It's good to know that Tom Parlon can think twice about things, as he said yesterday on radio about his appearance in a newspaper advertisement endorsing a commercial product, writes Mary Raftery.
It is rather the act of thinking once that may be more of a problem for him.
Had the Minister for State at the Department of Finance given even a scintilla of serious consideration when asked to advertise a particular brand of calf feed, he might have realised the consequences.
The advertisement in question, a half page in the Farming Independent of July 12th last, contains endorsements for the product from three individuals. Tom Parlon is the only one photographed with the calf nuts being promoted, prominently clutching a big sack of them to his bosom.
It is truly extraordinary to see a Government Minister so blatantly advertising a commercial product even if, as Parlon has stated, he received no payment for it. No one I spoke to in political circles can recall it ever having happened before. Even in the Irish Farmers' Association, of which Parlon is a past president, they have no memory of such a senior office holder advertising or endorsing a product in this way. Joe Rea, another famous past president, did tell me there were always approaches being made by various firms but that you just wouldn't do it; you had to be seen to be independent.
John Grennan, the supplier of the product being promoted by Parlon, is understandably delighted. "We're hoping the ad will have a big impact," he told me. "Tom and myself are friends from way back. I ran the whole thing past his office just to check it was all fine. I don't see what all the fuss is about."
The fuss - such as it is - is about whether it is either ethical or appropriate that holders of ministerial office should allow their names, photographs and, by extension, their positions to be used to promote, advertise or endorse a commercial product.
Today, it may be Parlon and calf nuts, but what next? Harney and a particular brand of painkiller? Cowen and a specific bank? Cullen and the latest souped-up SUV, suitable for our over-priced motorways? Perhaps even McDowell and an unusually effective brand of padlock? It is clearly the case that such a prospect would be spectacularly distasteful, not to mention wrong and unethical. It would also make us the laughing stock of the world where, as far as I can tell, most government ministers are house trained enough to know that direct product endorsement and political office do not mix - ever.
Rushing to the defence of Tom Parlon, however, sources close to him emphasised that he neither sought nor received any payment, and that it was a genuine opinion of a product he used in his farming activities. "It's not like he was promoting Calvin Klein or anything like that," they added, conjuring up an even more extraordinary image than that of their Minister gripping a sack of calf nuts.
Tom Parlon himself has said he does not believe he has done anything wrong, that he is happy to allow the Standards in Public Offices Commission adjudicate on the matter. The problem here is that direct endorsement of commercial products by Ministers is so far outside the Pale that it is not specifically covered by either legislation or guidelines. In fact, Tom Parlon may have inadvertently done the body politic a favour by forcing the commission to examine and make recommendations on the issue.
The Code of Conduct for Office Holders (ie Government ministers) mainly deals with matters of conflict of interest and disclosure. It is full of statements that the highest ethical standards should be adhered to by office holders, but short on specifics required to control the kind of activity engaged in by Tom Parlon.
Looking at UK procedures in this area, the behaviour of ministers is governed by what are called the Seven Principles of Public Life. Contained in the ministerial code, the first and most important of these is headed "Selflessness". It states that "holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends." On one level, what Tom Parlon did by appearing in the advertisement for calf nuts was a simple favour for a friend, a neighbour as he described it on radio, which involved no personal gain to himself or no conflict of interest.
However, whether intended or not, the fact is that the office of Minister for State at the Department of Finance was used to gain financial benefits for the friend of that Minister. This by any standards is both unacceptable and unethical.
In a week which also saw the appointment of Celia Larkin to the National Consumer Agency, this Government is evincing scant concern for public disquiet about what it appears prepared to do for its friends. It is clear that the apparatus designed to ensure ethical behaviour in office requires a major overhaul.