In anticipation of Leaders' Questions, including questions on the Taoiseach's appearance before the Mahon tribunal, it is enshrined in the Constitution that the Government is accountable to the Dáil. Standing Orders reflect this constitutional provision. However, it must be recognised that the House has set up a tribunal of inquiry to inquire into certain matters. In respect of those particular functions, there has been a delegation of sorts to the tribunal, for the time being, which must, in turn, report to the House. To that extent, the accountability provision is fulfilled.

However, we must be realistic. I understand that in the political domain there may be a wish by the party leaders to question the Taoiseach on the Mahon tribunal. Therefore, it would be nonsensical of me to refuse that political imperative. It would be equally remiss of me not to remind the House that certain functions have been delegated to the tribunal of inquiry. When addressing questions to the Taoiseach on this matter, it should be in everyone's mind that the tribunal has been asked to look into certain specific matters. It would not be right for any Member, or Members, to seek, during the course of questions, to replicate the functions of the tribunal or to seek to establish the truth or untruth of given allegations of misconduct.

What about the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea?

It is a question for the substantive motion before the House should Members wish to make such an allegation. Pending receipt of the report of the tribunal, it is my intention, if the leaders so wish, to ensure the balance is maintained, that there is accountability and that common sense prevails without allowing Members to stray into the specifics of the tribunal. That is as fair as I can make it. I call Deputy Kenny.

Does Deputy O'Dea know that?

He is not in the Chamber.

I welcome the Ceann Comhairle and the Taoiseach back to the House after the recess. I congratulate Deputy Gilmore on his first day as Labour Party leader in the House. I am not sure what the Ceann Comhairle meant by all of that but common sense and the truth are imperative to what we must do in the House as much as anywhere else. I will abide by the Chair's ruling.

What I have to ask is relevant to comments made in the House by the Taoiseach. I am in order by requiring accountability and accuracy to the House. What I will say relates to comments that were first made in the House. I do not have the time that Mr. Des O'Neill, SC, had to question the Taoiseach forensically but I have two questions that are as important as any the Taoiseach has been asked.

The first relates to the large amounts of cash which the Taoiseach received between 1993 and 1995. We now have the benefit of statements made in the House, statements made to the media and evidence given on oath to the Mahon tribunal. We are thus able to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of those statements. I have two questions for the Taoiseach. First, is it his intention to make a personal statement to the House and correct misleading statements that he has made to the Dáil in the past 12 months on this issue? Second, does he still say that he fully and freely co-operated with the Mahon tribunal?

The Taoiseach has three minutes.

I shall not need that length of time, and I do not accept that I have in any way misled the House. As regards any matter I may have expanded on, I do not believe that I have misled the House.

As regards the second question, as far as I am concerned I have totally and absolutely — and my legal team believes the same — co-operated with the tribunal in every way that I possibly and physically could.

I did not ask the Taoiseach's legal team, I asked him. I shall give him two examples. On 22 September 2006 the Taoiseach said in this House: "I have provided all documentation requested, sworn affidavits, given statements of evidence and had no difficulty with this." That is what he said. We now know that he did not provide all the information and that he had difficulty. Otherwise the tribunal would not have called him back for private interview or to public hearings.

On 27 September 2006 the Taoiseach also told this House that he had not broken any tax law. However, on 14 May this year he told reporters that he had recently made a payment to the Revenue Commissioners relating to the payments and the gifts that he received in early 1990. Misleading statements were not confined to this House. On this day last year the Taoiseach told RTE on the "Six-one" news that the money he had saved was gone. However, he agreed with the tribunal that when he first received £22,500 in December 1993, he had nearly £70,000 at that stage.

Finally, on co-operation with the tribunal, the Taoiseach agreed under oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that he had not supplied it with the comprehensive information it requested concerning cash lodgements the tribunal was investigating over a two and half year period. We know now, from the evidence at the tribunal, that he did not disclose in his sworn affidavit details of Irish £50,000, transferred to an account opened for his benefit by his then partner. I do not have the time to give the Taoiseach more examples, but I could. I ask him again, in view of the comments he made in this House, whether he is prepared to correct these misleading statements to the Dáil, of which he is Taoiseach. In view of what I have pointed out here, does he still stand over his statement that he fully and freely co-operated with the Mahon tribunal?

I shall be dealing with some of these issues at greater length. It is my view and the view of those who advised me that I made discovery in accordance with the requirements of the tribunal. The chairman of the tribunal has made it clear there are no suggestions that there are documents I failed to discover. The Deputy is making reference to two items, in particular to the money I transferred to Ms Celia Larkin. I shall deal with that issue later. However, it is my view that I made matters clear in the letter attached to my discovery documents on 7 February 2005, where I made reference to that issue.

On the issue of the Revenue Commissioners, there is no contradiction as regards what I said on 13 May and in this House at the end of September last year. The position is that it was my advice from two senior and eminent tax consultants that I had no tax obligation as regards the money I received on the basis of loans, with the intention of repaying — and subsequently paid back. Obviously I was in correspondence with Revenue, as I believe most people appearing before the tribunal are. I was advised that what I should do, on a no-fault basis, was to make a tax discovery on that and pay the sum, notwithstanding the fact that my case, and that of my tax advisers, is that I have no such liability. I did that and complied with the advice I received.

On the £48,000 I believe I received in all, I paid back with interest, almost £100,000 on the basis that the moneys were loans. I do not believe there is anything misleading in what I state.