This country needs to move on from the Taoiseach's problems with the Mahon tribunal and his tax affairs. Since the House last met six weeks ago, which is a disgrace, we have had turmoil in the markets with consequential worries about jobs, earnings and pensions, hundreds of workers were told that they will lose their jobs, a report detailed rising crime figures, there have been continuing problems in our hospitals and accident and emergency departments, there has been a cystic fibrosis controversy, we do not have the report on what occurred in terms of the women who were given the all clear in Portlaoise but who were called back and, after yesterday, a family is facing financial ruin because the parents tried to get their child an education.

During the break, there were a number of newspaper stories on the Taoiseach, his tax affairs and his inability to get a tax clearance certificate, which no parliament worth its name could ignore on its first day back. In an effort to give the Taoiseach an opportunity to respond to these issues and to enable us to move on, I wish to put to him a number of specific questions arising from the reports. It was reported that the Taoiseach made a voluntary disclosure of his tax affairs whereas the Revenue Commissioners are reported to have stated that he did not. Did the Taoiseach make a voluntary disclosure? If so, does it not follow that there is an acceptance by the Taoiseach that his tax affairs were not in order? Where does that leave the tax clearance certificate that he applied for and received in 2002?

The Taoiseach stated that the Revenue Commissioners cannot finalise his tax affairs until the Mahon tribunal has reported. That does not appear to be the way in which the Revenue Commissioners dealt with the tax affairs of Mr. Haughey or Deputy Lowry while issues pertaining to them were being examined by the Moriarty tribunal. Have the Revenue Commissioners confirmed to the Taoiseach that they will not finalise his tax affairs until the Mahon tribunal has reported?

I am very glad to answer the questions and then, as the Deputy has suggested, we can move on from these issues. I will answer them comprehensively.

Regarding other issues, from the Government's perspective, I finished Government meetings with my colleagues on the Sunday of the weekend of 23 December and the Government resumed in full session on 4 January. I admit that was a few days off, but I do not think the Government went away for any length of time from the issues with which the State must deal.

An unaccountable Government.

The full Government was there and has been dealing with all the issues mentioned by Deputy Gilmore and many more in that period.

If I recall the questions exactly, I am advised that, in the professional opinion of my tax advisers, I am fully tax compliant. I made a voluntary disclosure based on their advice. For the avoidance of doubt, comprehensive and detailed submissions were made to Revenue. I understand that these are being considered by Revenue as part of the normal process. A voluntary disclosure was the normal process, not an acceptance that there was anything wrong. It was on that basis that I was advised to do it. Much of what has appeared in the media concerning my tax affairs in that period was based on leaked documentation, much of it a long way out of date. For legal and professional reasons, neither I nor my advisers have been in a position to respond about the accuracy or completeness of the report.

It is not correct, and if I said so, I was not correct — I cannot recall if I said it, but I did not say, or if I did, I did not mean to say it — that these issues could not be dealt with until the end of the Mahon tribunal. That is not what Revenue said. It said that it was part of the normal process of dealing with these issues. It and the Standards in Public Office Commission believe, and it is similar under the law, that while there is no tax clearance certificate, it is possible to deal with the other process while the issue is ongoing. Hopefully, those issues will be cleared up as soon as Revenue can do so. There is no question that I or my tax advisers have not comprehensively answered. There is no outstanding Revenue matter of which we are aware. We have answered every single question it has asked us.

I will need to check the written record of the House to unravel the quadruple negative the Taoiseach gave in respect of what the Revenue Commissioners did or did not accept from him.

Regarding the Government's performance, I note the Taoiseach's statement that it was back on duty on 4 January. Unfortunately, we have nothing to show for it. We are back after a six week break and there is no legislation before the House.

Hear, hear.

Apparently, there is no legislation before the other House. The Government is paralysed and part of the reason for its paralysis relates to the Taoiseach's difficulties and the associated succession battle occurring under the surface on his side of the House.

We will need to examine the written record to parse the Taoiseach's exact statement, but there is no parsing necessary in a headline that appeared in the Irish Mail on Sunday of 30 December, which stated: “Bertie lied about tax”. I cannot recall reading a newspaper headline about a political leader in this State that was so blunt and used the word the Ceann Comhairle will not allow me to use in the House. I assume the Taoiseach rejects the assertion that he lied about his tax affairs. Has he taken action arising from this headline, the type of action most people would take or initiate were such a headline printed about them?

Was that a headline from the Irish Mail on Sunday?

Yes.

I would need a whole law library to keep ahead of the actions I would take against the Irish Mail on Sunday.

The Taoiseach has one.

I just ignore the Irish Mail on Sunday.

There was a time when the Taoiseach did not do so.

On the legislation——

He sued Starry O'Brien.

That was not the Irish Mail on Sunday.

We will not discuss newspapers now.

The Finance Bill will be before the House in this session as will the social welfare Bill.

They must be because of the budget.

I was pressed at the end of the session to have a comprehensive debate on collusion, which I promised on the last day.

No written motion.

At least six other Bills will be before the House shortly and I look forward to all of them being debated in this session.

In case Deputy Gilmore thinks I was trying to confuse him on the issue, he stated — maybe he stated it correctly — that I was on record as saying that Revenue would not deal with these issues until the Mahon tribunal is over. If I am on the record as saying that, I should not have said it. Revenue never said that, which is the point I am making. It said that the matters were under way.