The full text of the speech by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in Dáil Éireann
Introduction
In Easter 2000, I first became aware of an allegation that I had received a bribe of £50,000 from Owen O'Callaghan. I sued in respect of that allegation. The source of that allegation was Mr Denis "Starry" O'Brien. At the hearing of my defamation proceedings, the trial Judge found the allegation to be false and baseless. In addition, Mr Tom Gilmartin had made allegations to the Flood Tribunal. These concerned an alleged payment in 1989 of £50,000 (which I believe is the same allegation as made by Denis "Starry" O'Brien), a payment to me of £30,000 sometime prior to 1992 and a further payment out of a sum of £150,000 allegedly paid by Owen O'Callaghan to Mr Albert Reynolds. Each of these allegations is false and untrue. Counsel for the Mahon Tribunal has stated that there is no evidence establishing any payment by Owen O'Callaghan to me.
After four days in the witness box, that remains the position. There is not a scintilla of evidence of any such payments. This is so because I never received any such payments.
I also want to point out to this house that these allegations are not the only allegations made against me by Tom Gilmartin. Among the more bizarre and lurid allegations made is that I procured two Ministers to blackmail another Minister in the context of tax designation. I will not dignify that allegation by revealing its sleazy details to this House. But I can assure you it is as baseless as it is vicious.
Because of various allegations, the Mahon Tribunal sought extensive information and discovery from me. It has involved a trawl of my financial affairs for a very extensive period. So be it. I have given them the information and documentation available to me. I attended a private session, which I was not legally obliged to do, and I have now given evidence in public. The Tribunal will assess and sift that evidence and reach its conclusions in due course.
Normally I would refrain from commenting upon the workings of the Tribunal - that are ongoing - but I now find myself in the position that I must respond to calls for me to resign. I will therefore take some time addressing the recurring questions and issues concerning my evidence.
All of the Evidence Last Saturday, on the Marion Finucane Show, I urged people to read all the transcripts of my evidence at the Mahon Tribunal. I understand the difficulties the media have in trying to compress eighteen hours of evidence into limited space. This means that sometimes accusations are made against me by sound bite. I do contend that for anyone interested in these matters the best, most thorough and detailed examination the Irish public can get of my testimony is to read the entire transcripts.
Some simple facts need to be stated and restated. The lodgements under consideration by the Mahon Tribunal started within 30 days of the ending of my matrimonial proceedings, were completed within a 2 year period and are the only lodgements being examined in a career of more than 30 years in politics. They are the facts.
To many, my affairs are unorthodox. That was because my lifestyle - in that dark period - was itself unorthodox. Many who have gone through the trauma of marital separation and legal proceedings will have an empathy with me. Mine was not a perfect life in a perfect matrimonial and family environment. But as I emerged from that period, I was assisted by friends and my affairs were regularised over a short time
Now, however, those who last October and last May said they would leave matters to be adjudicated by the Tribunal seek to sit as judge, jury and executioner. One day they blow hot and the next day they blow cold. Last May to them due process was an excuse not to comment but today, political accountability is the pretext for their questioning. I have said repeatedly that I look forward to giving my evidence at the Tribunal. I have done so. I now willingly and with some eagerness take this opportunity to challenge my accusers on the opposite side of this House. I will therefore deal, yet again, with their allegations, their sound bites and their glib criticisms.
I will address the various issues separately.
The US$45,000 After the conclusion of my evidence on Monday, media reports and political commentary was to the effect that I was unable to contradict the dollar allegation. This is simply not so. Such comments are based on a misunderstanding which I shall expose. But before doing so, the salient facts in relation to the US$45,000 are as follows:
A bank official, Mr Philip Murphy, who worked in AIB O'Connell Street has given evidence that there never was a deposit of US$45,000.
Ms Rosemary Murtagh, having been taken through the documentation in the AIB Remit Room agreed that the hypothesis that US$45,000 was remitted by the branch to AIB headquarters was 'destroyed'.
The money lodged came from Michael Wall from Manchester and he did not deal in dollars, rather he dealt in sterling and/or Irish punt.
There are a variety of combinations of Irish and sterling that gives exactly US$45,000. Likewise, there are a variety of combinations of Irish and sterling that give exactly US$25,000, US$30,000, UK$40,000 and US$50,000. I could go on ad infinitum.
The exact sum lodged in Celia Larkin's account on 5 December, 1994 amounts - when a conversion rate within the range applicable that day is applied to it - to the following foreign currency sums:
71.5 million Italian lira; and 237,700 French francs.
So far I have not been accused of receiving lire or French francs. No doubt the opposition will now seek an inquiry into that.
My independent expert, Mr Stronge, having analysed the documentation from the Branch and from the Remit Room in AIB headquarters has concluded that the evidence does not substantiate a lodgement of US$45,000.
There has been much confusion about the basis for the opinion of Mr Stronge. He prepared his preliminary report (that was submitted to the Tribunal) having heard all of the evidence. That evidence which concluded with the evidence of Rosemary Murtagh finished on Tuesday 11 September last. As I was giving evidence on the Thursday morning, a preliminary report could only be furnished to me by that stage. It was that preliminary report that I referred to in my statement at the Tribunal. That preliminary report and its conclusions is based solely and exclusively on the Branch and Remit Room documentation.
The view is abroad that the report of Mr Stronge (which was put in evidence at the Tribunal on Monday) was based on 67 material or actual calculations. This is not so. The mathematical formula by which those calculations are carried out was perfectly valid and they were based on the evidence of banking witnesses given up to July. But the AIB's evidence changed in September. Because that evidence changed, the calculations therefore were no longer applicable.
But, and I emphasise this, that is not the factual basis for the opinion contained in the report of Mr Stronge. His conclusions are based on entirely separate and distinct reasoning. It is based on the evidence and the documentation of AIB and not on the 67 calculations. That is why I am now availing of this opportunity to nail the lie that I have somehow failed to establish that there was no US$45,000. Mr Stronge - a distinguished banker who was the former Chief Operating Officer of Bank of Ireland Corporate Banking and lectures in Financial Reporting at the Smurfit Graduate School of Business and in Financial Statement Analysis to the National College of Ireland - will be giving evidence to the Tribunal in due course that the AIB evidence and documentation does not substantiate a lodgement of US$45,000. Mr Stronge is a truly independent witness. I do not know him. I have never met him. I have never had a discussion with him. My lawyers retained him as an independent expert.
Finally, in this context, the branch documentation is relied upon to demonstrate that my evidence is wrong. Such an assertion ignores the reality of the evidence already given by bank officials. They have acknowledged that what are known as the 'narratives' on the banking documentation are of no accounting significance and are unreliable. They have told the Tribunal that it is very possible that the sterling and dollar sums were transcribed onto the wrong sheets but that this had no accounting significance because all sums were expressed in Irish pounds and so long as the Irish pound sums balanced no, issue would arise.
If $45,000 had been lodged in the branch, the branch would have remitted up that sum to the Remit Room in Bank Headquarters. However the Remit room documentation is not consistent with a remittal of US $45,000 and accordingly, the narrative on the documentation in the branch must be wrong. It contains a simple and understandable error and one which the Bank are not concerned with because it has no accounting significance. That is the type of error that bank officials readily acknowledge can occur. In this case, it has occurred.
Let me make it clear. I did not received US$45,000. I did not receive 71.5 million Italian lire and I did not receive 237,700 french francs . The money was a combination of sterling and punt. They are the facts as brought out before the Tribunal. That is the unvarnished truth. I am satisfied that my evidence will be vindicated in this regard.
Discovery I made discovery in accordance with the requirements of the Tribunal. The Chairman at the Tribunal has made it clear that there is no suggestion that there is some document that I failed to discover. I have given hundreds upon hundreds of pages of discovery and answered questions not just about five lodgements but about 86 lodgements. These have included questions about money spent on the education of my children and the maintenance of my wife. I have dealt with these issues in exhaustive detail. But as there appears to be a lingering suspicion about the quality of my discovery (although this a matter for the Tribunal) I will now address it in this House.
There are a number of recurring themes which I will address separately:
The Michael Wall Money
The monies lodged to the Celia Larkin account of the 5 December, 1994 belong to Michael Wall. They were applied in relation to works to the house at 44 Beresford. That was the house that he bought and he owned. The monies on deposit in that account were not my monies nor were they applied for my benefit. So far as I and my lawyers are concerned, this was not an account in respect of which discovery applied.
Celia Larkin - the £50,000 I informed the Tribunal that I transferred money to Celia Larkin's account in December 1994. I did this in a letter to the Tribunal of 7 February, 2005. There is no mystery about this. While the money was my money, the account was not my account. It was Celia Larkin's account. However, I wanted to make it plain to the Tribunal that I had transferred my monies to her account. This I did by referring to this fact in the letter of 7 February that accompanied my Affidavit of Discovery.
I spent night after night and weekends and many days addressing the issue of discovery. I unearthed a voluminous amount of documentation. I disclosed over 20 accounts in my name or in my joint name with my wife or in the name of my daughters. I did not consciously or wilfully omit any account from Affidavit of Discovery. I believe, and this is also my lawyer's view, that I have fully complied with and discharged my discovery obligations. The legal issues in this regard can be addressed at the Tribunal by the lawyers representing the Tribunal and my legal team if the need arises. I, however, am satisfied that I have done nothing wrong.
Alleged Delay There is a false view that I did not make discovery for two and a half years. This is untrue. Not only did I make discovery on 7 February, 2005 and the 27 March 2006, I gave to the Tribunal (although not obliged by law so to do) two letters of authorisation (given on the 10 June,2005 and the 6 April, 2006). This authorised the Tribunal to interview my bankers and obtain all bank documents and I thereby waived confidentiality. Hence, the Tribunal had full access to my accounts and information concerning those accounts. The Tribunal also obtained discovery against AIB. I consented to that discovery.
Moreover, during the greater part of this period, the Tribunal was precluded by court order from inquiring in public into Quarryvale II. Thus, while I was dealing with the Tribunal there were Court orders affecting how the Tribunal could deal with Quarryvale II. The way was only cleared for it to conduct that public inquiry when the Supreme Court gave its judgement in the Owen O'Callaghan case on 30 March, 2007. Before that, the public inquiry could not proceed. An injunction against it so proceeding was granted by a High Court judge on 8 December, 2005.
A £30,000 limit on Discovery Because of the potential extent of the discovery sought by the Tribunal, I through my lawyers, sought to limit it to sums of £30,000 and above. What was the basis for this? In the Denis "Starry" O'Brien litigation, a High Court judge, at my Counsel's request, limited discovery to the sum of £50,000 and above. This was because the allegation then being made by Denis "Starry" O'Brien was that I had received a bribe of £50,000 from Owen O'Callaghan. The principle informing the making of that order in the High Court is exactly the same principle that my lawyers sought to apply to discovery to the Tribunal where the allegations I was then facing involved the assertion that I had received £50,000 in 1989 and £30,000 some time in or around 1992. Hence, the approach that was suggested to the Tribunal by my lawyers in relation to discovery was one based on exactly what happened in the High Court when discovery was being addressed in the Denis "Starry" O'Brien case. That was the approach that I suggested be followed. Whether it would have been followed or not, it would have been absolutely clear that I was not operating bank accounts at the time. And that this was so from the 1980s.
In making my actual discovery on 7 February, 2005 I made clear (as I would have done in all circumstances) that I had not operated bank accounts since the 1980s including the period from the actual separation from my wife.
Changing of Evidence The fundamentals of my evidence have remained the same. I have added some detail and elaborated in some areas for reasons which I shall presently explain. I make no apologies for giving my best recollection when giving evidence. It is a matter of reality that one's recollection can be helped as new information comes to light. That is what occurred in my case. Let me now explain:
In the run up to this year's General Election, the transcripts were leaked to the media. An issue arose in relation to a lodgement in June and another one in December which totalled sterling £30,000. I had already confirmed to the Tribunal that these were sterling lodgements when I met them on 5 April. Given the publicity surrounding the illegal leaks of the transcripts, I was contacted by a number of people. They recalled from me that I had in fact looked at other houses in early 1995. This refreshed my memory that, in fact, I was at one stage not proceeding with the deal with Michael Wall and therefore I would return the money to him.
Hence, the rationale for converting punts into sterling £30,000. It was because of the leaks during the General Election that this information was brought to my attention. Hence I informed the Tribunal of this when I was giving my evidence.
On 21 April, 2006 a report from my accountant, Des Peelo, was sent to the Mahon Tribunal. It stated that the sum of circa sterling £8,000 was lodged. Why was this so? There is a very simple explanation for this. The lodgement on the 11 October, 1994 was one that I knew included some of the Manchester money. But I could not be precise as to the exact composition of the amount lodged. The report from Mr. Des Peelo relied on the Central Bank Rate rather than the precise exchange rates applicable in AIB on the day. Those published AIB rates were not available to me or Mr. Peelo at the time. This meant that, by necessity, the sterling £8,000 sum could not be exact.. It is the use of the Central Bank Rate that created this uncertainty. I did not see the actual bank conversion rates used by AIB until after the private session with the Tribunal on 5 April, 2007.
Purchasing the sterling £30,000 I said in the private session that I did not recollect purchasing the sterling £30,000 but assumed I had purchased it from AIB O'Connell Street and mentioned that AIB O'Connell Street and AIB Drumcondra were the only two banks I dealt with. It became clear from the O'Connell Street branch documentation that I could not have purchased the sterling there. The Tribunal has not circulated the AIB Drumcondra documentation but in either event, I cannot be precise as to where and when and by whom the money was purchased. I am, however, continuing to make enquiries.
Conclusion The period of time under consideration was a difficult period in my life. I was busy attending to the many obligations of holding office as Minister for Finance and then as the leader of Fianna Fail. If I am to be criticised for not having a precise and clear recollection of all matters of detail (some 12/13 years on) then so be it. I have done my best at recalling these events. Indeed, the very people who, now criticise me for lack of recollection on detail are the very people who if I had a precise recollection on every detail, would treat that as being suspicious. I have given my evidence as honestly as I can and to the best of my ability. The human mind makes mistakes of recollections, forgets details and mingles events. That is life. Everyone in this chamber has experience of forgetting matters or has only partial recollection of important events in their lives.
Through the process of discussion and the revelation of other facts, new memories and recollections come to the fore. To err in one's recollection is normal and honest.
The essential facts of the transactions which have been the subject of the Tribunal's enquiries are clear. The expenditure of the amounts in question in respect of the refurbishment and purchase of my house have also been corroborated.
No alternative suggestion has been made - and none can be made - as to the source of these payments, or any other context in which they might have been paid. That is because there were none. Only a determination by my political foes to stretch the available evidence with malign invention can put a sinister construction on events which, however unorthodox to some, were truthfully described in my sworn evidence.
I find somewhat distasteful an obsession about the minutia of my life. Perhaps I should not be surprised. Nor indeed have I come to expect consistency from the opposition. One day they want to leave my affairs to the decision of the Tribunal and the next day they want to pre-empt the work of the Tribunal. I suppose I should not be surprised. In Fine Gael, we have a party that deliberately suppressed and concealed a document from the Moriarty Tribunal. What lapse of recollection resulted in that? Fine Gael is also a party that, conveniently, destroyed it's financial records. They preach integrity in public office, a standard they do not match in their conduct. I was interested to read last Sunday that a Fine Gael public representative arranged for a complaint to be made about me to the Standards in Public Office and melted like the snow when the complaint went nowhere. They spin and they leak to the newspapers - and then deny their involvement in this. For Fine Gael, integrity is a tactic not a principle.
A brief review of the transcripts of the cross examination of Tom Gilmartin shows how his evidence is crumbling. I can only assume that Fine Gael is aware of this. One day they want due process, the next they want accountability. This House established the Tribunal. Let it get on with its work. It is the judges who will assess and sift the detail and make an objective assessment of the situation.
Finally, I will say this - I have served a long time in public office. I have self-evidently not benefited in any way from such service. There is and can be no suggestion that I did anything improper for anyone.
I have always been consistent in this one fundamental matter - I did not receive any payments from Mr. O'Callaghan and am entirely innocent of any imputation that I have received improper payments from anybody.