Newsmedianews | Irish Parliament news -

Wednesday, 18 October, 2006
Dáil Statement by the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, T.D. on the St. Andrews Agreement
Ceann Comhairle, I propose to share my time with the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform.

The two Governments and the Northern Ireland political parties met last week from 11-13 October at St Andrews in Scotland. Following intensive and complex negotiations, Prime Minister Blair and I published what we believe represents a way forward for the restoration of the political institutions in March 2007.

A copy of the agreement at St Andrews has been placed in the Library of the House.

We appreciate the commitment and engagement of all the parties at St. Andrews.

In particular, I would like to acknowledge the ongoing commitment of the Prime Minister and his determination to push for conclusion of this process.

I also appreciate the support and involvement of the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs during these negotiations.

Let me also express my appreciation to this House for its support for the progress we sought to achieve at St. Andrews. Our position derives enormous strength from the overall approach shared across parties in this chamber. This bi-partisan policy serves the country, and the peace process to which we are all committed, in a very real way.

Since the devolved institutions were suspended in October 2002, there have been three previous intensive negotiations aimed at restoring the devolved institutions. Each of these negotiations encountered its own difficulties and ultimately failed to bring about the restoration of the institutions.

Earlier this year, when we met at Farmleigh, Prime Minister Blair and I decided that we should re-engage in a fresh effort to reach agreement this year. When we met in April in Armagh, we announced that we would work with the parties to have the institutions back in place by 24 November. We were firmly of the view that this push for completion was essential.

The vacuum and overall sense of stalemate was not acceptable.

The meeting at St Andrews took place against the background of the ending of the IRA campaign, the decommissioning of its weapons and the recent IMC Report which confirms that the IRA is honouring its commitments. This summer was also amongst the most peaceful for many decades. All of these developments, together with the engagement between the parties in recent months, represent real progress.

The situation has thus never been more favourable for securing overall agreement.

At St. Andrews, Prime Minister Blair and I had a clear focus on what was needed. We were also very determined that the deadline of 24 November should be respected. Throughout the negotiations at St Andrews, both Governments worked at an intensive level and in a spirit of partnership to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. These negotiations involved the inevitable highs and lows but ultimately the two Governments took upon themselves the responsibility of bringing forward a document for agreement.

The agreement which Prime Minister Blair and I presented to the parties at St Andrews is balanced and fair. It addresses the reasonable concerns of all in relation to the outstanding issues. If implemented, it will bring the peace process to a successful conclusion and assure a fair basis for government in Northern Ireland.

In particular, it envisages wholehearted commitment by all to the full operation of stable power-sharing government and the North/South and East/West arrangements. It envisages full support for policing and the criminal justice institutions, including the Policing Board. It also addresses a number of other key issues in the areas of human rights, equality and victims and the question of a financial package for the newly restored Executive.

All the issues which the Governments addressed at St Andrews are important.

However, everyone in the House will recognise the importance of full support by all for the policing and criminal justice institutions. I welcome the indications from Sinn Féin of a willingness to see this matter resolved. If that can be achieved, and I believe it can, then trust and confidence will follow and the devolution of policing and justice to the Executive can be achieved by May 2008. All of this would be profoundly beneficial for the process and help guarantee the stability and security that Northern Ireland so badly needs.

We have set out a fixed timetable for the implementation of this agreement and have asked the parties to confirm their acceptance by 10 November.

Following endorsement of the St. Andrews Agreement by the parties, legislation will be passed at Westminster to address a number of practical changes to the operation of the Good Friday Agreement arising out of the 2004 Review and more recent detailed engagement between the parties. The Attorney General will advise the Government on any constitutional implications that may arise as a consequence of these changes.

Many of these changes respond in a number of areas to the need for greater efficiency and transparency. They should enable all the institutions to operate in an effective and stable manner, with all parties engaging in good faith and in a spirit of genuine partnership. However, the key fundamentals of the Good Friday Agreement - consent for constitutional change, commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, stable inclusive partnership government, respect for equality and human rights and a balanced institutional accommodation of the key relationships on and between these islands - remain unchanged.

A particularly contentious issue surrounding the mechanics for the appointment of the First and Deputy First Minister was addressed to the satisfaction of the parties. Proposed amendments to the Pledge of Office would require that Ministers would fully participate in the Executive and the North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council and would observe the joint nature of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Further discussions in the new Programme for Government Committee regarding policing and the rule of law in the context of the Pledge of Office are also envisaged.

There is provision for the establishment, consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, of a North-South Parliamentary Forum bringing members of the Seanad and this House together with members of the Assembly. The agreement at St Andrews also envisages an Independent Consultative Forum which would bring together representatives of civil society North and South, the establishment of an East-West Inter-parliamentary Framework as well as the establishment of a standing British-Irish Council Secretariat.

The Assembly is expected to meet to nominate the First and Deputy First Minister on 24 November. This has always been a key date for the Governments, and it remains so. All going well in less that six weeks time, the people of Northern Ireland will have a First and Deputy First Minister for the first time in four years. This would clearly be of landmark significance. It will signal in a very real way indeed that a shared and agreed future for Northern Ireland is in prospect.

There will be an IMC Report in January 2007.

In the light of our discussions with the parties, it is clear that some form of electoral endorsement of the agreement as a whole will be required in the New Year. As of yet, the form of this endorsement is not decided.

The Executive is due to be nominated on 14 March. Over the coming period, the new Programme for Government Committee, at leadership level, will have the responsibility of agreeing all issues relevant to the work of the new Executive thus ensuring that it operates immediately with effect from 26 March.

There is an enormous responsibility on all the parties to walk through the door opened at St Andrews. The conditions for concluding this process have never been more promising. As usual, issues will arise and clarifications will be sought. I would strongly urge parties not to walk away at the first challenge. Despite yesterday's setback, I hope that the new Programme for Government Committee will be able to convene without too much further delay.

It is essential that the momentum out of St Andrews is maintained. The opportunity is there for everybody to engage and to agree. It is the belief of the two Governments that all of the parties should be able to endorse this agreement and to implement it in good faith, building the trust and confidence necessary for a stable and lasting settlement.

The overwhelming response out of St Andrews since last Friday is positive.

There is a new impatience for progress. People can now see that agreement and a shared future is achievable. I urge the parties to work together and to hold their nerve in the face of those who will want to frustrate agreement.

Both Governments will remain in active contact with one another, as well as with the parties, as we seek to give effect to our work at St Andrews. The process will continue to demand careful management to bring it to successful completion.

We are also clear that in the event of failure to reach agreement by 24 November, we will proceed on the basis of the new British-Irish partnership arrangements to implement the Agreement.

Wednesday, 04 October 2006
Three Options’ Speech by Leader of the Green Party, Trevor Sargent TD, in special Dáil debate on Bertie Ahern controversy
Taoiseach, I am pleased to see that, eleven days on from this story breaking, you have decided that Dáil Eireann is the appropriate arena for you to account for your actions and your evasions.

As the Tánaiste appears to have climbed down and has spent the weekend working hard on your speech, and as your own party appears to be unsure of what to do with themselves were you to resign, you may survive this crisis.

For a moment, Taoiseach, let me outline what this debate is not about.

It is not about your personal life.

It is not about the leaking of information. The Tribunal is dealing with that. Indeed, this Government has some nerve to condemn leaks, given the way that you stood by the Minister for Justice, now the Tánaiste, as he used his position to leak Garda files to selected journalists.

It is not about searching for a head on a plate, but it is about ensuring that we have proper standards in Irish political life.

This is about the facts. This affair is about facts of legitimate public interest.

It is about the fact that you took gifts from businesses and businessmen; the fact that, only ten days ago, you misrepresented the established facts on Clare FM and have attempted to avoid answering legitimate questions on the matter ever since; the fact that, as Minister for Finance, you secured payments for personal benefit; and the fact that you have transgressed ethical standards that a Minister or Head of Government would have to follow in Scandanavia, Germany, the UK or the USA, for example.

Faced with these facts last week, your colleagues in Fianna Fail seemed unsure of whether you were an asset or a liability. One Fianna Fail TD was quoted as saying “I'm baffled and I don't know what to think"! Only one went so far as to admit that you were “compromised", but then, on mature reflection, changed his mind.

On this side of the House, we have given you every opportunity to resolve the issues, which are entirely of your own making. And, as the Green Party has a sense of fair play, Taoiseach, we wanted to listen to you. But, I have to say, I am not impressed.

Politics is about doing the right thing.. This debate is about trust in politics. It is about people faced with lifelong mortgages being impoverished to pay for the speculative profits that you have allowed a small group of developers to accrue. Shame on you, Taoiseach, for being beholden to vested interests.

We cannot allow cynicism about our democratic system to grow. Shame on you, Taoiseach, for undermining the people's trust. Shame on you for bringing the office of Taoiseach into disrepute.

This debate is about living and working according to the standards that you purport to hold.

This debate is about the good name of this country.

Was it right? Fundamentally, Taoiseach, this debate is about right and wrong.

The Ethics Act may not have existed in 1994, but ethics certainly did. What you did, in taking money from businesses and businessmen, was and is totally inappropriate and improper. It was unethical. It was wrong.

Most seriously, you have undermined your leadership by surrendering your moral authority. How can you be expected to bring to book the Ministers who serve with you? They will ask: “Who are you to set standards?"

In addressing the question of whether what you have done is right, I am struck by the fact, Taoiseach, that not one of your Ministers has said “What the Taoiseach did was right.” Your Deputy Leader said that you were “not incorrect” is clearly the formulation of a lawyer and, as a defence, is both weak and irrelevant to this debate.

It must be noted that you are not the only person to have shown himself to be ethically compromised, in the course of this affair. The PDs have shown themselves to be more interested in clinging to power than in standards in public office.

Meanwhile, Government parties and other parties in this House continue to accept corporate donations, beholding themselves to corporate interests.

Taoiseach, you have three options by which you can show leadership:

You can resign. By your own standards, which you set out in 1997 and which you have applied to other office-holders, you would be gone. If I was in your position Taoiseach, I would have had no option but to resign.

You could go to people, giving them the choice of whose ethics and political culture they want running this country.

There is a third option. You can take positive action. Will you, Taoiseach, take steps to redress the damage that has been done to public confidence in the political system? Will you introduce legislation to ban corporate donations to political parties and to limit personal donations to nominal sums? Will you cut the financial ties between vested interests and policy-makers forever?

By anyone's standards, including your own expressed standards, you should not be Taoiseach today. You have lost moral authority. What you have done is not right. It is unethical, improper, and not befitting of high office.

This issue is bigger than you. This is bigger than your job. This is bigger than your party, or indeed, your Coalition partners.

Taoiseach, we have taken up too much newsprint, too much airtime, too much legislative time, with this affair.

We need to end this. Let politics return to the issues: health, housing, transport, education, energy.

I give you your choices, Taoiseach: take positive action to clean up Irish politics; do the decent thing and resign; or give the electorate the choice between your politics and mine.

3 October, 2006
Speech by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, T.D. in Dáil Eireann
General
In the discharge of my public duties, the interests of the Irish people have always taken precedence over everything else. I believe the Irish people recognise that this is so. Over the last week, I have encountered people in different parts of the country and I have been touched by their sense of balance about this issue and their innate common decency about the personal dilemma I was in during 1993 and 1994.

False allegations about me
Last week, I put on the record of the House a number of the allegations that have been made against me at the Tribunals. Each and every one of these charges is baseless. They are false and are no more than a tissue of lies. However, these allegations were made and the Tribunal is required to investigate them insofar as they fall within their terms of reference. It is in that context that I have been cooperating with that Tribunal and will continue do so.

Those who have made these allegations have gone to extraordinary lengths to set me up. For example, a forged letter, purporting to show that I had taken steps to open a bank account in Mauritius was sent to the Moriarty Tribunal. I can confirm that correspondence was subsequently forwarded to the Tribunal which demonstrates the letter to be a forgery. I am placing these documents in the library of the House.

In order to assist the Tribunal with its inquiries into some of the lurid allegations made against me, I gave all my bank and financial records to the Tribunal. I have produced all my records going back for a long number of years which show that I have not enriched myself through politics and have not abused public office.

Leaked information
I disclosed my financial records to the Tribunal. It is deeply regrettable that these confidential records appeared in a newspaper.

The House will be aware that arising from financial pressures I encountered at the time of my separation, a number of my friends decided to come to my assistance. The loans I received from my friends totalled £39,000, that is £22,500 plus £16,500. I wish to confirm to the House that on Friday I repaid each one of these loans with interest calculated at 5% per annum compound and at a total cost of €90,867.

Manchester event overview
In my RTE interview, I put into the public domain that I had received a contribution arising from a function I attended in Manchester. I publicly disclosed this payment in order that the full facts relating to all payments made to me during a difficult personal and family time would be available to the public.

I do not know the exact amount of the sterling cash I received. However, I know that when I changed this money to Irish pounds, it came to £7,938.49.

At the time I lodged this money into my account (on 11th October 1994), the sterling / punt exchange rate was 0.9883 (the sterling equivalent of Irish £7,938.49 was circa Sterling £7,845.61).

As is well known, I have always been a supporter of Manchester United Football Club and since my youth I have regularly travelled to Manchester.

From 1979 to 1996, I would have attended roughly 6 Man United home games each season. I would travel with friends, sometimes by boat and sometimes by plane. Over the years, I have developed a very close affinity with that city and its people. I have a longstanding association with the Dublin Association in Manchester, the Manchester-Irish Festival and the Irish World Heritage Centre.

The function that has been the source of recent controversy was not a political function or a fundraiser. It was just a way for me to keep in touch with members of the Irish community in a city I visit often and have great ties with. I had attended similar dinners and social occasions previously.

Details of the event
This dinner was organised by the late Mr Tim Kilroe in the Four Seasons Hotel in Manchester. I had a long personal history with Mr Kilroe, whom I counted as a friend. At the end of the dinner, unsolicited by me, I was presented with cash of circa Sterling £8,000 made up by individual contributions from the attendance of approximately 25 people. Mr Kilroe presented the monies to me and I presume he had collected them as well.

Unfortunately, Mr Kilroe has since died, and it is not possible to obtain any list of attendees or contributors at this remove, 12 years later.

I can confirm that Mr John Kennedy attended the dinner as he has publicly said. As I attended various other functions in Manchester over the years, I cannot state with certainty who were the other persons in attendance. I do not want to name someone by mistake and then be accused of misleading the House. I travelled to Manchester with a number of personal friends (as I did for all of the matches) and on this occasion, my friends also attended the function. Tony Kett was on this trip and attended this function. If the names of any other people who attended come to my attention - and if I can be certain that they attended - I will pass those names to the Tribunal.

I did not receive the money as a fee for a speaking engagement. In fact, I did not even deliver a formal speech. I merely said a few words and engaged in an informal question and answer session. I did not solicit the money and I did not expect to receive it. I believe Mr Kilroe organised a collection at the function for me because he knew, through my friends, of my personal circumstances, and that he may perhaps have told others.

Key issues
There are two fundamental issues that I now want to address. Firstly, whether any code of ethics or conduct was breached. Secondly, whether there is any tax liability in respect of the receipt by me of the sum of about £8,000.

1983 Government Procedure Instruction - the relevant code in 1994 The 1983 Government Procedure Instruction (which was applicable in 1994) is crystal clear. It says there are no formal guidelines on the issue of gifts to Ministers. The practice had been to accept relatively inexpensive gifts to mark occasions such as official openings. There was a practice relating to expensive gifts given to Ministers. That practice related to gifts given to Ministers by virtue of their office.

Indeed, section 15 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 (which was not in force at the time of the Manchester event) reflects this principle by stating explicitly that the rules apply to gifts given to the office holder “by virtue of his or her office” - personal gifts and donations are expressly excluded. The 1983 Instruction did not address personal gifts or political donations.

The sum in the region of £8,000 was not received by virtue of my office.

It was given to me personally by a group of about 25 people to whom I spoke in a personal capacity.

No breach of 1983 code
I shall now explain why there was no breach of the Government Procedure Instruction.

1. The trip was a personal one. It does not appear in my Ministerial diary which would be the case if it was an official trip.
2. There was no formal invitation extended to me as Minister for Finance or sent to the Department of Finance.
3. The Department of Finance did not pay the costs of my travel or accommodation. I did.
4. There was no script prepared by officials in the Department of Finance as would normally be the case if I was giving a speech on official business and thus by virtue of my office.
5. I was accompanied on the trip not by officials, but by a number of friends and we attended a Manchester United fixture.
6. I had attended similar events before and after the 1994 one, both while in office and out of office.
7. At the 1994 event, I was given circa GB£8,000. These monies were not solicited by me. The above facts lead to only one rational conclusion. My attendance in Manchester and at the event was not in an official capacity. I was not at the event in Manchester by virtue of my office. The 1983 Government Procedure Instruction simply did not apply.

Legal interpretation of the 1983 code
I have received advice from Counsel that I was not in breach of the 1983 Government Procedure Instruction. Counsel have said clearly and unequivocally that paragraph 31 of the 1983 Government Procedure Instruction did not apply to the Manchester event and the monies received on that occasion.

I wish to say a little about the legal context in which these events occurred. The obligations which apply to Office-holders under the relevant legislation and code of conduct are significantly more detailed now than they were in 1993 and 1994. However, the spirit and intent are broadly similar. At that time, the Government Procedure Instructions envisaged that Ministers would not accept expensive gifts arising from the performance of their duties.

The 1983 code reflected the more explicit provisions of the 1995 Act ?Dáil Debates The Ethics in Public Office Bill was prepared by the Government of which I was a member. In the case of gifts to office-holders, the main purpose of the Bill as described by the then Minister of State Eithne Fitzgerald in Dáil Eireann was to provide that “if a gift is given to an office holder and if the value of that gift exceeds £500, that gift becomes the property of the State in cases where the gift is given by virtue of that office.”

There was no intention of inhibiting the normal relationships of support and solidarity between friends when there was clearly no intention of influencing or compromising an office holder.

This was made evident during the course of the debate on the Bill, for example in June 1995. Concern was expressed by a number of deputies as to whether it was appropriate that the fact that medical or legal services had been supplied free or below cost to a member would be required to be disclosed. A particular possibility of whether legal services - being provided in anticipation of ultimate payment on conclusion of a case or a Tribunal of Inquiry - would require to be disclosed in respect of a year when the fee had yet to be paid. That was argued to be unacceptable.

Seanad debates
These issues were repeated in the Seanad debate on the Bill in July 1995.

Minister of State Fitzgerald assured Senators that medical or legal services supplied free or at a discount, to a value of more than £500, where this is provided by a friend or relative “without any suggestion of trying to influence or create an obligation” would not require disclosure of any kind. She said “if somebody's friends organise for personal reasons to pay for his or her medical treatment, they are not trying to influence that person in the performance of his or her functions and this would be exempt.”

This was the understanding of obligations under which politicians were (and by sponsoring the Ethics in Public Office Bill, were intending to be) bound at the time of these events in 1993 and 1994.

It was clearly understood that, in an appropriate context, politicians could receive gifts from friends without creating obligations or requiring disclosure. This was especially the case when the privacy of their personal lives reasonably required protection, as in the case of legal or medical - and I would say family - circumstances. Ministers could also accept gifts of a modest character, defined as less than £500, even when this arose in the context of official duties.

Furthermore, under the legislation which the Government at that time put forward - the Electoral Bill 1994 - donations received for political, as opposed to personal reasons could be retained and disclosed only where an individual donation exceeded £500.

Given my family and personal circumstances, which provided the context for the loans and gifts which I accepted in 1993 and 1994; given the clear intent of those who made these payments in respect of my personal purposes; and given the content of the ethical code in place then and since, I considered that I had not breached my obligations as an office holder in any way.

Fundraising and personal gifts are permitted
Ministers from all political backgrounds can and do attend fundraising events, can and do receive donations and can and do receive personal gifts.

Monies are raised at such functions that are attended by Ministers.

Ministers do not attend these functions in an official capacity. They do not raise these funds by virtue of their office.

What matters is that funds are only received in circumstances which are legally and ethically permissible, and especially that the receipt of the funds does not give rise to the expectation of a quid pro quo. The Manchester event did not involve any quid pro quo for anybody.

Tax liability
I have been separately advised by two eminent tax advisers that I have no tax liability in respect of the Manchester monies. The funds were from persons based in the Manchester area, who were not based in Ireland and therefore the sums were not chargeable to gift tax. In any event, the aggregate sum was less than £8,000 (Irish) and this was well below the threshold for gift tax which then applied, which was more than £11,000.

Particularly bearing in mind the small gift exemption of £500 which then applied, there can be no question of a liability to gift tax.

The funds were later lodged to my bank account in AIB in Dublin.

Regret and apology There are few of us who - with the benefit of hindsight - would not change some of our past decisions. No one is infallible or perfect. If I had anticipated in 1993 and 1994 that my decision to accept loans from friends or the gift of monies in Manchester would cause such difficulties and media intrusion for my family and friends and would give rise to distortion of my motives and misrepresentation of my conduct, I would not have accepted a penny.

As I survey the events of the last two weeks, I realise that my judgment in accepting help from good and loyal friends and the gift in Manchester (albeit in the context of personal and family circumstances) was an error.

It was a misjudgment although not in breach of any law or code of conduct at the time. It was not illegal or impermissible to have done what I did.

But I now regret the choices I made in those difficult and dark times. The bewilderment caused to the public about recent revelations has been deeply upsetting for me and others near and dear to me. To them and to the Irish people, I offer my apologies.

Dáil and Seanad Reports