The Taoiseach yesterday told us he will not resign and he will not call an early election. The third option I put to him was a reform of the way politics is funded. I suggest it is time we had a measuring of election spending from polling day to polling day, not just during the three weeks before the election. The Taoiseach will understand the reasons for this when he sees the billboards throughout this city and beyond. We should have a limit on the spending at all elections, not just national but local, and limits on postering. Moreover, we should end the culture of corporate donations that is in many ways responsible for the position in which the Taoiseach finds himself.

There should be no place for bank drafts drawn on a company account supporting the lifestyle of a Minister for Finance. Corporate funding has already ruined the careers and legacy of four former Ministers, Ray Burke, Padraig Flynn, Michael Lowry and the late Charles Haughey, as well as the late Liam Lawlor and others. As he admits, it has not helped the Taoiseach's career either, although he may have done the State some service by exposing the hypocrisy and the "power versus principle" issues that the PDs have had to face. Perhaps their political oblivion will be one of the Taoiseach's legacies.

The Taoiseach did not answer the question I put to him yesterday, having first asked it on 18 February 1999. I asked: "[Has] the Taoiseach been the beneficiary of a payment, contribution or gift from any source which, with the benefit of hindsight, he now considers to be unorthodox, unusual or irregular?"

The Deputy's time is concluded.

I conclude by asking the Taoiseach three questions. Was a gift of Stg£8,000, a huge sum of money at that time, not unorthodox? Was it not unusual? Was it not irregular? The Taoiseach told us the Stg£8,000 payment was the only such payment he received. Is it not the case that the Taoiseach clearly misled the Dáil by not answering that he received such a payment, and by suggesting that no gift he received was unorthodox, unusual or irregular?

The Deputy asked me that question yesterday.

The Taoiseach did not answer.

He used exactly the same words. The answer today is the same as it was yesterday.

The Deputy asked about legislation. The Government has over the past seven or eight years put several pieces of legislation on the Statute Book. We established the Standards in Public Office Commission, which carries out its work in a rigorous fashion on all matters. I and all other Members comply with it and will continue to do so.

Changes in the law with regard to spending outside election periods are a matter for political parties to state their——

It is a matter for the Taoiseach.

We have already legislated.

It is not enough.

We have legislated in a way that was acceptable——

We get the best politicians that money can buy in this House.

It is Deputy Gogarty's leader's question. He is quite competent to deal with it himself. I ask Deputy Gogarty to desist from interrupting.

He does not have the same assistance.

I asked a straightforward question. I did not get an answer yesterday or today. Is the Taoiseach seriously asking us to believe that the Stg£8,000 payment was not unorthodox? That suggests it was quite normal and not unusual. Is he suggesting there were other payments, if it was not unusual? Is he suggesting the Stg£8,000 payment was not irregular? The Taoiseach, in his own words, stated it was the only such payment. How does he square this with the non-answer he gave in 1999, essentially misleading the Dáil and giving the impression that he never received a payment that was unorthodox, unusual or irregular? That is clearly not the case. He lied. He misled the Dáil and I ask him to face up to that.

The Deputy will withdraw the word "lie".

He misled the Dáil.

I withdraw the word "lie" but the Taoiseach misled the Dáil. I ask him to face up to that, recognise the error of his ways and be honest.

I made a statement yesterday and I will repeat it. It stated:

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.

I apologised for those matters and I think there is nothing more to answer.

It was unorthodox, unusual and irregular.