Despite Mr Paddy Duffy's insistence that he has played no role in Dillon Consultants since his appointment to the board of that company last December, Dillon Consultants has been keen to put him forward as a major attraction. The company's website lists Mr Duffy on its page headed "our people". It lists him as a director, saying he has "25 years experience as political adviser at the most senior levels of Government".
This is a central part of the company's pitch to prospective clients. "Our experience and involvement in both politics and mass media gives us access and influence at the highest levels of decision making and agenda setting", the company maintains. It offers "formal and informal communication channels to government and stakeholder groups", the website says.
It does not exaggerate. Mr Duffy was of assistance to Dillon Consultants over six months before he joined that company's board. The company, run by his friend Mr Paul Dillon, asked him could he organise a meeting between the senior management of NTL - one of Dillon's biggest clients - and the Taoiseach.
Mr Ahern revealed on Saturday that Mr Duffy had passed on this request to him, and that he agreed to the request. He and a senior official from his department met NTL representatives on May 21st last. This coincides with the recollection of NTL, given to The Irish Times by a spokeswoman last Friday, that NTL's managing director, Mr Owen Lamont, had a meeting with Mr Ahern as part of a series of meetings with "key influencers in the country" organised by Dillon Consultants.
Public affairs companies sell themselves on their ability to influence public policy. For a relatively newly-formed public affairs consultancy to be able to organise a meeting between a client and the Taoiseach of the day is something they would value deeply. NTL was a company newly arrived in Ireland. It would undoubtedly have been impressed by Dillon Consultants' ability to get it an audience at the highest political level.
It would have been pleased too when Mr Ahern came to Portmarnock Country Club last November to announce the opening of a new NTL facility to be based at Clonshaugh Industrial Estate in north Dublin. It is not known whether Mr Duffy played any role in this event. Attempts to speak to Mr Duffy yesterday were unsuccessful.
The question raised here is whether NTL received preferential treatment as a result of Mr Duffy's position on the Taoiseach's political staff. There are questions Mr Ahern could usefully answer in this regard. Would he have met NTL anyway, or did he do so only as a result of Mr Duffy's intervention? When Mr Duffy passed on the request did Mr Ahern know the request came via Dillon, and that Mr Duffy was a friend of Paul Dillon?
However, a Government source said last night that Mr Ahern also had Civil Service advice that it might be a useful meeting.
Mr Duffy could also help by answering a simple question: Was he influenced in passing on Dillon Consultants' request for a meeting with NTL, or would he pass it on in the same way as all requests for meetings with the Taoiseach from similar companies?
There could also be a Garda investigation into whether an offence has been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1889 to 1916, as amended by the Ethics in Public Offices Act 1995. The 1995 Act, guided through the Oireachtas by then minister of state Ms Eithne FitzGerald, included special advisers within the ambit of the original corruption legislation.
The relevant - but convoluted - section 2 of the Act now states: "Where in any proceedings against a person for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, as amended, or the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, as amended, it is proved that any money, gift or other consideration has been paid or given to or received by an office holder or special adviser or a director of, or occupier of a position of employment in a public body by or from a person or agent of a person holding or seeking to obtain a contract from a Minister of the Government or a public body, the money, gift or consideration shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as such inducement or reward as is mentioned in such Act unless the contrary is proved."
Put more simply, if a special adviser gets "any money, gift or other consideration" from someone seeking to obtain a state or public contract or their agent, this is a corrupt payment for the purposes of criminal proceedings unless it can be proven otherwise.
Dillon Consultants was an agent of NTL. NTL was seeking the contract to buy Cablelink from two public bodies, RTE and Telecom Eireann. Mr Duffy received a non-executive directorship from NTL, which is surely a "gift or other consideration".
Under the legislation, the onus of proof is on him to show there was nothing corrupt about this. His explanation, given in a statement late last Friday night, is that he received this directorship due to "a series of misunderstandings" on his part. This explanation implies that there was indeed nothing corrupt about the matter, but under the law it would be up to Mr Duffy to prove his explanation was correct. It is clear that Mr Duffy did not declare his directorship of Dillon in his annual statement of interests under the Ethics in Public Office Act. He confirmed this himself on Friday night by saying: "I should have confirmed that my name was not listed as being a non-executive director before completing my January 1999 return to the Public Offices Commission."
Finally, the Taoiseach could explain why he has not yet fulfilled his obligations under the Ethics in Public Office Act for the year February 1st, 1998 to January 31st, 1999. It is clear from Mr Duffy's statement that Mr Duffy has given a declaration of his interests to the Taoiseach for that period, and The Irish Times understands that other advisers have completed their declarations as well, as required by the Act.
A Government spokesman said last night that these forms have been submitted to the Public Offices Commission. However, the Taoiseach has not fulfilled his obligation under the Act to make these declarations public by placing them in the Dail library. The spokesman said this was due to an "administrative oversight".
Two other Ministers, the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, and the Minister for the Marine, Dr Woods, have also failed to place annual statements in the Dail library.