The Minister for Foreign Affairs insisted during a question-and-answer session with the opposition parties that no favours had been sought and none were given for the £30,000 political contribution. He also said he had taken out a personal overdraft facility of £35,000 following the 1989 general election to meet family expenses.

Asked by Mr Alan Shatter (FG, Dublin South) if he was surprised to receive the contribution, Mr Burke said it was exceptional. Mr Shatter asked if the Minister had asked Mr Gogarty the reason for his generosity and if he inquired why the sum of £30,000 was being delivered to him in a cash form. In what notes was the money received?

Mr Burke said he wanted to say something on the general question of contributions, adding that he was much taken by the view expressed by Fine Gael in a press statement last month in which it accepted that solicited and unsolicited contributions to the election expenses of parties and individual candidates were a normal, healthy and unexceptional part of the democratic process.

It was not just Fine Gael which had that view on unsolicited contributions. Another distinguished member of the House - (Mr Dick Spring) in reply to what he thought was an "impertinent" question from the Kerryman newspaper on December 20th of last year - had said that the bulk of his election expenses were his own personal responsibility. He had said that they had increased significantly in recent years and assistance from supporters was welcome, but he was honour-bound to observe the confidentiality under which contributions were made.

The member of the House had said, the Minister added, that the donations received were in the order of £200 and any donations over £500 would have been an exception. He had added that he fully supported the disclosure elements in the Electoral Bill and would comply with all provisions when it came into effect. Mr Burke said he also supported the provisions of the Bill.

Mr Shatter intervened to say he had deliberately asked two simple questions and, for reasons he did not understand, the Minister appeared to be evading answering them. Mr Burke said there was a view in the House about contributions which he was trying to outline.

He said that Mr Shatter would have to ask Mr Gogarty why he came to him, adding that he had no recollection of the "denominations " of the funding.

Describing the amount of money involved as "extraordinary", Mr Shatter asked why it had not occurred to him to ask Mr Gogarty why he was giving him £30,000 and why it was in cash. He asked if there had been other funds received by Mr Burke, in cash or otherwise.

Mr Burke said he had not asked questions about the contribution. "As far as other funding is concerned, I am here today to answer about a particular donation of £30,000."

Pressed further by Mr Shatter, the Minister produced a letter which he said was from his bank, the Ulster Bank, Dublin Airport branch, Swords Road, confirming that it had issued on his instruction a bank draft in favour of Fianna Fail for the sum of £10,000.

Lest the suggestion be that, in some way or another, there was massive surplus left over after the election, he was producing - although he found it offensive to have to do so from a family point of view - a copy of a letter from his bank, dated August 4th, 1989, confirming a £35,000 overdraft facility which he required at the time. "Does that sound like somebody who was awash with cash?" Mr Burke later explained that the overdraft was for "family reasons" - the refurbishment of his home, the provision of a tennis court for his children and a change of car for his wife, which she still had.

Replying to the Labour Party leader, Mr Dick Spring, the Minister said there had been a telephone call from Mr Bailey saying that he was coming to see him. He arrived the next morning. Asked by Mr Spring if it had been clarified if the money was for personal use or for Fianna Fail, Mr Burke replied: "No. That did not arise . . . no discussion. There was a very brief discussion."

Mr Burke then read from correspondence between his solicitors and those acting for Mr Gogarty. He said they related to his defamation action against Mr Gogarty. In one of the letters, said Mr Burke, the evidence of Mr Bailey in the forthcoming High Court action would be that there were only three people present in his (Mr Burke's) home on the morning the money was handed over - Mr Burke, Mr Gogarty and Mr Bailey. Mr Bailey's evidence would also be, he added, that at this meeting no favours were requested by Mr Gogarty or offered by him (Mr Burke).

Mr Spring said he wondered if the Minister and himself lived in different worlds. "Did the Minister not have any sense of something remotely odd about two gentlemen arriving with £30,000 in cash? Did they say it was £30,000 in cash, or did they just hand you a wad of money? Did you not for one moment think of the implications? Do you not consider for one moment that it was not the norm in the context of elections which, as you say, have become expensive?"

Mr Burke said he had already indicated it was an exceptional sum of money and that he had left himself open to the kind of allegations that had been made. "In hindsight, it should not have happened as far as leaving yourself open is concerned, but there were no rules in place in 1989 in relation to subs."

He said the money was contained in two envelopes and it was only after the people had left that the money was counted. He had never received a larger contribution. If anybody had any other allegations relating to it, they should go to the Garda authorities. "I know there are plenty of them stirring around in the media."

Mr Pat Rabbitte (DL, Dublin South West) asked how much money had been spent in the campaign in Mr Burke's Dublin North constituency in 1989. The Minister replied he had no intention of getting into that. "I can say this to the deputy: it was a very, very expensive campaign." He would give him some idea.

Members would recall that the 1989 campaign was a long one, given the lead-up to it. During the campaign, he had organised and paid all the expenses of operating several canvass teams. He had arranged and paid for two crews to poster the constituency on an ongoing basis. He had literature printed and financed leaflets.

"I carried out a vigorous personal campaign and as everyone here knows a candidate's progress through a campaign is marked by ongoing levels of expenditure. I staged several meetings with party workers, supporters, and covered the cost of those.

"I caused billboards to be placed throughout the constituency, utilised an extensive level of transport, especially on polling day. I placed numerous advertisements, I had additional secretarial back-up, and after the campaign I had functions to thank workers and supporters and paid the costs involved."

He said that any fair-minded assessment would demonstrate how quickly and how easily considerable amounts of money were spent during a campaign. He was not in a position to furnish details and documents to support what he was saying, but he very much doubted if any other member of the House could do so relating to an election held over eight years ago.

Pressed further by Mr Rabbitte, the Minister quoted from newspaper reports of the libel action taken by the Democratic Left leader, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, against the Sunday Independent, relating to a subscription of £28,000 to the Workers' Party.

Mr Rabbitte had said in evidence that up until then there would always have been subscriptions, some corporate, some by individuals who did not want their identity known, and there was nothing unusual in that. Mr Burke added he agreed fully with that view.

Mr Rabbitte said Mr Burke was no stranger to controversy in the planning area. "And for that reason, would it not be reasonable to ask him: did this size of donation not cause alarm bells to ring in his head when he counted it subsequent to the departure of Mr Gogarty?"

Mr Burke agreed that he had been involved in controversy before. "I have been the subject of allegations, innuendo. I have been accused of everything other than starting the Chicago fire and been involved in the shooting of Michael Collins in the last couple of weeks.

"But, as far as the 1989 situation is concerned, there could have been some concern if I was a member of a local authority and in any way in a position to influence any decision. But, as the deputy will remember, I had left that local authority in March of 1987."

Mr John Gormley (Green Party, Dublin South East) asked if the Minister would agree with the summing-up of Mr Denis McCullough SC in the payments-to-politicians tribunal that the mere acceptance of such a gift compromised the recipient.

Mr Burke said the rest of the report of the tribunal should be read relating to political contributions and that they should be continued within the new rules that had been laid down. "I fully support those new rules." He added that he was being judged on the rules of 1997, which were right and proper, relating to a contribution in 1989 when there were no rules in place.

Mr Joe Higgins (Socialist Party, Dublin West) asked if Mr Burke had ever canvassed any elected member of the former Dublin County Council to vote for land rezonings or material contraventions which would redound to the benefit of either JMSE or Bovale or the principals of those companies or people close to them.

"Secondly, when Minister Burke found that the amount donated was £30,000, which at the time would be roughly three years' wages for an ordinary worker, did he not feel that he could be heavily compromised and heavily indebted to that company, who might subsequently come to him and look for a favour to secure some planning or monetary or other value for them that his position as a senior politician would allow him to carry out on their behalf?"

Mr Burke said in relation to the first point the answer was quite simply no. Not only had he not lobbied, but he had actively opposed, when no longer a member of the council, rezoning decisions made by the council. With regard to the second question: "I didn't feel compromised, I don't feel compromised, and I would not have felt compromised in any way in relation to it."

Mr Spring asked if there was any relationship between Bovale and Murphys, either a working relationship or otherwise, at that time or since. Mr Burke said he had no knowledge of that.

Mr Thomas Gildea (Ind, Donegal North East) asked the Minister if he had received any monies when he granted the MMDS licences during his period of office as Minister for Communications under the Haughey-led government. Mr Burke replied: "No."

Mr Richard Bruton (FG, Dublin North Central) asked if the money Mr Burke received was used solely for political purposes, as the tax laws would require were it not to be declarable as a gift. The Minister said: "Yes."

Ms Liz McManus (DL, Wicklow) said there were many deputies in the House, including herself, who had never been offered anything "remotely like £30,000" and never would be, but they still fought in elections. "I wonder if the Minister might like to indicate why he feels he was deserving of a £30,000 contribution?"

Mr Burke said he had already indicated the position of the deputy's own party regarding a £28,000 contribution from an unnamed source, about which a verbal explanation had been given by Mr (Sean) Garland. There didn't seem to him to be a huge difference between £28,000 and £30,000. As to why he should be given the contribution, he hadn't asked for it, it was given. "I thanked them for the contribution, he wished me well and that was it."

Mr Bernard Allen (FG, Cork North Central) asked if the Minister was aware of any other similar contributions made to other members of the present Government. Mr Burke said: "No."

Mr Jim O'Keeffe (FG, Cork South West) asked if, since receipt of this money in 1989, the Minister had lodged any monies in overseas bank accounts. Mr Burke said he had answered in relation to his accounts and he was not answering any further in relation to "my particular account".

"I have bared my soul to this particular House today and I find that particular question offensive in the extreme from you, coming at this stage. I have tried in fairness to the members of this House to be fair and reasonable and up-front with my information and I am doing that in the way that I have and I have no overseas bank account," he added.

Mr O'Keeffe asked was the Minister confirming to the House that he had never, since 1989, opened or lodged money in an overseas bank account? He was referring in particular to the Isle of Man. Mr Burke said the answer was no. Mr Brendan Howlin (Lab, Wexford) asked on what basis Mr Burke had divided the £30,000 into £10,000 for Fianna Fail headquarters, £7,000 for his constituency organisation and the balance for his personal election expenses. Mr Burke said there was no particular "scientific breakdown of it".

Mr Jim Mitchell (FG, Dublin Central) said the Minister had said he lodged the money to his personal account. Was that the personal account in the Ulster Bank at Dublin Airport and, if so, was it not strange that he had paid Fianna Fail by bank draft rather than by cheque from that account?

Mr Burke: "Can I say that I'm very glad that I paid them by bank draft rather than cheque because if I had paid them by cheque I would have been in a position of trying to trace it and I would have been in a position of, because it goes back so far, that I wouldn't have had the record of the cheque." He did not think it unreasonable at all that he had paid by draft.

"As a matter of fact, Deputy Mitchell, I am very pleased that that contribution and all contributions I received were during the course of general elections, not in between general elections," he added.

Mr Mitchell again asked if the money was lodged to the personal account in the Ulster Bank at Dublin Airport. Mr Burke said some of it would have been lodged and some of it would have been used in the ongoing day-to-day expenses of the campaign.

Mr Rabbitte asked why the Minister had not referred to the £10,000 bank draft to Fianna Fail headquarters in his first statement. He also asked why, since this matter was the subject of rumours for more than two years now, had the Minister not chosen to make any comment during that time.

Mr Rabbitte said this was especially when "the good name of another member of this House was being vilified as a result of a rumour which emanated in the environs of this House, but not by a member of this House. But for two or three months in the summer of 1995 another member of this House was commonly believed to be the person associated with the Neary business from Newry." Had it never occurred to Mr Burke to make a statement that, as he firmly believed, there was nothing improper about this in the first instance?

In reply to Mr Rabbitte's first question, the Minister said the matter of the £10,000 bank draft had already been referred to by the Taoiseach over a month earlier. It had already been covered by the Taoiseach and he didn't think it was necessary.

When the Neary controversy arose, it "never dawned" on him that he was the person involved. It was only later as things developed and the stories continued to run that he found himself "at the centre of a storm". "As to why I chose not to [respond], I suppose probably in the terminology we're all used to, I didn't want to give oxygen to the story . . . it did eventually keep running and after the general election my name was dragged into it, but also because of my wonder at some of the things that were being said about me at the time and the appalling things that were being said about my father and myself."

Mr Burke then appealed for the House to bear with him while he cleared up one thing which deserved clarification. His father had been a member of the House from 1944, and served it "loyally and well" for 29 years. He still met people the length and breadth of the country who knew and admired him, and respected and had great affection for him.

An article had appeared in the Sunday Business Post by a Mr Frank Connolly, about Mr Ray Burke, which stated: "The land on which his house is built was originally purchased by Burke's father Paddy, who bought it from an inmate of the mental hospital in Portrane, Co Dublin." Mr Burke said his father had worked as a nurse in the hospital at Portrane until the mid-1950s. The statement in the article was a "complete and utter lie". He had with him in the House the Land Registry documentation showing that the site had been bought by him (Mr Ray Burke) in a normal commercial transaction. It was a transaction which had been the subject, with others, of a Garda investigation in 1974.

He did not take action over the article "because I've never sued a newspaper since I came into this House in spite of the things they've said about me".

Also in relation to why he did not feel he should make statements, he wanted to give another example of the type of journalism "thankfully only followed by a minute number of the people in this journalistic profession". He had received a letter from the Sunday Times on Thursday, July 31st, 1997.

The letter, from the paper's Ireland editor, Mr Rory Godson, had said stories in the media about Mr Burke's relationship with Bovale Developments and other matters appeared to be the culmination of "a lengthy series of smears about you, but not by name".

"We're interested in setting out clearly and unambiguously the position in relation to all this as there seems to be considerable confusion at this stage," the letter had said. "We propose talking to you off the record about this. You can be absolutely assured that any conversation will be treated as being in the strictest confidence."

There was no suggestion in the letter that there was going to be a major article on the following Sunday, Mr Burke said. That article had led the front page with the headline "Firms gave £80,000 to Burke" and had said, in the middle of it, "Burke was not available for comment yesterday".

Then last week, on September 3rd, he had received a personal letter from Mr Godson, beginning "Dear Ray". It continued: "I'd like to talk to you for a few minutes about James Gogarty etc. As you know I missed you on the week that you went on holidays despite valiant attempts by you to get back to me. We could meet on a private basis for a confidential chat which would enable the Sunday Times to print an informed assessment of the current situation ahead of next week's Dail debate".

Mr Burke said the two letters, taken with the article which had said he was not available for comment, clearly indicated "at least unethical journalism".

The Ceann Comhairle, Mr Seamus Pattison, said at this point the full hour had been devoted to questions and answers on the issue, as was set out in the order of the House. Some deputies pointed out that Mr Burke had said he did not mind continuing for a further five to 20 minutes if necessary, but Mr Pattison said the House had decided that morning that there would be one hour and that had not been changed. The House moved on to other business.