Vincent Browne made false and damaging suggestions about Fine Gael and about me in his column yesterday on the basis of Fine Gael "documents" he claims to have.
He did not adopt the normal journalist's practice of first checking his facts in a timely way with those involved before going to print. It seems to be a case of not wanting to let facts get in the way of a good smear. I would like to know the editorial practice of The Irish Times in such matters.
I do not have the documents Vincent Browne has. I do not know how he came into possession of them. This is a legitimate matter for journalistic investigation. I do not know how he authenticates these documents.
Nor do I know if these documents were passed by Vincent Browne, or by whoever had them at the time, to the McCracken tribunal. If these documents did justify the inferences Vincent Browne now draws from them, they should have been. Vincent Browne should make a public statement on this point.
He makes the open threat of further revelations from these documents in future columns. If he intends to do that, he should, as an ethical journalist, first supply copies of all the documents to those about whom he proposes to make allegations.
Let me repeat that I do not have access to these documents and cannot authenticate anything in them. Because Vincent Browne has made his suggestions, without checking anything with me or with Fine Gael, and without showing his "evidence" to me, I am forced to reply relying on my memory alone.
Vincent Browne's column yesterday makes a clear suggestion of wrongdoing in Fine Gael fundraising in government from 1994 to 1997 when I was leader. This is on the basis of inferences he draws from these documents he has relating to the 1987 to 1989 period. This was five years earlier when the party was in opposition and had a different leader.
Apart from the leap in time, Vincent Browne's thesis is based on unchecked falsehoods about what actually happened in the 1987 to 1989 period.
I want to focus mainly on a suggestion by him that my work as an opposition spokesman on industry and commerce may have been influenced by a meeting I was supposed to have had with Mr Ben Dunne in the context of a party donation.
Vincent Browne wrote: "Alan Dukes acknowledged that when he met Ben Dunne and got a sizeable donation, he arranged for Ben Dunne to meet the party spokesperson on industry and commerce [the area most relevant to Ben Dunne's business], none other than John Bruton."
Vincent Browne goes on to suggest that Alan Dukes's correspondence on this point was copied to me for action. The clear inference Vincent Browne draws is that I then met Ben Dunne on the strength of Ben Dunne's contribution to Fine Gael. Vincent Browne is wrong.
I did not meet Ben Dunne in that period about any matter, either on foot of a donation or otherwise. I have also confirmed with Mr Dunne that I did not meet him. I have spoken by phone today [Wednesday] with Alan Dukes and he confirms my own view that he did not ask me to meet Ben Dunne at that time, either.
These same documents of the 1987 to 1989 period which Vincent Browne has were also probably the source of equally false journalistic suggestions made about me when I was Taoiseach. My name, apparently, appears in someone else's handwriting beside lists of potential or actual donors in these documents. This led to the suggestion by a newspaper in the 1990s that, as a front-bencher in the 1980s, I had spoken to these named people about money for Fine Gael.
Just as in Vincent Browne's column yesterday, these journalistic allegations were published without checking with me or with the people I was supposed to have met. As the newspaper was already being distributed, I had to check with the people concerned and confirmed my own recollection that I had not in fact met or spoken with these people at all about funds for Fine Gael.
Vincent Browne jumps forward from those "events" of the 1980s, on which his information is false, to make suggestions of impropriety about Fine Gael fundraising from 1994 to 1997. There was no impropriety in Fine Gael fundraising during the 1994 to 1997 period while the party was in government.
Before coming to that, I would first like to deal with the party finances in the 1990 to 1994 period. It is true that while in opposition after 1990, Fine Gael had severe financial difficulties dating from the presidential election of 1990. Dealing with these was one of my first tasks on becoming party leader at the end of 1990.
The problem was then so serious that I did have to become personally involved in fundraising at that point. There was also a particular financial difficulty, I think in 1993, when I had to take a personal hand in approaching donors.
Some front-benchers may have been involved if they knew particular potential donors well. However, this was not systematic and was never linked to commitments or understandings on policy.
I would have much preferred if neither I, as party leader, nor any spokespersons had to become involved in direct fundraising at all. But manpower resources were very small and at times the financial circumstances threatened our very functioning as a political party. This involvement was both necessary and proper in all the circumstances. Parliamentarians also had to make loans to the party to assist it.
Fine Gael also made severe efforts to economise under my leadership in the 1990 to 1993 period. Staff numbers were dramatically cut and expenditure generally was carefully scrutinised. We also economised on our election spending. I believe that we actually spent less on the 1992 general election than the funds we received in that election, and this helped with our debt. As a result of the cumulative effect of these efforts, Fine Gael's financial situation was much improved and was manageable by late 1994.
When Fine Gael unexpectedly entered government in December of that year, I advised ministers to be scrupulously fair and proper in their dealings as ministers. I asked them to protect themselves and their office from anything that could be open to misrepresentation or suspicion. In fact, I think I actually said something like: "Do not ever do anything that you would not want to see on the front page of The Irish Times."
When any political party enters government, it is a fact that all its activities are more fully supported than when it is in opposition. For a political party, being in government is a sign of success. People like to be associated with success. Attendance at branch meetings goes up and support for constituency level fundraisers and draws goes up. It is also undeniably true that national fundraising is considerably easier.
During Fine Gael's period in government, its fundraising was organised by a committee of business people who supported the party. While, as president of Fine Gael, I signed letters of request for donations to the party from lists which had been prepared for me, it was not my task to follow these up.
No linkage whatever was made between government decisions and fundraising. It was clear to everyone involved - donors and Fine Gael alike - that that would be entirely improper.
Vincent Browne acknowledges that the general secretary of Fine Gael has already given him fairly detailed figures about Fine Gael's financial position in the 1990s. Even though he has these figures he seems unable to absorb any explanation which does not fit in with his unjustified prejudice that something wrong was done.
Vincent Browne even seems to profess surprise when he makes the following statement: "Then in the year of the last election, 1997, Fine Gael enjoyed record takings short of £2 million . . . In 1992, its income was almost half that."
Let me put three very mundane explanations to Vincent Browne as to why Fine Gael's legitimate fundraising in 1997 might be almost twice as good as that in 1992:
(a) The economy was much more buoyant in 1997 than it was in 1992, so legitimate fundraising for all parties was easier in 1997;
(b) As measured in seat gains/losses, Fine Gael's political stock was rising in 1997 whereas it was falling in 1992, and that obviously made legitimate fundraising easier in 1997;
(c) Through inflation the value of money had fallen between 1992 and 1997.
Furthermore, it is worth adding that Fine Gael like all other organisations carrying a debt, benefited from the fall in interest rates during the 1990s.
Vincent Browne makes another mistaken statement which ought to be corrected. He says: "Fine Gael spent a fortune in that 1997 election: £2.3 million."
If he had checked this, as I have done, Vincent Browne would have been told that Fine Gael at national level spent a little over £1 million in the 1997 general election, not £2.3 million.
Let me conclude by assuring your readers that, to my knowledge, nothing improper was ever done by Fine Gael in its fundraising activities, either in government or in opposition.