The Taoiseach was accused by the Opposition yesterday of adding to public doubt and confusion about his affairs by refusing to say who gave him cash gifts and how much was given to him when he was minister for finance in 1993.
"The horse has bolted for the Taoiseach on this matter. His insistence that this is a private matter simply does not apply," said Fine Gael environment spokesman Fergus O'Dowd.
"He received cash gifts from businessmen - which he personally confirmed - while serving as minister for finance, and as such the matter is one of legitimate public concern. Tilting at tribunal windmills will not distract from the core of this story," he said.
"The crucial issue to be addressed now is who were the people giving the then minister for finance cash gifts, and how much money was involved. The Taoiseach's attempts to divert attention away from this core issue of appropriate behaviour for a senior minister in government will not make the matter go away," said Mr O'Dowd.
Labour finance spokeswoman Joan Burton said the refusal of the Progressive Democrats even to comment on the serious issues raised by the admission of the Taoiseach that he had received sums of money from businessmen in the early 1990s was an indication of the extent to which that party had now departed from the values and standards that it once claimed to uphold.
"Their silence is also in stark contrast to the position they adopted in regard to previous controversial payments to politicians, including those made to Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry.
"Indeed, as recently as December last the then tánaiste Mary Harney was quoted as saying that the resignation of Ivor Callely as junior minister was 'inevitable' after it emerged that a construction company had paid for the painting of his house in the early 1990s.
"Do the Progressive Democrats not regard the issues raised by the Taoiseach's admission as being at least of equal importance?" asked Ms Burton.
"The Taoiseach may be justified in complaining about the way in which this matter has come into the public domain, but this does not absolve him from the responsibility to answer the legitimate questions that have been raised.
"One of the key questions relate to the manner in which the money received by the Taoiseach was treated for tax purposes. In the Dáil debate following the resignation of Michael Lowry in 1996, Deputy Ahern listed a series of detailed questions for Deputy Lowry as to how the money given to him had been treated.
"It was clear that Deputy Ahern was not going to be satisfied with an assurance 'that it had been dealt with', which he is now asking the public to accept in regard to his case," she said.
Ms Burton said that while the Taoiseach had as much right to privacy as any other citizen in regard to tax matters, given the key position he held as minister for finance at the time he received this money, the public would welcome a simple assurance that the money was declared for tax purposes and that all due tax was paid.
"Finally, the current spate of rumours suggesting various legal manoeuvres to prevent any further information on this issue from coming into the public domain will, I believe, only increase public concern.
"I repeat what I said yesterday, the interests of the Taoiseach and our political and democratic system would best be served by him responding to the legitimate questions that have been raised," she said. Her Labour colleague Eamon Gilmore, said that if the Taoiseach wanted to retain any political credibility, he could not continue to refuse to answer legitimate questions raised by Opposition parties and by the media.
"Indeed, public concern about the disclosures will only have been increased by the manner in which the Taoiseach has dealt with the issue since it first emerged.
"His initial response to legitimate questions put by the media was petulant and his attempt to confuse the public by linking these new disclosures to previous discredited allegations made against him was particularly disingenuous.
"The Taoiseach is reduced to making outlandish claims of a 'sinister' plot against him. He did not indicate whether he thought the supposed plot against him came from within his own party or from within the Opposition," said Mr Gilmore.