Mr Liam Lawlor has resigned from the Fianna Fail Party rather than face the inevitability of expulsion. His departure adds to the dependence of the Government on the votes of Independent TDs. But it is unlikely to force a sudden general election. Mr Lawlor remains a member of the Dail and, like Mr Denis Foley, he will continue to support the Government. Following his resignation, Mr Lawlor insisted that his political decisions had been made in the public interest and never for financial gain. And he described a Fianna Fail report dealing with his activities as "grossly unfair and inaccurate".
But Mr Lawlor would say that, wouldn't he? The reality is that a report by the Fianna Fail Committee on Standards in Public Life provided evidence of a lack of co-operation by Mr Lawlor into their investigations of payments to local politicians by property developers. It recommended that councillors should not act as consultants to property developers. And it concluded that he had been less than consistent in his evidence. At the end of all that, however, the committee failed to make a formal recommendation for disciplinary action. Instead, it faced Mr Lawlor with the inevitability of protracted disciplinary action and waited for him to fall on his sword.
Mr Lawlor emerged as "Mr Big" in the report, in terms of the sheer magnitude of donations and consultancy fees received. But others, including Mr G. V. Wright, received substantial political donations and were questioned closely on their voting records. And a conflict has now arisen between Mr Wright and the property developer, Mr Owen O'Callaghan, as to whether these donations were solicited. All of those called before the committee insisted they had never been influenced by the donations they received and most claimed the contributions had been unsolicited. In such circumstances, the task of the committee was a fruitless one. In the absence of any admission of wrongdoing it was not going to recommend disciplinary action.
It was not a report that will restore the public's battered confidence in the political system. The failure of the committee to draw conclusions, especially in the aftermath of Mr Frank Dunlop's startling evidence before the Flood tribunal, was a serious disappointment. Its general recommendations for procedural change in relation to land rezoning and for legislative change concerning corruption and the recovery of windfall profits, were worthy ideas, but they were hardly relevant to its terms of reference. And its recommendation that the Law Reform Commission be asked to examine the law on corruption and the duties of disclosure of conflicts of interest, was nothing short of perverse.
For months now, the opposition parties have been harrying the Government over the need to legislate for the registration of lobbyists, for corruption, for an end to corporate funding and for new ethical standards for councillors and officials and, in many instances, published their own Bills. In response, the Government offered to establish an all-party committee to consider the issues and to publish comprehensive legislation before the end of the year. The opposition parties declined to become involved in the all-party exercise. And it would seem the offer of reforming legislation by December may now have gone by the board. If the course of action recommended by the Fianna Fail Standards in Public Life Committee is adopted, such reforms could be delayed for years. That is not the kind of response the public either wants or deserves.