The proposed extension of the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal to include an investigation into payments made to Ray Burke generally and into his decisions as a government minister will not do. The questions that arise about political funding go beyond that. But first to the coy Fitzwilton, the hapless Ray Burke and the beleaguered Bertie Ahern.
In response to questions about its £30,000 contribution to Ray Burke, Fitzwilton has stated (through its solicitors Matheson Ormsby Prentice): "Fitzwilton has consistently supported the democratic process in Ireland through contributions to the main political parties. In 1989 the group made a £30,000 donation to Fianna Fail in relation to its election expenses.
"We are instructed that [the Fitzwilton representatives] asked Mr Burke to whom the cheque should be made payable. Mr Burke requested that it be made payable to cash as he wished to defray some constituency expenses and pay the balance to the party's head office. It was always understood by Fitzwilton that the great majority of the money would be paid over to Fianna Fail headquarters for its election expenses."
Asked about other payments to politicians, Fitzwilton said: "Over the years Fitzwilton plc has made contributions to all the main political parties through their representatives."
Several questions arise from these answers:
If Fitzwilton policy was to support consistently the democratic process through contributions to the main political parties, why, in 1989, did it make only one contribution which was to Fianna Fail via Ray Burke?
If the £30,000 donation was intended for Fianna Fail why should the Fitzwilton representatives have needed to ask Ray Burke to whom they should make the £30,000 cheque payable?
Why did these representatives accede to Ray Burke's request to make the cheque payable to cash, given the problems this would cause a public company and the difficulties it might create in an audit?
Which was it: the £30,000 was intended for Fianna Fail or most of the £30,000 was intended for Fianna Fail? If only part was intended for Fianna Fail, how much was intended specifically for the party and how much for Mr Burke? Also, why did Fitzwilton want to make any payment to Mr Burke?
Since at least some of the £30,000 was intended for Mr Burke, why didn't Fitzwilton own up to making a contribution to Mr Burke and to giving him a cheque made payable to cash for £30,000 in June 1989, when the controversy arose last year about the other £30,000 contribution to Mr Burke at exactly the same time?
The revelation that over the years Fitzwilton contributed to all the main parties through their representatives begs the questions: who were these other representatives of the political parties through which Fitzwilton made political contributions? If it intended to support the democratic process, why did Fitzwilton choose to contribute via political representatives rather than directly to the political parties?
Then there is the curious matter of the receipt for the payment.
Fitzwilton says it received only an acknowledgement of its contribution from the party leader, Mr Charles Haughey. It claims it received no receipt specifying the amount involved. So:
Was Fitzwilton not concerned at the time that it received no receipt specifying the amount involved, if only for the purposes of the annual audit? Indeed, if its intention was to support the democratic process, would it not have been worried that its philanthropically intended contribution had been misdirected?
Of course if, as Fianna Fail claims, it did send a receipt specifying the payment of £10,000, one wonders why Fitzwilton did not immediately inquire about the rest of its well-intentioned
£30,000. Unless, of course, it was happy £20,000 of the sum should have gone to Ray Burke.
On the other hand, if Fianna Fail never sent a receipt, how come a receipt for £10,000 has surfaced and been handed over to the planning tribunal?
But besides Fitzwilton, there is the issue of Fianna Fail's knowledge of the money Mr Burke received.
It is obvious some people in Fianna Fail knew Fitzwilton paid some money to Mr Burke in
June 1989 because of the acknowledgement Fitzwilton received from Mr Haughey of the generous donation.
What was the extent of the knowledge in June 1989 of the payments received by Mr Burke, and who had that knowledge?
Fitzwilton says it understood Fianna Fail headquarters knew of the full £30,000 contribution. Apart from what Fitzwilton has said, I am aware there were rows within Fianna Fail during and after the 1987 and 1989 general election campaigns about money received by senior party figures that was never passed on to the party head office. Or not passed on in full.
I understand there was a row specifically over the £30,000 Mr Burke received from Fitzwilton and it was only after pressure was exerted on Mr Burke that the £10,000 was passed over via a bank draft drawn on June 16th, 1989.
It is obvious that, at Fianna Fail's head office level, it was known that a large donation had been given to Ray Burke in June 1989 by Rennicks Manufacturing on behalf of Fitzwilton.
How is it, then, that when the rumours started to flow in June and July last year nobody remembered the Fitzwilton donation and nobody remembered even when Mr Burke made specific reference on September 10th last to the bank draft he sent to the party on June 16th, 1989? And that question applies even if the people concerned no longer work for Fianna Fail.
Could it be there was anxiety lest a far larger and more sordid can of worms be opened about contributions made to senior figures in 1989?
There must be a wide-ranging inquiry into contributions generally to political parties and individual politicians. Fitzwilton's acknowledgement that it made payments to political parties over the years through public representatives makes this essential anyway.
There may be a temptation to extend any such inquiry just into contributions made by Mr Tony O'Reilly and the companies associated with him. But a broader inquiry is required if we are to learn of the extent to which financial contributions to individuals and parties have influenced political decisions.
And any such inquiry should apply not just to Fianna Fail. For instance, it remains curious how Fine Gael would have been financially bankrupt before it went into office in December 1994 and be financially sound a year or so later.
And one further point. The inquiry should cover not just financial contributions but benefits-in-kind as well.