JOHN Bruton became Taoiseach in December, 1994 following the enforced resignation of Albert Reynolds. Albert was obliged to resign by the Labour Party because of his failure to tell the Dail on Tuesday, November 15th, information we now know to have been entirely irrelevant.
The best that can be said about John Bruton's evidence to the tribunals is that, in June, 1992, he did almost precisely the same as Albert Reynolds did on November 15th, 1994. Sadly, in John Bruton's case, that "best" interpretation isn't sustainable because: (a) of the straight conflict between what he told the tribunal and what be has recently told us is the truth; and (b) his evidence to the tribunal was under oath - he swore to "tell the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth".
In a letter to this newspaper last Thursday, Jobn Bruton disputed the contention in my column of the previous day that there was a direct conflict between what be said to the Dunnes payments tribunal on Monday last and what he told the beef tribunal on June 22nd, 1992.
To recap. Last Monday week at the Dunnes tribunal, he acknowledged that in 1991 he had been engaged in frenetic fund-raising activities on behalf of Fine Gael and had personally contacted hundreds of people in that capacity.
A few months later he gave evidence to the beef tribunal on June 22nd, 1992. At the opening of his evidence, a letter from the tribunal which had been sent to Fine Gael was quoted. This sought information relating to financial contributions made to Fine Gael by any company or person connected to the beef processing industry during the years 1982 to 1992. It was quite clear that what was being inquired into was not contributions made just during election times but contributions in general.
Clearly, in that context Mr Bruton was asked (Question 15): "Are you, as leader, or other politicians within your own party, made aware of the particular political contributions made by a company or person?"
He replied: "No. Now that is not to say that one might not on a random basis become aware of contributions that are made by particular individuals, but there is no systematic informing of politicians of contributions and, in fact, my understanding is that they, it has always been the case that this particular trustee [Mr Sean Murray] doesn't disclose the information to anybody as a general rule, not even the party leader at the time. The donations received during an election campaign are quite simply lodged on a daily basis during the campaign and that's more or less as is outlined in the letter that the secretary general of the party has supplied to you this morning.
Mr Bruton claimed in his letter to The Irish Times last Thursday that the reference to the election campaign in the latter part of his answer proves he was referring just to election periods. The problem is that the question he was asked manifestly had to do with contributions made generally and not just during election periods. And the straight denial at the beginning of this answer was in relation to contributions generally.
A few questions then intervened about contributions made to local constituency branches of the party during election periods.
Question 19 was: "As far as the donations are concerned, apart altogether from general election periods, I take it that there are other occasions upon which the party would seek funding to help it?"
He replied: "Em yes. Yes but not, I am not aware of any such seeking of funds during the period in which the tribunal is, with which the tribunal is concerned, because I was not a trustee of the party at that time. I did not become a trustee of the party, nor was I in any way concerned with this national fund-raising activities until I became leader of the party, so I would not be able to give you any assistance on that point..."
Mr Bruton's answer to question 19 was, again, at best, a dodge. But, in the light of the revelations last Sunday in the Sunday Independent, that statement might not have been the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth either.
Amazingly, Dick Spring and the Labour Party have had nothing at all to say about this, so far. But also surprising has been the muted reaction of the media. How can it be all right for a Fine Gael Taoiseach under oath to appear to mislead a tribunal established by the Oireachtas, and it to be a hanging matter for a Fianna Fail Taoiseach for what he allegedly failed to tell the Dail?
NOW, as promised last week, to Ben Dunne and me. Around 1989, myself and a colleague purchased a bundle of shares in the Sunday Tribune (of which I was then editor) which had become available for sale. Our intention was to keep them out of the hands of Independent Newspapers plc and to sell them elsewhere as quickly as we could. We borrowed £200,000 from a bank to fund the purchase.
By 1992, the interest payments on the loan were crippling and the bank was pressing us for repayment of the principal. I was told that Ben Dunne might be interested in buying the shares and I contacted him. When we met, he said he would buy the shares for £200,000. The purchase would have had to have been made through the Stock Exchange, as the Tribune shares were then quoted on the market. The transaction would have been entirely open,
Some time later, he told me he had changed his mind. He said he would not buy the shares but would give us a loan for £200,000 on terms to be agreed, including interest terms. In the event, no loan was ever advanced and no monies came from Ben Dunne.
It has been contended that this proposed transaction was no different from the transactions undertaken with Ben Dunne by John Bruton and Alan Dukes which I criticised.
There is a crucial difference between the two transactions, apart from the fact that I got nothing and they got £180,000 plus for Fine Gael. In my instance, it was perfectly clear what Ben Dunne was getting in return for the monies he was proposing to advance - in the first instance he was to get shares and in the second instance he was to get repaid and on terms to be agreed.
Sure, there is a compromise involved in an editor being personally involved in a financial transaction, especially with a powerful businessman whose dealings with his staff at the time were, to say the least, controversial. But the funding of a newspaper inevitably involves compromises of that sort and I think I can fairly claim that as an editor and a journalist I have not been compromised by financial associations or, for that matter, friendships.