Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's explanation of help he received from friends has not answered all of the questions, writes Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent
Following his emotional RTÉ television interview, Bertie Ahern was tense as he entered the Dáil, prepared, presumably, for more Opposition assaults.
However, Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny, particularly, adopted a softer tone, concerned, perhaps, not to allow him to play the sympathy card once again with voters. Though Labour leader Pat Rabbitte was more robust, both know that Mr Ahern must suffer another blow in this affair if his career is to go into free-fall. If not, they could be blamed for hitting a man when he is down.
So far, most in Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats believe that while he has been badly damaged he will survive - as long as his version of events stays intact.
For now, the Opposition has turned its attention to a payment of £8,000 sterling that Mr Ahern received in Manchester from a business dinner in 1994, and their appetite has been particularly whetted by his obvious reluctance to detail when the event took place, who attended and who contributed.
By taking it, Mr Ahern has raised a question about whether he has breached long-standing rules governing the conduct of cabinet ministers.
The current "Green Book" rules for ministers' conduct note that while there are "no formal guidelines", ministers should only accept "relatively inexpensive" gifts to mark occasions such as formal openings, and give anything else to the State. The rulebook governing cabinet members' conduct prior to the mid-1990s were slightly different, though it did make clear that ministers could not accept gifts of any significance while they were acting as ministers.
Clearly, the Manchester money was lodged into his personal account - and not in any political account used to run his Dublin North Central constituency operation, or anything else. Even if tax has been paid, Mr Ahern would appear to have more explaining to do. Giving more details about the conditions attached to the payments received in 1993 and 1994, he told the Dáil that a 3 per cent interest rate had been agreed - much lower than the 7 to 8 per cent on offer to ordinary bank customers then.
On television, Mr Ahern said his friends had refused a number of attempts he had made to repay the "debt of honour".
Pressed by the Opposition yesterday, Mr Ahern went into a meandering reply about the efforts he had made to repay. "They would have been repaid before now but I had some difficulty in getting friends to accept that," he said.
However, he also indicated that other considerations had been on his mind - that repayment would spark charges that there was something wrong with the loans in the first place if they were ever revealed subsequently. Given the political climate then and now, he was probably right to have such concerns, but it does raise a question about the seriousness of any efforts he did make to repay.
Though pushed by Labour leader Pat Rabbitte, Mr Ahern refused to say if the Revenue Commissioners have accepted his view that the money is still regarded for tax purposes as outstanding loans, and, therefore, not subject to gift tax - even though not a penny has been repaid in principal, or interest.
"Many years ago, my tax advisers checked the issues in detail on the basis that it was a loan with interest," he told Mr Rabbitte.
Does this mean that the Revenue signed off on it? If so, it would surely have been in his interest to reveal on Tuesday or yesterday that he has been given a guarantee that he has acted properly. If such a clearance has not been received, which is the more likely, it means a final determination on the status of the money by the Revenue Commissioners has still to be made, though tax lawyers divide on what decision they would make. If, however, they were to find against him, he would be faced with a bill for outstanding tax and penalties.
Finally, Mr Ahern has raised curiosity about the emphasis he has placed on the fact that he did not have a personal bank account during the years in question while he was separating from his wife, Miriam. It is difficult to understand the relevance he places on this fact, but it is odd since, in the same breath, he said that he "used cheques separately to deal with issues".
His emphasis on his lack of a bank account is even more odd, given that he has also said that he had saved €50,000 between 1986 and 1993. And he would have been paid by cheque as a cabinet minister.