase sterling with the intention of returning it to Mick Wall in the light of my then change of mind'. Okay?
Now, trying to interpret that, Mr Ahern, can we analyse it and say that firstly, it is saying that in January when you took out the money it was with the intention that it would be used for its original purpose or otherwise called its then purpose, is that right?
Bertie Ahern: Yes. Well first of all you say my behaviour of taking out the money, I hope there is nothing wrong with taking your money out of your own account.
Des O'Neill: Of course not. It think it's curious I think you agree, Mr Ahern --
Bertie Ahern: I am delighted if I made a planning tribunal into corruption of what Mr O'Callaghan gave me curious, I hope Mr Gilmartin gets the same grilling on these things as I am but anyway that's neither here nor there but anyway can I just make the point --
Des O'Neill: On that point, Mr Ahern?
Bertie Ahern: Can I answer?
Des O'Neill: You can answer the question but if you choose to make statements, Mr Ahern, you must expect that you can be questioned in relation to the basis of making such statements where they are not answers to queries put to you in an inquisitorial purpose or examination, but are offered for some alternative purpose?
Bertie Ahern: I have no difficulty with that, I have been sitting here for three days doing that.
Chairman: Yes, but Mr Ahern, this is the only purposes of this questioning is to establish the facts relating to the withdrawal of the £50,000. There is no suggestion and never has been a suggestion that a person who has 50,000 is not entitled to take it back, that is completely irrelevant.
Bertie Ahern: Chairman, if I can, chairman? On January 19th, 1995, I don't recall the day, if I could I would be more precise, but at that stage I was not taoiseach. I had entered into an arrangement that we would do the refurbishment of the house. I could have taken the money out, happy to take it out. I take Mr O'Neill's point, if I it stayed in it might have been handier, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, anyway I am not arguing about that.
But I am being asked why did I take it out and curiosity about that. My recollection is that I either, at that stage, decided that it might be best for me just to take out the money and give the money over totally to Michael Wall, it probably would have went back into his account if I had done that, into the main account with Celia Larkin, where the matters would be purchased out of, or the fact I know that I looked at several other houses after that period where I was thinking of buying a house, or I was also thinking of just staying in the rented accommodation which I was in, which was in St Luke's, so my mind, and I think it's Justice Faherty asked the point, my mind wasn't made up precisely whether or not what I would do. Whether I would purchase a house in my own right, whether I would rent that house and continue along with the arrangement, whether I would just give over the money to the others to deal with because I would be around the country.
What I can tell the tribunal with certainty, what I did was I continued on with the arrangement. So Justice Faherty, just from your point it was a fair question, why didn't I mention that before? I don't think it's of any great relevance, but I am just giving my recollection now. I did think of buying the house or just not bothering with it and staying in the apartment that I was in. But when Michael Wall had the accident - I felt fairly duty bound, I had entered into an agreement with him. The man had a very serious accident and then I continued on with the arrangement.
I wasn't that comfortable with the arrangement for a number of reasons that I don't have to go into here. It wasn't great satisfaction to everybody, but that was my state of mind. It was no ulterior motive other than that.
Des O'Neill: Mr Ahern, if you had changed your mind about proceeding with this project, which is something I suggest that you would have communicated with Mr Wall and Ms Larkin, isn't that right?
Bertie Ahern: That I changed --
Des O'Neill: If you had decided you weren't going ahead, request this project, could I suggest to you that you would have informed both Mr Wall and Ms Larkin of your change of mind?
Bertie Ahern: If I was going to implement that, but I never implemented it.
Des O'Neill: No. You changed your mind. You state in your statement which is on screen in front of you: 'Because I'd changed my mind about proceeding with Beresford'.
Bertie Ahern: Yes.
Des O'Neill: You did change your mind. Whatever about the consequences of it were, do you accept that you changed your mind about proceeding with it?
Bertie Ahern: I accept that --
Des O'Neill: Fine.
Bertie Ahern: No, please, I don't - these yes or no answers. I was of the view that I would not go ahead with the arrangement to rent and an option to buy Beresford, the answer to that is yes.
Des O'Neill: Fine. Thank you.
Bertie Ahern: But I did not, did I not implement that position. I did not go off discussing it with anybody. I didn't do that. I went on and followed what my original decision was back in the summer of 1994, so I didn't implement the change."