Before I ask Deputy Eamon Gilmore to ask his questions, I extend to him my warmest congratulations and wish him every happiness and success as the new leader of the Labour Party. I express my full confidence that he will follow the precedent set by Deputy Enda Kenny and obey the Standing Orders pertaining to Leaders' Questions.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his good wishes. I also thank Deputy Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach and Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin for the good wishes they conveyed to me earlier.

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence to express my sadness over the tragedy that occurred in Bray earlier today and I extend my sympathy to those affected. I do so because I live near Bray, where the accident occurred, and because, in my life as a trade union official, I represented and organised part-time and temporary firemen. I therefore have some understanding of the risks they take and realise how deeply affected the local community and the two firemen's colleagues must be by today's tragedy.

In putting my question to the Taoiseach, I acknowledge his achievements for this country. A year ago, the story broke that he had received large sums of money from private sources for his personal use and we now know from the tribunal that the total amount we are talking about is approximately €300,000 in today's terms. When the Taoiseach was challenged about this at the time, he said to us that he wanted an opportunity to explain to the tribunal what had happened regarding the money. We all waited to hear the explanation and he gave it as evidence at the tribunal over 18 hours over four days. I do not believe his explanation and I believe a majority of Members of this House do not believe it. Many Members on the Taoiseach's side, who are publicly loyal, and the majority of people do not believe the story he told the tribunal.

This issue is serious because there is national disbelief about the evidence the Taoiseach gave to the tribunal, which he gave on swearing a solemn oath to tell the whole truth. This national disbelief goes to the heart of trust and confidence in Deputy Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach. It is a resigning issue and would be in any other country. We cannot ignore that because, in the global economy in which we now function, these issues matter. Does the Taoiseach intend to resign from office and, given that he has stated he does not intend to continue in the office of Taoiseach for the full life of this Dáil in any event, when does he intend to resign and hand over to his designated successor?

I congratulate Deputy Gilmore on his first opportunity to contribute as leader of the Labour Party. I wish him longevity and a long period in office. I have had the terrible misfortune of dealing with so many leaders of the Labour Party I——

I promise the Taoiseach he will not be dealing with any more.

I thank the Deputy.

There was the Workers Party and——

Seriously, I wish the Deputy well. Deputy Eamon Gilmore has served in this House with distinction since 1989. He has an onerous task and I wish him well.

I join Deputy Eamon Gilmore in expressing my sympathy to the families and colleagues of the two firemen who lost their lives while serving on the fire brigade.

I would like to respond to Deputy Gilmore's questions about the value in today's terms of certain sums of money. I received loans of approximately £48,000, in 1994 terms, from friends. Those moneys were repayable and I paid them back. The Deputy is obviously talking about other sums of money which I did not receive on the basis that they were loans. I paid back approximately £97,000, in 2006 terms, in respect of the loans I have mentioned. I have explained previously why I did not make the repayments earlier.

The tribunal and its legal team have made clear that the allegation against me is that I received either £150,000, £50,000 or £30,000 from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan in 1989, or at some time between 1989 and 1992. While there are many other allegations, that is the only one on which I have been questioned. I have to answer questions on that issue and not on anything else. I would like Deputy Gilmore to believe me — if he does not, I cannot force him to do so — when I say that I never received anything from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan, or anyone associated with Mr. O'Callaghan, for any purpose in 1989, 1999 or at any other time.

I never said the Taoiseach received anything from Mr. Owen O'Callaghan. My question relates to the disbelief throughout the country at the evidence the Taoiseach gave to the tribunal. I refer to the idea that the Taoiseach had no bank account for a long period of time and cannot remember receiving or lodging certain moneys. I refer to the suggestion that the Taoiseach got a bagful of money from a man who walked into his office. It has been claimed that this money, which was not counted by the Taoiseach, the man in question or the person who lodged it, was left in a wardrobe overnight. I would like to comment on the idea that one lodgement coincided with an even amount of dollars and another lodgement coincided with an even amount of sterling. We can take one coincidence, but to believe in two coincidences is a little far-fetched. The problem we have is that we do not believe the Taoiseach. We do not believe what he said to the tribunal. I do not believe the Taoiseach's story. I think his story at the tribunal was a cock and bull story and I think many people in this country agree with me.

Hear, hear.

The problem we now face relates to the lack of belief in what the Taoiseach said to the tribunal. I wish I could believe his evidence, frankly. Where does that lack of belief leave him as Taoiseach of this country? How does the Taoiseach propose to continue to lead the country, given that a majority of its people do not believe the sworn evidence he gave to a tribunal that was established by this House? The people of this country have great affection for the Taoiseach, as he knows — they have elected him as the Head of the Government on three occasions. Like the people of Ireland, I have great respect for the work the Taoiseach has done for this country. However, he cannot take the people of this country for gullible fools. In light of the lack of credibility that attaches to the evidence the Taoiseach gave to the tribunal, how long does he propose to continue in the office of Taoiseach? That the Taoiseach will have to go to the tribunal repeatedly over the next few years to answer questions about various aspects of this matter will represent an obvious distraction from his day job. The question I have asked is particularly relevant when one considers that the House will consider a motion of confidence in the Taoiseach later today.

As Deputy Gilmore knows, I have had to attend a number of tribunals — not just the Mahon tribunal — over recent years to answer questions about various matters.

That speaks for itself.

It is my obligation as a Member of the House — notwithstanding the fact that I am an office holder — to act in such a manner. That I will continue to do so does not create any difficulty for me or distract me from my job, although it might mean I have to work longer and more demanding hours at times. That is how it has been and how it is likely to continue. I assure the House that I will continue to do that.

I remind Deputy Gilmore that I have addressed the issues I was asked to address and submitted the information I was asked to submit in response to certain questions. It was not the case that I did not have a bank account during the period in question, as the Deputy purports to allege. I have discovered details of over 20 bank accounts which were either in my name, my wife's name, the names of my children or the names of people with whom I was politically associated. There was a period, between the time when I separated from my wife to the time when the resulting judicial case was brought to a conclusion in the High Court, when I did not use my bank accounts in the normal way. I can accept that people will say that was unorthodox, but that is how it was. I have given all the factual information on that to the tribunal. The details of what happened are quite clear to the tribunal because it has all the records of the accounts. The tribunal knows how I dealt with my affairs during the period in question. I cannot change that. When I was issued with a discovery order relating to the period between the start of 1988, which is almost 20 years ago, and the end of 1995, which is almost 12 years ago, I complied with the order by providing all the information in question. When I was questioned on that information, I gave an account of it which I believe to be totally truthful. I cannot do any more than that and that is the position.