Last Wednesday, Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, made a startling revelation, which has been largely ignored. The revelation concerned his investigations into rumours surrounding Ray Burke before the formation of the Cabinet a year ago. Speaking from what he said were "contemporaneous notes" of meetings he had last June, Mr Ahern recalled how on June 24th - two days before the Cabinet was formed - he had travelled to London at the request of his party leader to interview Mr Joseph Murphy jnr of the construction and engineering company, JMSE.
He said he had told Mr Murphy how Bertie Ahern had been questioned about rumours of Mr Burke receiving a large donation from JMSE and that he (Mr Ahern) had "responded by stating he had spoken to Mr Burke on a number of occasions regarding the persistent rumours and that Mr Burke categorically denied there was any truth in them".
Mr Ahern went on to quote further from these notes about that meeting with Mr Murphy and a subsequent meeting. He said "full details of these contemporaneous notes have been given to the (planning) tribunal". Mr Ahern went on to say in that Dail debate: "To the best of my knowledge, at the time of the appointment of Mr Burke, the Taoiseach, having made all the inquiries he could reasonably have made, had discovered no proof that any payments, improper or otherwise, had been made to Mr Burke."
As far as I am aware, this is the first time that any of Mr Burke's former Cabinet colleagues has claimed that he had "categorically denied" that there was any truth to the rumours concerning his receipt of substantial payments from JMSE.
It is also the first time that any close colleague of the Taoiseach has said that at the time of Mr Burke's appointment to the Cabinet there was no proof of any payments, "improper or otherwise", having been made to Mr Burke. Presumably, if there had been proof that payments, "improper or otherwise", had been made to Mr Burke he would not have been appointed.
It is well known that Mary Harney was also concerned about the rumours surrounding Mr Burke before the formation of the Cabinet last June. It would be astonishing if the reassurances which Mr Dermot Ahern was able to give Mr Murphy in London on June 24th (that Mr Burke had denied the rumours about payments) were not also conveyed to Ms Harney at the time. It would also be surprising if she had not been told of the absence of proof of any payments, "improper or otherwise", being made to Mr Burke.
Let us reel forward to 11 weeks later, to September 10th, when Mr Burke, now Minister for Foreign Affairs, addressed the Dail by way of a personal statement. The Minister opened his statement with the words: "I have come here today to defend my personal integrity, the integrity of my party, of this Government and the honour of this House". He continued: "The facts of the matter are that during the 1989 general election campaign I was visited in my home by Mr Michael Bailey of Bovale Developments Ltd and a Mr James Gogarty (of JMSE). Mr Gogarty told me JMSE wished to make a political contribution to me and I received in good faith a sum of £30,000 as a totally unsolicited political contribution."
If they had not already known about this payment, the two Mr Aherns must surely have been dumbfounded by the revelation. Mr Bertie Ahern, apparently, had questioned Mr Burke about the persistent rumours of such a payment and "Mr Burke categorically denied there was any truth in them". Mr Dermot Ahern had believed to the best of his knowledge that at the time of Mr Burke's appointment to the Cabinet 11 weeks earlier there was no proof of any payments, "improper or otherwise", being made to Mr Burke. Ms Harney surely was quite shocked? After all, she had been told in June about there being no proof of payments, "improper of otherwise", and of Mr Burke's denials of the rumours about the payments, wasn't she?
Magnificently, all three disguised their inner turmoil in the ensuing Dail debate on the terms of reference for the new Moriarty Tribunal. It was the stoic Ms Harney who formally proposed these terms of reference, which excluded any inquiry into the £30,000 payment to Mr Burke.
The Taoiseach spoke movingly of the need "to insist on the highest standards in public life". Mr Dermot Ahern expressed the sentiment: "Honesty and integrity must be our core principles." This means that any behaviour not in accordance with these principles must be exposed to public view."
Even four weeks later the two Mr Aherns and Ms Harney were still supremely in control of their trauma. Mr Burke resigned from the Cabinet and the Dail on October 10th and that afternoon Mr Bertie Ahern protested: "It is an indictment of those involved in forcing him to this pass. I have always found (Ray Burke) to be a proud, honourable man, loyal, true, persevering principled, caring and committed."
Ms Harney spoke of her admiration for Mr Burke. Mr Dermot Ahern described John Bruton's expression of regret over the circumstances of Mr Burke's resignation as "crocodile tears".
Now what was going on here?
Either Mr Burke denied receiving any payments or he didn't. If he did, why did the two Mr Aherns and Ms Harney stand by their man on September 10th, when he revealed he had lied to them? If he did not deny these payments, what was Dermot Ahern on about in his "contemporaneous notes"?
There are two other possibilities, of course: (a) that the two Mr Aherns did not tell Ms Harney about Mr Burke's denials of receiving payments and of the absence of proof of any payments, "improper or otherwise", or (b) that Mr Dermot Ahern and his contemporaneous notes are all wrong.
But it is hardly believable that the two Mr Aherns would not have told Ms Harney about the denials and of the absence of proof, unless, of course, she never raised the matter with them at all or did so in such a vague manner as not to require any specific explanation. That is hardly believable, is it?
And as for the contemporaneous notes being wrong, well is it not a teeny bit curious that Mr Ahern would not have discovered that they were wrong, say last September, or some time between now and then? Would it not have occurred to him to ask Bertie: "What has been going on here? I thought Burke had denied all this about payments, improper or otherwise." And if Dermot and his contemporaneous notes were simply wrong, would Bertie not have told Dermot that at least at the time that Dermot was submitting these mistaken notes to the planning tribunal?
Very strange.