Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

On the first question, Deputy Kenny has it wrong. He used the term "cash donations" but I did not receive any cash donations. I accepted money reluctantly on the basis that it was a loan to be repaid with interest. It would have been entirely wrong to accept a donation and I did not accept the money as a donation. I took it as a loan to be paid back and I said I would have to pay interest on it.

I would have paid the money back a number of years ago because I had accumulated certain moneys and my adviser had told me how I should do it, but, as I believe the Deputy will know, it is a number of years since some of these issues were raised with me. I assume that if I had paid them back, I would have been accused of doing so only because the matter had been raised, although I never believed these issues would become public matters because I was assured of confidentiality. However, one should remember that if I had been assured someone would say I paid back the moneys only because the issue had been raised, I would not have been in a position to do so almost until these issues became known. However, the moneys were loans to be paid back with interest and it was on that basis that I took them. That was the position throughout the entire period. There was no other issue and that has been well documented with the tribunal and with the people involved.

My friends had asked to have a function to raise the money for me. There is no tax implication because it was a loan to be repaid with interest. That was the very clear position I had established with my colleagues.

Deputy Kenny's second question was whether it is wise for a politician, in any circumstances and under any skies, to take any kind of money on any basis from anyone. The laws provide distinctly for one to do so. They provide for one's friends or one's family. There are many ways to do that. There are benefits applied to people's families for a range of reasons. There are benefits if one lives on the land and a range of other benefits and that is why the legislation is written the way it is. There is nothing wrong with that. Of course it can be made look wrong, as demonstrated by the carefully calculated leaks a week before the Dáil resumed which placed me in my current position.

It was not wrong and I gave freely the information not to prove that the transaction was right or wrong but to prove that other accusations about me, such as my having money in certain locations, were unfounded. I will not go back over them. That was the purpose of what I was doing.

I believe it is well known in the House that I have, for many years, been very closely associated with a number of organisations in Manchester. I have attended functions and spoken there. While in Government, out of Government and as a backbencher, I been involved with St. Patrick's Day events, charity groups, the Dublin Association and the Irish World Heritage Centre. I have spoken at many functions. There are a good few business groups in Manchester and I believe I have spoken to them all.

What I said yesterday was for completeness. When some of these issues arose, I went through my records dating back to 1977. I did not go back to the period of the tribunals. I went through all my personal records dating back to 1977, in addition to my wife's and children's personal records. I am not saying this to elicit sympathy — it is a fact that I was asked to do it. I had to do it and I went back even further.

The only other time I was in receipt of anything was when I was given a sum of money by a group in Manchester on a particular occasion attended by about 25 people. I dealt with this properly in terms of taxes. It had nothing in particular to do with the present matter at all but I did not want somebody to come out again and say I had got this particular sum of money. That was the only point I made on that particular issue. That was in 1994. I checked the date and believe it was the 1994-95 season. Subject to correction, I believe I was Minister at the time. That is what that was about — there was no other issue. When I went through all my other records dating from 1977, I noted that was the only other donation I was not able to account for out of literally hundreds of cheques and records dating back 29 years.

These issues with the tribunal, pertaining to me, have now gone on for seven years. I have carefully gone back through and taken advice on all of these records over seven years. That is the context and it has nothing in particular to do with these issues. I believe that answers Deputy Kenny's three questions.

See this speech in context