STATEMENT:LABOUR NOMINEE for the presidency Michael D Higgins has disowned a statement issued on his behalf which criticised the voting record of Senator David Norris on the 2008 bank guarantee.
The statement, which was sent out by e-mail by his campaign on Wednesday evening, said the Trinity Senator was “being somewhat economical with the truth when he has claimed on several occasions during the presidential election campaign that he ‘voted against the bank guarantee’.”
The then government announced the decision to introduce the guarantee on the morning of October 1st, 2008: “The official record of the Seanad (Vol 191-2) shows that Senator Norris did not speak in the Seanad debate on the Bill and did not participate in any of the Seanad votes on the legislation.”
The statement added: “The official record shows that only Labour Senators voted against this legislation.”
It said Senator Norris voted against the scheme almost three weeks later, when “public and media opinion had turned strongly against the guarantee”.
But the critical vote was taken on October 1st: “Senator Norris missed this crucial debate and votes and he should be more honest with the public on the issue.”
Responding yesterday morning, the Norris campaign said: “At 7.15pm on the evening of 1st October, 2008, Senator David Norris voted against the amendment to the Order of Business to allow the Seanad to force through a guillotined Bank Guarantee Bill which was being forced through the Dáil and the Government then wished to force through the Seanad without an opportunity for appropriate debate.”
The statement added: “It is the Senator’s view that the statement issued by Michael D Higgins is intended to act as a deflection to his own support in 1993 for the Tax Amnesty Bill (Senator Norris voted against this Bill).”
However, in a debate between the two candidates at NUI Maynooth, Mr Higgins said his statement was a “botún san oifig (mistake in the office)” and added: “They didn’t clear the statement with me before it went out. What happened as I understand it, was that, on the Order of Business, David voted on that. And then, on the substantive issue it went on through a long debate and that’s what it is referring to.