Dáil Sketch/Miriam Lord:"We shouldn't have to legislate for standards. We should have them." And with that, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore moved on from the question of the Taoiseach's sworn evidence to the Mahon tribunal.
He had just observed Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny playing handball against a haystack - to borrow Joe Higgins's memorable description of trying to get answers in the Dáil from Bertie Ahern: "There's a dull thud, and nothing comes back." But Enda tried anyway. He wanted to address the matter of standards in public life in the light of the Taoiseach's tribunal evidence, one aspect of which moved a judge to comment it was the "polar opposite" of what he told the inquiry in private interview.
It struck Enda that his attitude to receiving unexplained sums of cash was very much at odds with his impassioned declarations to the Dáil back in 1997, when the Dunnes payments to Charlie Haughey were being debated.
Back then, he came out strongly against serving ministers receiving money for their personal use from private interests. Didn't matter a whit whether it had anything or nought to do with favours sought or given. It simply wasn't right.
"'The public is entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, officials and above all, ministers'. That is the core value that you outlined," Enda reminded the Taoiseach.
Oh, but Bertie stuck the boot into poor Charlie on that dark Dáil day for Fianna Fáil. But it had to be said. "We should not require of others what we are not prepared to practise ourselves," he declared back then.
Enda demanded yesterday: "Why do these standards not apply to yourself?" Ten years on, and from Bertie's perspective, it seems that what was sauce for the Kinsealy gander then is not sauce for the Drumcondra duck now.
The Taoiseach is a great fan of the Mahon tribunal transcripts. He encouraged Enda to read the "entire transcript" instead of zooming in on one soundbite. Because taken in the "entire context", Judge Faherty's "polar opposite" comment is not as damning as it might seem.
Life is too short. So, if you must, google "Mahon tribunal" and select the transcript for September 20th. Scroll down to the stuff that starts from about 15.15pm. (Actually, it's quite entertaining.) You will see Judge Faherty is aware of the Taoiseach's lengthy press statement, issued on May 13th last, which contained the following line: "I gave some consideration to purchasing this house or another house myself." She, however, wonders why Bertie never thought to mention this to the tribunal in private interview on April 5th.
As for his evidence, the Taoiseach was adamant. "I don't think that in any way I contravened anything that I've said myself." He supplied all the information "in relation to the regulations that applied" and in respect of the money he received "there were not those regulations then". Clearly, Enda was not enjoying his game of handball against the haystack.
As he rose for a second question, he sighed. "I find this quite distressing, actually." But he rallied, and tried again.
"Why was it wrong for Mr Haughey to accept money, and not for you?" The Taoiseach, rather out of sorts, thought the Fine Gael leader was being "unfair". The comments about Charlie Haughey rankled.
Deputy Kenny was blowing things out of all proportions. He got "two sets of loans from very close friends", insisted the Taoiseach. They were not business people, he continued, forgetting the Manchester whip-around, which came from people who must not have been friends because he can't remember their names. Although he was able to tell the tribunal that some of them were businessmen worth "50,000-plus". Leave off Charlie Haughey. "I don't want to get into what deputy Haughey did, or anyone else did," shrugged Bertie.
"It's wrong on people who are in the grave and it's wrong on people who are not in the grave." And he repeated yet again that the regulations were different back in the last century, around 1994.