15 November 2001 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

Burke's grimm tale

BY ROBBIE MacGABHANN


Another day, another tribunal, another politician with a Grimm fairytale. This week's troll tale was the fourth chapter in the appearances of former Fianna Fáil minister Ray Burke at the Flood Tribunal.

Burke suffers from the same disease as former Fine Gael minister Lowry who is currently starring at the Moriarty Tribunal not to mention a cameo appearance this week at the rail signaling inquiry. Both disgraced ministers suffer the disease of forgetfulness, where illegal undisclosed off shore bank accounts laden with six-figure deposits are concerned.

This is not to be confused with the similar symptoms of Charlie Haughey's malaise where he just cannot remember anything.

Burke was appearing at the Flood Tribunal to shed light on a range of financial contributions given to him by property developers during his days in political office.

We know now that Burke's forgetfulness on these matters has meant that not only have his previous appearances at the Flood Tribunal been filled with errors but it is clear now that he also misled Leinster House in 1997 when he was explaining his chequered financial dealings there before resigning as a minister and deputy.

Not only does Burke suffer from bouts of forgetfulness, his shredding of half a ton of confidential documents, months before the Tribunal actually began, could not have helped matters. The reason for such drastic action was, according to Burke, because he liked to "start afresh" after every election. After previous elections he would have burnt the documents. Maybe this explains why neither Burke nor the Tribunal investigators can find any evidence of Burke actually purchasing the large detached family home in which he resided for many years.

It doesn't explain why though, when Burke was receiving what he maintains were political donations, he chose to route them through offshore bank accounts in the Isle of Man or Jersey.

£125,000 from builders Brennan and McGowan was lodged in this way and it is known that Burke traveled three times to Jersey and that when opening bank accounts he once again fell under a spell of forgetfulness and could not remember either his full name or address, as the ones he provided were abnormal spellings of his name, with other bogus details.

The tribunal has also uncovered details of offshore accounts held by Burke in the 1970s. At one stage, Burke was receiving £1,000 a month from builders while his actual annual salary as a TD was £2,000 a year. For seven years between 1975 and 1982, Burke was receiving £1,000 a month from Brennan and McGowan builders. Burke claimed it was his commission from selling houses for the firm.

From evidence given by Burke about the fees he received from his estate agency business, this means he sold 1,700 houses, while being a full-time TD and local councillor.

At the same time, Burke was also receiving lump sum payments.

Despite his apparent success at the house sales business, Burke wound up the company in 1982. In all, it is estimated that he received up to £400,000 in this period, a sum of money that would run into millions today.

The Tribunal's work goes on and it still unclear what sanction, if any, Ray Burke will have to pay for his forgetfulness. The need for a speedy resolution of the Tribunal's work has been hampered by the failure of the Attorney General to find the extra judges needed to help Justice Flood in his investigations.

The Tribunal is now ending its fourth year in operation. Its revelations have been dramatic but much more than drama is needed. Fairytales are supposed to have happy endings, except of course for the villains.

Yes minister


BY ROBBIE MacGABHANN

    
It is unbelievable that three ministers in succession could know so little about such an important project

Michael Lowry didn't know, Dukes thought it was odd and Mary O'Rourke was misled.

This week, the three past ministers for Public Enterprise, with whom one would have thought the buck stops, were all back peddling at the Rail Signalling Inquiry. The Inquiry is investigating how a £14 million project ended up in £50 million costs for CIE and a massively valuable telecommunications network for ESAT telecom.

Only days after another display of forgetfulness at the Moriarty Tribunal, the former Public Enterprise Minister was having another aspect of his work questioned.

What the Inquiry wanted to know was what did Lowry know about the deal between ESAT's Denis O'Brien, with whom Lowry has had very public financial dealings, and CIE, over whom Lowry was supposed to be in charge.

Lowry told the Inquiry that he had as a minister no knowledge of the deal between the two companies except what he saw in the media. He knew nothing of the negotiations between the two companies.

Alan Dukes replaced the disgraced Lowry in 1996. However, it was not until May 1997 that he learnt from Denis O'Brien that ESAT might be interested in constructing a telecommunications network along the railway line. The fact that negotiations were nearly completed between CIE and ESAT at this time was described by Dukes as "odd".

Mary O'Rourke has been minister for over four years and she told the Inquiry that she had been misled into thinking that independent consultants had approved the cabling project. O'Rourke said that it was represented to her that "the final deal was endorsed as a very good one for CIE". The firm had given no such endorsement. It was not until October 1999, when O'Rourke received an anonymous call to her constituency office, that she realised there was a problem with the joint venture. Within days, she had received a formal memo outlining the true depth of the problem and the cost overruns.

The Inquiry has now had its final formal sessions, but huge questions lie unanswered. Why did Dukes not act when he knew there were negotiations between the two companies? The deal was agreed when he was still in office.

Why did Mary O'Rourke not ask to either see the NorContel consultant's report or actually speak to a representative of the company?

There are huge failures within CIE and Iarnrod Éireann over this fiasco. There is also a huge management failure at ministerial level. It is unbelievable that three ministers in succession could know so little about such an important project.

It remains to be seen as to what the Rail Signalling Inquiry report will conclude. It must shed much more light on just what was happening in the Public Enterprise minister's office for the past decade.

Something is very very wrong. This should not be just another case of Yes minister. We need to know what went wrong and why and maybe even what else these ministers did not know.


An Phoblacht
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland