Opposition's intent was 'spurious', says Cowen

TAOISEACH BRIAN Cowen has accused the Opposition of “trying to take the low road to high office” with its no-confidence motion in Minister for Defence Willie O’Dea.

Mr Cowen said the Opposition’s intent was “completely spurious in both timing and motivation” and he was “happy to affirm complete confidence” in Mr O’Dea and “we look forward to him continuing to serve the Government and the people”.

The Taoiseach was speaking as he introduced the 90-minutes debate on the Government’s motion of confidence in the Minister, which was comfortably won by 80 votes to 69.

Mr Cowen sharply criticised Fine Gael and said the party’s intent to seek the Minister’s resignation “is indicative of a growing tendency within the Opposition that focuses on personality rather than on politics”.

He said “the Opposition’s eagerness for a motion of no-confidence” was based on Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny’s “promise to his parliamentary party in the aftermath of the George Lee debacle that ‘what I’m going to do now is be myself’.”

He also hit out at Mr Kenny’s comment that he found it “truly astonishing” the Taoiseach did nothing about a “matter of the most serious import” two months after it became public knowledge.

Mr Cowen asked “why did he not demand a statement from either me or the Minister for Defence before now?

“Why are we debating the matter this week?” Mr Cowen asked if the Fine Gael leader was “trying to divert attention from his crisis by foisting a drama on to somebody else”.

The motion “owes more to Deputy Kenny’s need to prove to his members that he is, in the words of Deputy Coveney, ‘up to the job’ ”.

The Opposition’s criticism of Mr O’Dea “does not arise from anything he has done in the course of his duties as Minister for Defence”. The Opposition tried to claim the Minister was in breach of the Cabinet code of conduct but this was the Opposition “generating more heat than light”.

Mr Cowen added that it did not serve the Oireachtas well “for people to throw around or imply ill-founded allegations of perjury in a coarse attempt to secure political advantage. Let us be clear: perjury does not arise here and it is despicable that some have suggested it does.”

Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said it was an “abuse of public life to have this type of debate even in progress”.

He said the matter of public interest in the defamation case ended when the case was settled, with the exception of Mr O’Dea’s position as a Minister and “whether his conduct in court in some way undermined that”.

He said that the word “perjury” was used in the Seanad and used very freely in the newspapers. “The fact is that perjury occurs only when an intentional misleading occurs,” he said.

“However, the word ‘perjury’ has been insinuated into the debate and people have nodded and winked in its direction.”

Mr Lenihan said that either the Minister “made an honest mistake or he intentionally misled but there is no evidence that he intentionally misled”.

He said, “the Opposition has not produced a shred of evidence that he intentionally misled anyone on this court proceeding”, but it “constantly insinuates that in some sense he is guilty of an offence which he never committed”.

Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan said the “crucial issue” was when there was a mistake in the affidavit and something that was not true, it was acknowledged in court, dealt with in court, accepted by the other party and reported in the media as such.

“Our role in Government is to get on with the crucial issues that face this country,” he said.