I have no wish to prolong the matter of the answers given by the Taoiseach under oath to the Mahon tribunal, nor have I any wish to concede to the views of those who would want to turn this into a personal and bitter political battle between us. The Taoiseach will note that in comments I have made on the matter, I have never raised the issue of his marriage or private life, which is of no interest to me. What is of interest to me, however, is the matter of public service and standards in public life. I disagree fundamentally with the Taoiseach on several issues in this regard. Arising from the answers the Taoiseach gave to questions that were put to him, and taking into account that a judge of the tribunal said that some of his comments were polar opposites, it now appears that the collective culture of the Fianna Fáil, Progressive Democrats and Green Party Government is that it is perfectly acceptable to receive large cash donations for personal use, and that one does not breach any ethical code as long as one does not do anything wrong. I disagree fundamentally with that concept.

In his address to the House of Commons, prior to the election, the Taoiseach was quoting Daniel O'Connell when he said "Nothing that is politically right can be morally wrong". Will the Taoiseach perhaps answer my questions in this House, the forum of the people? On 10 September 1997, arising from comments made here on the Dunnes payment to the late Mr. Haughey, the Taoiseach said in the House: "Mr. Haughey thereby laid himself open to the possibility ‘that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts, or even be given without being sought'." The Taoiseach went on to say: "if politicians are to give an effective service to all their constituents, or to all the citizens of the State, they must not be under a financial obligation to some constituents or some citizens only". He went on to say further: "we should not require of others what we are not prepared to practise ourselves". Finally, the Taoiseach said: "We must make it clear in this House by our actions that we are going to insist on the highest standards in public life. It would be very dangerous, if the message were ever to go out, either here or abroad, however ill-founded, that Government here operates on the principle of backhanders, or that there are golden circles with a high entrance fee. We must nip that notion in the bud once and for all". The Taoiseach concluded by saying: "The public is entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, officials and, above all, Ministers." It is a core value outlined by the Taoiseach, who spent 18 hours giving evidence before the tribunal, and there are still many questions. They were the standards the Taoiseach applied to Mr. Haughey. They were the standards the Taoiseach set down. Why do these standards do not apply to himself?

There are two questions, first on the question of the polar opposites, I again refer Deputy Kenny to the complete transcript of 20 September 2007. Judge Flaherty used the phrase, "polar opposites" but I encourage Deputy Kenny to read the entire transcript and see the context of the exchange rather than zoom in on one soundbite. Judge Flaherty said the reason I gave the tribunal in public session had never previously been offered by me. When it was pointed out to the judge that I had put that view forward in a comprehensive statement last May she accepted that clarification. I gave the detailed reason in that statement and set out the exact context. Deputy Kenny has taken one soundbite, which is not a reasonable thing to do.

I have been a huge supporter of rules and standards regarding the declaration and recording of anything received by Members. I have complied fully since this became a requirement in 1995. I have given a full account of what I received. Those regulations were not in force then but I would have given the facts if the regulations had been in force. I made it clear that I considered the money to be loans and not contributions. Last week Deputy Kenny tried to put a figure on the sums of money. From three different sources I received about forty-seven thousand and paid back just short of ninety-eight thousand. I have dealt with the matter completely and in a proper fashion. I have not contravened anything I said.

I find this distressing. The Taoiseach said "the public is entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, officials and, above all, Ministers". The Taoiseach, as a Minister, was in receipt of serious cash donations. He moved up to €300,000, in today's value, in four major lodgments which he has been unable to explain. The problem I have with the Taoiseach is that he does not apply the standards to himself that he applies to others. If it was wrong for Mr. Charles Haughey to receive money it was also wrong for the Taoiseach. No Minister in the current Government has had the courage to say that. The message this sends about our country and the way we do business does down every Member of the House. Every time politicians speak they are branded as being all the same. They are not all the same. Why does the Taoiseach not apply the same standards to himself as he did to Mr. Charles Haughey?

The Green Party, who are the Taoiseach's colleagues in Government and are not here today, hold the view that taking money was wrong.

I am present.

I apologise to Deputy White. Deputy Sargent said the Taoiseach taking money from businesses and businessmen was completely inappropriate and improper, unethical and wrong. We know from last week's vote that the Green Party has adopted a vow of silence on this matter. Today's Daily Mail refers to a written agreement made by the Taoiseach with the Green Party’s negotiating team that he would resign if the tribunal found he had taken bribes — which claim I do not make against him — had not co-operated with the tribunal or that his evidence was unreliable. Why was it wrong for Mr. Haughey to accept money and not wrong for the Taoiseach? Why is there a different standard, in view of the Taoiseach’s words to the House? Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Green Party negotiated an agreement with him on the basis of waiting for the tribunal to conclude its findings and of his resigning if he were found to be guilty of any of the three matters I cited in the fact finding conclusions of the tribunal.

Deputy Kenny knows there is no written agreement. He knows the view of the Green Party, expressed here last week, that they would await the findings of the full tribunal. He also knows that the allegation I have been asked to answer is that I received money from Owen O'Callaghan in relation to certain issues put forward in different circumstances to the tribunal. The tribunal is dealing with those issues. I will be cleared of those allegations because I received nothing from Owen O'Callaghan. I could mention several things regarding Deputy Kenny's party but I will not do so. I have never done so in 30 years of political life. I have served most of my political career and I will not pursue that line. At one time in a 30 year political life I received money from two sets of very close friends and paid the money back in full and with interest. One of Deputy Kenny's spin doctors persists in referring to three hundred thousand. The amount in question is forty-eight thousand and I paid back just short of ninety-nine thousand. All the evidence of that is there. Deputy Kenny knows that. I know he is being forced by others to continue to say this.

I am not being forced by anyone. There were four cash lodgments of €300,000 in today's terms. The Taoiseach could not explain them. That is the problem for me.

I am totally supportive of declaring issues. I supported the Standards in Public Office Commission.

Why was it wrong for Haughey and not wrong for the Taoiseach?

I do not want to discuss what Mr. Haughey or anyone else did.

It is a question of standards. The same standard must apply to him and to the Taoiseach.

I will not discuss the business of people who are in the grave and others who are not in the grave. It has never been my form to do that. What I could say has been well analysed but I will not say it.

I got money from close friends. They were not business people. They were not looking for anything from me. I paid them back with the relevant interest. That is the point.