I welcome the decision by the Taoiseach to permit a debate on these matters, as requested by the Opposition. It is not just a concession to the Opposition; it is a concession to the public demand to have these issues ventilated in the House. Does the Taoiseach agree that for a serving Cabinet Minister to open a bogus non-resident account in Castlebar is a disgraceful disservice to his office? Does he agree that the fact that the serving Cabinet Minister gave a London address while still in the Cabinet and falsely signed a revenue form is a disgraceful betrayal of the confidence placed in him by the public?

If the Taoiseach agrees with me on that, will he inform the House when he first knew about these events? I remind him of his statement that what matters is how a leader responds when he comes into possession of certain knowledge. How did the Taoiseach respond? Did he take any action to retrieve the £50,000? What action did he take? Why did he go to Castlebar to bear-hug Flynn senior and confer his sanction on the candidacy of Deputy Cooper-Flynn, given what we knew at that time and that a High Court action had been taken?

If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform knew about these events more than a year ago, when did he inform the Taoiseach of them? Does the Taoiseach agree with that Minister that these are matters of the utmost gravity? What does he believe that Minister means when he says they are matters of the utmost gravity? Does he mean collusion in tax evasion or something else? I remind the Taoiseach that, in 1989, £50,000 would have bought two houses in the constituency represented at the time by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and myself.

Will the Taoiseach state whether he was aware that officials in the Department of the Environment and Local Government recommended a Garda investigation at that time and that it was blocked by their political master?

At all times yesterday and today I have attempted to make time available to debate this. There was some debate about how that time could be made available. I made it clear that I wanted to make time available, as I have done several times in this House, unlike what was done in previous years.

As regards Pádraig Flynn channelling £50,000 through bogus accounts, there should be no doubt about my position on the general principle — tax evasion is wrong and encouraging anyone to engage in tax evasion is equally wrong. Legislators and institutions, public or private, are all bound to observe and uphold the rule of law. No politician in this country has done more to tackle tax evasion. I continually try to do that and will do so in strengthening laws and promoting compliance.

In the first instance, I know nothing. People outside the House asked me to answer here today about Mr. Flynn's finances. I know no more about them than Deputy Kenny or Deputy Rabbitte would know about any of the issues that come up in their parties over the years, and I do not particularly want to know about them.

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

The tribunals have full responsibility and powers to find out about all these issues and, in so far as I can see and hear, I am sure they are in the process of uncovering them. As to when I first knew about these issues, I was made aware of them some years ago when it was stated that Mr. Gilmartin put it on the public record that he had given Pádraig Flynn resources. The matter has been subject to investigation since. We know a lot about this cheque now, but it is subject to dispute. It was not made out to Fianna Fáil. This cheque was made out to cash and these issues are now subject to investigation. Whether the account was a bogus account in the Isle of Man, Jersey or anywhere else, I do not know. That is a matter for the tribunal.

The Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform and other people have said that they have had concerns about these issues since they have been in the public domain for the past five years. Everybody had concerns about them. The tribunal has to find out the facts and that is being undertaken. Deputy Rabbitte asked if Fianna Fáil endeavoured to get the money back. Yes, the general secretary of Fianna Fáil wrote in 1998 to find out the full facts. No replies were given to that. I subsequently put that letter on the record of the House in its complete form over five years ago and sent that to the tribunal. The Fianna Fáil position, not that I am answerable to this House for the Fianna Fáil position but I am anxious to answer this, is that, with any of these moneys, in accordance with legal advice, whatever action is deemed necessary will be taken, based on the findings and recommendations of the inquiries.

I do not want to get into a contentious debate about the Taoiseach having the most outstanding record ever on dealing with tax evasion, but in terms of people watching this, it is a matter of record that in mysterious circumstances the Taoiseach said he would oppose the introduction of a tax amnesty and then, as Minister for Finance, he brought it in. He also brought in specific measures designed to assist individual holders of valuable works of art and so on.

To go back to the question of when the Taoiseach knew about these events, is he saying he did not know about them until they came into the public domain? What does he mean by "some years ago"? Will he say what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform means about "matters of the utmost gravity"? Did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform bring to the attention of the Taoiseach his knowledge of whatever caused him to believe that these are matters of the utmost gravity? Did the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform discuss what action, if any, they might take? Do his total efforts at retrieving the £50,000 amount to the single letter written by the general secretary of Fianna Fáil after this matter came into the public domain and was there any follow-up on that?

They will have to hire a debt collector.

When exactly did the Taoiseach know about this matter and what action did he take? Did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform impart the knowledge to him? Does he agree with the Minister that it is a matter of the utmost gravity? What action does he now propose to take in respect of the membership of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party of Deputy Cooper-Flynn or will he allow her to take her own course of action?

I have already answered the question on Deputy Cooper-Flynn. I have stated the Fianna Fáil position on this. At the end of the Supreme Court judgment and some of these other matters that are under investigation, Fianna Fáil will reach its conclusion on that. The party has rules and procedures — indeed, it is the only party that has rules and procedures in these matters——

The Taoiseach without interruption.

——and we comply with those laws. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I had no discussions on this. I assume what he believes, as does everyone in the Cabinet, is that if money has been taken in an illegal fashion — I do not know what the situation is until the tribunal is finished — or bogus or offshore accounts have been used in an illegal fashion, such conduct would be of the utmost gravity. That is the position. I repeat the first I knew about anything to do with Deputy Flynn and £50,000 was when this issue was raised in the House some years ago. I have answered on the record, particularly in the case of 1999, questions on this issue. Fianna Fáil has, in all these matters — there have been a few——

There certainly have.

——and other parties too, but I will not get into that unless the Deputy would like me to——

The Opposition has had its own troubles.

Fianna Fáil took the decision, on legal advice, that on the conclusion of the tribunals we would take whatever action is deemed necessary. In the case of Deputy Flynn, the party sought, through the general secretary, to find out the position. It was made clear that these matters would be dealt with in the tribunal and that we would not get a reply until the end of that inquiry.

The Taoiseach is aware that many of those who gave large donations to elected representatives of his party, including Mr. Tom Gilmartin, have stated that they were donations to Fianna Fáil. They also stated that they made that clear to the recipients at the time, including to former Minister, Pádraig Flynn. The Taoiseach told the Dáil in his statement on 27 January 1999 that he had asked the then general secretary of Fianna Fáil, Martin Macken, to write to the then European Commissioner, Pádraig Flynn, asking if he had received £50,000 from Mr. Gilmartin and if it was given to him as a donation to Fianna Fáil, and whether the money was passed on to that party.

I have three questions for the Taoiseach. Will he remind the House if a response to that letter was received from the former Minister and Commissioner, Pádraig Flynn? Did he respond to those specific questions which the Taoiseach had requested Mr. Macken to pose? Was the letter from Mr. Macken the full extent of the investigation into the allegation that the Taoiseach initiated at his own behest? Was it the only investigation undertaken by Fianna Fáil into the alleged donations to the party? What conclusions has he reached as a result of those investigations?

He should have used a debt collector.

Has there been a series of investigations, given that there has been a series of claims that substantial moneys were given by donors to senior members of Fianna Fáil and that, as has been subsequently stated, the moneys did not find their way into the party's coffers? If so, what is the current status of such investigations?

There have been a few cases, but not many. Fianna Fáil has co-operated fully with the tribunals. Fianna Fáil accountants and legal teams have examined all the issues surrounding these donations. They comprise a small number of cases and all the facts and knowledge available to us have been given. In a number of cases we would have spoken to individuals who gave the money and to people involved in fundraising. We would have given all those facts to the tribunal. A number of those cases have been before the tribunal. I was before the tribunal on one such case. We have endeavoured to be helpful at all times.

On my involvement in the investigations regarding the £50,000 cheque, Mr. Gilmartin stated he referred that matter to me many years ago. I did not recall that. The then Minister, Pádraig Flynn, was treasurer of the party and the matter would not have been one which I would have checked at the time. I was not treasurer at that time.

From our own investigations, the donation, subscription or whatever Members wish to call it — I will not use all the other terms used, that is a matter for the tribunal to work out — the cheque was not made out to Fianna Fáil. It was stated for many years that the cheque was made out to Fianna Fáil, it was not, it was made out to cash. Obviously, the circumstances surrounding why one would make a cheque for £50,000 out to cash in the first instance are peculiar.

Johnny Cash.

Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption, please.

Fianna Fáil took these matters seriously even if others did not.

We have, at all times and in all ways, assisted the tribunal and will continue to assist it in uncovering precisely who received the cheque and for what purposes. We have set up a detailed and expansive tribunal of inquiry. I have, at all times, assisted it in every way I possibly could. What I will not do and have not done is to run a parallel inquiry on that matter either in the Fianna Fáil Party or in this House.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply but he did not respond to one of my key questions.

I am sorry about that.

Did former Commissioner and Minister, Pádraig Flynn, respond substantively to the questions posed by the former Fianna Fáil general secretary, Mr. Martin Macken? Has that response been received? Were the questions properly answered and explained by former Minister Flynn? Does the Taoiseach have an estimate, or an approximation, of the sums, in terms of donations, ostensibly given to Fianna Fáil but which never found their way into party funds?

One would need psychic powers to know that.

It must be a substantial sum of money. The £50,000 of which we are speaking was paid some years ago. That is, in today's terms, a substantial sum.

On the statement made this week that the Fianna Fáil ethics committee will address the issue concerning Deputy Cooper-Flynn, is this the first time that committee has addressed this matter and all that swirls around it?

I thought I had answered the Deputy's question but I will do so again. Pádraig Flynn did not comprehensively answer the issue but publicly stated at that time that he would address the matter within the tribunal. That is where the matter rested during the past five years plus, since these matters came to light. While I am not answerable to this House on matters relating to Fianna Fáil, I wish to place that on record.

Donations were received on at least two or three other occasions. The sums involved were £30,000, £25,000 and the £50,000 referred to. Other sums related to a former Fianna Fáil leader but were different because it was not stated such donations were for the party. The Deputy will be aware of the various tribunal reports in that regard.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn's case has been discussed by the party before and has been comprehensively dealt with. On my proposal to the party, the whip was removed from Deputy Cooper-Flynn based on a High Court judgment.

Does the Taoiseach propose to give it back?

That High Court judgment was subsequently appealed and the party, under its rules of due process, allowed that position to await the tribunal proceedings.

The appeal does not change the judgment.

The party's rule on the code of ethics is that the party's committee——

The judgment remains the same. That is rubbish.

——cannot make——

Deputy Allen, please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

The judgment stands.

Deputy Allen is a lawyer now.

A Cheann Comhairle, I am trying to answer questions.

Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

The party's committee cannot be an alternative investigator or tribunal. It can only deal with matters when duly established tribunals or inquiries actually deal with them. That is the party ruling as passed by the Ard-Fheis in 2000, as a matter of interest.