There’s one person who had a very close view of life on Planet Bertie

MUCH of Charles Haughey’s financial need was caused by the requirement to keep his mistress Terry Keane in the style to which she had become accustomed.

Could Bertie Ahern’s financial needs in the controversial 1992-’94 period have had as much to do with keeping his new partner Celia Larkin happy as sorting out the final arrangements of his separation from his wife Miriam, as he has claimed to date?

This is a question from which many people have recoiled until now, and with good reason. Ahern is entitled to privacy in relation to personal matters and both his separation from his wife and the establishment (and subsequent collapse) of his relationship with Larkin fell into that category, too.

But the problem is that Ahern demolished the division between personal and public last week when he admitted he had put political donations to personal use.

As for Larkin, her financial arrangements during her time as Ahern’s partner are now of considerable public interest as they are entwined deeply with his. It seems Ahern's political money was put to her personal use in a further twist in his explanation for his own financial activities. We know of one occasion when this happened, and it is reasonable to ask now if there were more.

I suspect the Mahon Tribunal may be restricted in what it can do by its terms of reference, however, even if it suspects a probe might throw much-needed light on things unconnected to its investigation into whether Owen O’Callaghan gave Ahern money.

Larkin may be protected by the fact that she was never elected to public office — although she was appointed to two positions paid for by the State — and could claim her private rights would be infringed by any investigation directed at her activities in the period prior to 1997.

But even those who have tried to avoid the tribunals can hardly have failed to notice the significance of Larkin being revealed as the ultimate beneficiary of a £30,000 payment from what Ahern has described as a Fianna Fáil constituency account.

Here’s why it matters. Ahern has claimed he knew nothing about the transfer of money from an account administered by trustees in his constituency, but how plausible is it that something like this would happen in an organisation where he is supposed to know everything?

The idea that a Fianna Fáil constituency organisation would start advancing loans of that size to anyone — let alone three elderly women related to Larkin, no matter how deserving — at a time when the party was trying to clear its own massive debts is extraordinary, too. That it happened at a time when Ahern was responsible for the effort to raise money as party treasurer and was engaged in an attempted centralisation of Fianna Fáil finances to eliminate constituency discretion adds to this farce.

That the money went to his girlfriend’s relatives on the basis of a quasi-mortgage on a house that she would inherit eventually brings us even further into the realms of “you couldn’t make this up”.

To cap it all, the money was repaid at a reduced rate of interest in the first month of 2008, and apparently only after the tribunal found out about it via a different route, not because the information was volunteered by Ahern.

Let’s assume, though, that Ahern was telling the truth about not knowing that others were moving money earmarked for his political use to Larkin’s benefit.

It raises the question as to whether it happened at other times, not disclosed to him at the time and to us to date, because other people thought that was the right thing to do.

And if it is shown that Ahern did know, could it have happened at other times that he did not handle money, but got Larkin to handle it for him instead?

Ahern has form in keeping money one step away from him. Des Richardson was central to that, operating fund-raising for Ahern’s constituency (as well as for the party nationally under Ahern’s direction) and is now in the process of providing details of myriad bank accounts to the tribunal.

It seems certain now to investigate if any money coming into those accounts found its way to Larkin rather than Ahern. It’s timespan may be limited, however, to between 1992 and ‘96. What if it could do more?

Think back to the evidence we heard last year at the tribunal and Larkin’s involvement in all the stuff about Ahern’s house in Drumcondra. It’s hard at this stage to keep track of it all, but remember that one of the claims by Ahern is that stg£30,000 was given him in cash by landlord Michael Wall to furnish the house while Ahern was renting it. This money was then given to Larkin to spend.

Remember that when she gave evidence she couldn’t recall withdrawing £50,000 in cash from her own account in 1995 and of walking down O’Connell Street with it in a bag to bring back to Ahern. She said she was relying on Ahern’s recollection of those events.

While Larkin has never held elected office, for more than five years her name appeared on many official State invitations as Ahern’s partner. She also became his official partner for foreign visits. She got her first paid gig from the public purse in 1997 when the new Taoiseach appointed her to run his constituency office which, in retrospect, was a stunning form of cronyism.

Larkin left the official State payroll in 2000 to follow her own career path as a fashion consultant and media celebrity. The relationship with Ahern — after considerable speculation about marriage and children and then relationship difficulties — ended in late 2002 with most of the media tactfully avoiding questions of a personal nature (despite the highly public disclosures that had preceded it).

IN THE middle of 2005 Ahern shocked everyone by naming Larkin to the board of the National Consumer Agency.

Everyone wanted to know why, given that her qualifications went little further than her relevant experience in offering cosmetic and beauty services to customers of her shop.

The official line was that Micheál Martin, as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, appointed Larkin to her position. That’s true, but it beggars belief that Martin would have done so without the nod from Ahern given the publicity such an appointment was bound to arouse.

We know Ahern likes to appoint his friends to State boards. He told Brian Dobson this during his now infamous October 2006 TV interview.

But what we didn’t know at the time of Larkin’s appointment was that the Mahon Tribunal was engaged already in a detailed investigation of his finances and was in correspondence with him. Larkin probably knows more about Bertie Ahern’s political life and his personal life during that period.

She may never have married him, but she was alongside him at all the crucial stages for over a decade. She may hold the key to the ultimate disclosures as to what really happened on what John Gormley used to call Planet Bertie.

* Matt Cooper presents The Last Word on 100-102 Today FM, Monday to Friday, 5pm to 7pm.