The Fine Gael leader said that the Taoiseach had focused his anger on the wrong target.
Mr John Bruton said that Mr Ahern had expressed frustration and anger earlier in the day that his business, and the business of the Government, was being disrupted constantly by the flow of allegations published by the media in recent weeks.
"My frustration, and the country's frustration, is not with the drip-fed allegations, but with the drip-fed, half-baked responses by drip-fed, half-baked `sources close to the Taoiseach' who are constantly being quoted. If quick, full and definitive answers were given to questions, the Taoiseach's frustration might be less.
"All these matters cannot simply be left to the tribunals to examine. Anything that can be answered straight away, should be answered straight away. Indeed, the Taoiseach himself has asked Commissioner Flynn to give answers on matters before the tribunal, and that was a reasonable request. The same applies to others in public office."
Mr Bruton said that the Taoiseach had referred to the material in the morning newspapers as a "load of lies". Yet, Mr Bruton said, the nub of the story originated from people in the Taoiseach's own office.
"A person in the Taoiseach's office told The Irish Times that a sum of money had been diverted from a passport account in the ICC to Fianna Fail. If that statement had not been made, there would have been no story this morning.
"If that statement was, to use the Taoiseach's words, `a lie', then the Taoiseach might care to ask himself whether his own highly indirect methods of news management have not contributed to what has happened today, and to his own rushed journey back from Wexford. "The journalist in question has confirmed publicly that what she was told was this money came from a passport account, which would be understood by most reasonable people to mean the account into which money for investment is paid by the passport applicant in return for getting the passport. Political donations do not come within any understanding of the term `investment', and thus what the Government source confirmed is a legitimate public concern necessitating today's debate.
"If the donation had come from an account that had nothing whatever to do with the passport application, one would have expected the Government `source' to have clarified this earlier this week to the journalist and not created the story. The source did not do so. The Taoiseach might vent his anger in a place other than Dail Eireann.
"It is really not relevant whether the money was a donation or a loan, and indeed this morning's story simply says the money was ` diverted' to Fianna Fail, not that it would never be diverted back again. Presumably, the money is still resting peacefully in the Fianna Fail account, in a blameless slumber that was quite undisturbed, until the Taoiseach's `Government source' confirmed its resting place earlier this week.
"Let me remind the House that the passports-for-investment scheme has a murky past. It is well known, and already documented in a reply to a question by the present Minister for Justice in October 1997, that the conditions applying to the scheme began to loosen between 1988 and 1994. The former minister for justice Maire Geoghegan-Quinn has also written that she was `deeply concerned' about one particular case.
"It is against this background that I believe it is important the Taoiseach clarify the contents of today's newspaper reports."
Seeking clarification on a number of issues from the Taoiseach, Mr Bruton said: "It would be helpful if the Taoiseach would set out exactly what communications are taking place between the Government and its legal officers and the Flood and Moriarty tribunals, and particularly what consultation, if any, he is aware of that have taken place, or are taking place, between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General concerning the issue of immunity for witnesses, as provided for under Section 2 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974. What procedures are being followed? Are there objective criteria for refusing or granting immunities? What are they?
"I believe also that the Taoiseach should tell the House exactly what amount of communication, and through what channels, he and the Government are being briefed by their legal teams at the Flood and Moriarty tribunals. Is there an `early warning' mechanism in place?"