"If the truth is not told to me, if we haven't got honest Government . . . those are the criteria on which I would no longer be able to serve in the Government." The Tanaiste, Ms Harney, 28/1/99.
The first question facing the Tanaiste is whether the truth was told to her and whether it was told promptly. But she also must answer one herself: why did she tolerate the Taoiseach declining to reveal his intervention to the Dail and the public for at least three weeks?
She was told on April 14th that the Taoiseach had asked the Department of Justice last July whether Philip Sheedy, serving a four-year jail term for drunken driving causing death, could avail of day release.
However, the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, said on RTE radio yesterday that he became aware of the Taoiseach's query in "early April". A Government spokesman said the fact of the query emerged three or four weeks ago. The exact date of this could not be ascertained last night. It is crucial in determining whether Ms Harney was told the information promptly.
The second serious issue is why Mr Ahern ignored advice from Ms Harney to make a statement on the matter to the Dail. Instead, he discussed with Mr O'Donoghue whether and how the information should be revealed.
The Taoiseach - with Ms Harney's knowledge - kept this information from the Dail for at least three weeks. The long wait is not the action of a man keen to have this information placed in the public arena, despite his statements to the contrary yesterday.
Since he told Ms Harney he had made an inquiry in relation to the Sheedy case and that a record of this was on file, momentous developments have flown from the affair, yet he did not reveal his own involvement. Two judges have resigned, as has the Dublin Circuit Court County Registrar. Political controversy has raged, Ms Harney has repeated her advice to Mr Ahern and yet he did not reveal the information until it was clear the Sunday Tribune was going to publish it.
Mr Ahern answered questions on the Sheedy affair at length in the Dail last Wednesday. It was open to him at any time to mention the inquiry he had made either on that occasion or in a statement at any time since it was drawn to his attention. He chose not to do so.
It is clear from comments of the Minister for Justice on the radio yesterday, however, that at one stage a decision was made not to reveal this information. He made it clear too this decision was taken in order to protect the Taoiseach. Mr O'Donoghue said: "May I make it perfectly clear the reason why the information was not made available was because of the fact that it was not relevant to the case and I was acutely aware that what would happen was that it would be used by conspiracy theorists as fodder and in a most unjustified and unfair attack on the integrity of the Taoiseach and I felt that it would come out as appropriate."
Mr O'Donoghue also said the Taoiseach had mentioned the matter to various people, including a journalist at the Irish Management Institute conference which Mr Ahern opened on Friday, April 23rd. Mr O'Donoghue's inference that this shows a desire on behalf of the Taoiseach to get the matter into the public arena appears questionable. If he wanted the information to be known, he could have simply issued a statement.
Mr O'Donoghue made it clear yesterday he had discussed with Mr Ahern whether and how this information should be released. "The Taoiseach quite rightly told me that if this matter was raised, well, obviously I should answer it," he said. However, the implication of this is that if the right question was not asked, then the information would remain undisclosed.
Indeed, The Irish Times inquired of the Department of Justice last week whether any representations had been made seeking temporary release from prison for Sheedy. The answer was "No".
A spokesman said yesterday he had no specific recollection of this query, but that the note in the Department of Justice of the Taoiseach's query made no reference to temporary release. However, it is clear from his interview yesterday that the Minister for Justice has been aware for a month of the nature of the query from Mr Ahern, and that it related to day release. If, when the Sheedy case became a matter of public controversy, Mr Ahern had remembered that he made an inquiry about the case the previous July, the implications for continuing trust between him and Ms Harney in Government would be very serious, probably fatal. Having said she would "walk" if the truth was not told to her, it is hard to see how this would not be a "walking" issue.
However, according to a Government spokesman the Taoiseach had no recollection of directing that this inquiry be made last July. The Government spokesman says that once he was given the details in early April of the information on file about his inquiry, Mr Ahern had some recollection of the matter and remembered, for example, that when he received the letter - he presumes from Philip Sheedy's father - asking him to make an inquiry he received some FAS documentation with it.
This letter is not on file in the Taoiseach's Department, according to a Government spokesman. However, Mr Ahern was able to say yesterday that he knew he had been asked to inquire as to whether Sheedy could get day release so he could participate in a community project. It is not clear where this detail has come from.
A spokesman for the Tanaiste declined to comment on whether she believed the latest revelation had implications for the stability of the Government. Mr Ahern's present position is that he will not make a statement on the matter but will answer questions. ail resumes on Wednesday this week, the Opposition will have little else on their minds.