ANALYSIS:What is urgently required is absolute transparency about all donations to politicians and political parties
THE CHALLENGE for Taoiseach Enda Kenny in the two-day Dáil debate on the Moriarty report was to put the issue behind him and his party once and for all. He managed it reasonably well in the debate but the real test will be how quickly his Government acts to implement the recommendations of the tribunal to ensure the links between politics and business are severed once and for all.
Given the enormous challenges that now threaten the country’s long-term economic viability, the last thing anybody needs is another long and acrimonious political debate about what did or did not happen in the competition for the mobile phone licence 15 years ago.
There was an obvious temptation for the Opposition to capitalise on the embarrassment to the new Fine Gael-Labour Government of a tribunal report on the activities of the last government involving the same two parties. The fact the report landed so quickly after the Government took office appeared to be a godsend.
It certainly put Kenny in an awkward spot but, by and large, he handled it well, mainly because he focused on his Government’s commitment to changing the way politics is done in the future rather than trying to defend the practices of the past.
He did gloss over the rainbow government’s handling of the mobile phone licence award to Denis O’Brien, but it make sense to avoid getting sucked into a fruitless “Punch and Judy” debate about the past that would only have served to shake confidence in his Government before it had even got into its stride.
Kenny couldn’t resist the temptation to take a few side swipes in the direction of Micheál Martin and Fianna Fáil for their record on ethical issues in the course of his speech, but the main focus was on the future and the Government’s reform agenda.
He promised to end corporate donations and to regulate the relationship between business and politics in the future. As Minister for Enterprise Richard Bruton pointed out yesterday, Michael Noonan actually banned corporate donations to Fine Gael in 2001 but a fat lot of good it did the party in the election the following year.
Banning corporate donations will only go part of the way. What is required is absolute transparency about all donations to politicians and political parties. At present there are ways in which companies and individuals can disguise large contributions by splitting them into amounts that come under the declarable limit. Publishing all contributions would get around that and would do more than a ban on corporate donations to ensure that politics is not contaminated by business practices.
From early in the debate, the Fianna Fáil leader went for the jugular, attacking Kenny and Fine Gael and claiming the integrity of the licence competition had been “disgracefully compromised” in a way that might yet expose the State to punitive compensation claims from losing consortiums. He insisted there had been a “targeted programme of financial donations to Fine Gael and engagement with Fine Gael politicians were a core part of the strategy of the same bidder”.
Martin and a number of other Fianna Fáil speakers also referred to Fine Gael Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan and a conflict of evidence with estate agent Mark FitzGerald that emerged during the tribunal hearings. Martin pointed to Hogan’s role in raising funds from Denis O’Brien in 1996. “Today he is a Cabinet Minister, trusted lieutenant to the Taoiseach, national director of elections for Fine Gael and centrally involved in the party’s fundraising.”
Hogan hit back yesterday, saying he would not accept pious preaching from “a party that has had the franchise on debasing Irish politics and public life through whiparounds, pick-me-ups, cronyism and post-dinner collections for a party leader”. Just to rub it home, Hogan added: “Furthermore, in volume one of the report there are many revelations about Charles Haughey, who was a family friend of the current Fianna Fáil leader, Deputy Martin.”
There was embarrassment for the Government, though, when Labour TD Tommy Broughan was highly critical of Fine Gael and indeed of the entire rainbow government of the mid-1990s.
“During the period of the issuance of this second GSM licence, Fine Gael was busy rebuilding its finances and raising millions from big business. Deputy Michael Lowry was the chair of Fine Gael trustees and worked closely with the then taoiseach, John Bruton, and his then right-hand man, the current Taoiseach,” said Broughan.
At the end of the Dáil debate, the Taoiseach answered questions about Fine Gael’s fundraising and its involvement with O’Brien in the 1990s. While Martin was not happy with the responses, Kenny put a considerable amount of information about his party’s fundraising activities at that period on the record.
Before the debate concluded there was agreement on the wording of a motion of censure on Michael Lowry that will be debated in the Dáil today. The motion was initially tabled by Sinn Féin and was ultimately accepted by the Government after the Taoiseach had made the point that, under the Constitution, a TD cannot be forced to resign.
In his maiden speech, young Fine Gael TD Eoghan Murphy suggested the Constitution should be amended to allow a member of the Dáil to be expelled, but as things stand that is not possible.
Lowry himself intervened to say that while he would not try to force a vote on the censure issue, he had no intention of resigning. “I will not walk away from the overwhelming mandate that was given to me by the constituents of North Tipperary-South Offaly.” He repeated his contention that he had been treated unfairly by the tribunal and even said he might have to go to the European Court of Human Rights to vindicate himself.
All in all, the debate was relatively low key, and while it was enlivened from time to time by the Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil spat, the ultimate test of its merit will be whether it leads on to genuine political reform.
STEPHEN COLLINSis Political Editor