Letter puts Burke back in firing line

One morning in June 1989, the builder, Mr Michael Bailey, and Mr James Gogarty of the Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering (JMSE) company arrived together at the home of Mr Ray Burke. Mr Gogarty gave Mr Burke £30,000 in cash and both men left.

It was this fact that Mr Burke dealt with in the Dail two weeks ago to the stated satisfaction of the two Government parties. The questions had been answered, there was nothing more to be said, and the new tribunal would not examine the payment, the Government said.

Now there is new information. Just three days before Mr Gogarty handed over what was more than a year's salary to Mr Burke, Mr Bailey had written to Mr Gogarty, whose company, JMSE, owned particular pieces of land amounting to some 700 acres in north County Dublin.

Mr Bailey said he knew how to get land rezoned for development, how to get planning permission and by-law approval and pointed out that this could be a way to make a lot of money.

This builder, Mr Bailey, said that if he was given ownership of 50 per cent of the land, he would help to have it rezoned and procure the necessary planning permission, thus making a lot of money for himself and JMSE. To be successful, he said, they would need to go through various difficult steps, including getting Dublin County Council to vote in favour of the proposal twice.

The only fact that is disputed is the amount of money handed to Mr Burke three days later. According to Mr Gogarty, the amount handed over was £80,000, £40,000 from JMSE and £40,000 from Mr Bailey's company, Bovale. This is denied by Mr Burke and Mr Bailey who insist that just £30,000 was paid by JMSE, and nothing by Bovale.

In the context of the undisputed facts, this divergence seems fairly irrelevant. The Opposition say that the facts pose some obvious questions. Yesterday, there seemed to be some fudging of the Government line that it couldn't see what these questions could be.

Up to yesterday, the Government had fully accepted Mr Burke's account of the donation made to him and maintained that it regarded the matter closed. In Mr Burke's account of events there is no connection whatsoever between the land rezoning and development plans of Mr Bailey and JMSE and the donation of money to him. "Mr Gogarty indicated to Mr Bailey that JMSE wished to make a contribution to my election fund," Mr Burke told the Dail two weeks ago. "Mr Bailey brought Mr Gogarty to my home and, during a very brief meeting, Mr Gogarty confirmed that JMSE wished to make a political contribution to me. The contribution was entirely in cash. Prior to leaving with Mr Bailey, Mr Gogarty wished me well in the election." And that, according to Mr Burke, was that.

Dismissing the emergence of the letter last night, Mr Burke asserted that there was no link between the activation of Mr Bailey's potentially lucrative rezoning and development proposal and the donation made to him. The emergence of the letter was part of a continuing effort to smear him, he maintained.

Mr Burke points out that he was no longer a member of the county council when the payment was made to him. In other words, he is saying that even if someone wanted to use their money to get the council to vote a certain way - and there is no suggestion that anyone did in this case - they would hardly give money to a politician who was not even a member of the council.

But the publication of the letter has added fuel to Opposition demands for the payment to Mr Burke to be included in the terms of reference of the next tribunal of inquiry. The Government is to face a Fine Gael Dail motion to revise the terms of reference of the new tribunal in the light of the latest revelations. Last time around, Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats presented a united front to vote down proposals that the Burke payment be included. Now they may have to work out a common position again.

Mr Ahern kicked for touch when pressed by reporters on the issue yesterday. Asked if the new tribunal should not investigate the matter now, Mr Ahern said that if a tribunal was ever investigating these matters, the tribunal would need to investigate all re-zoning matters and all planning matters.

He seemed to imply that he believed the central issue was what Mr Bailey and Mr Gogarty were up to, rather than anything to do with Mr Burke. He said, nevertheless, that he would examine the letter and would ask Mr Burke about it, although Mr Burke has appeared to give his answer to that particular question already. There is no link between it and the donation, he says.

Meanwhile, the Progressive Democrat wing of the Government was visibly squirming. Ms Mary Harney would not say specifically that the payment to Mr Burke should be included in the terms of reference of the new tribunal. What had emerged was "very serious"and should be investigated, but she did not say by whom, or when.

The party has thus managed to appear concerned but has avoided stating a view beyond a general statement of unease and a non-specific suggestion of an investigation. It nevertheless represents a shift from the party's assertion a fortnight ago that Mr Burke had "answered the questions".