THE revelations concerning payments to Charles Haughey throughout his last stint as Taoiseach from 1987 to 1992 were shocking even to those of us who had questioned for years the funding of his lavish lifestyle. The supplications for more and more ash for the financially-strapped Taoiseach were debasing; the off-shore payments route was sordid.
The most damning evidence, of course, has been the direct testimony of Ben Dunne (denied by Mr Haughey) that he personally handed over bank drafts for £210,000 sterling to Charles Haughey in November 1991, and the fact that these monies followed the same paper trail as did he four previous payments.
When the first supplication was made to Ben Dunne on the part of Charles Haughey some time in 1987, it was the first year of Mr Haughey's return to power as Taoiseach. During that year and the following favouritism on a scale hitherto unequalled in the State was showered upon another wealthy businessman, Larry Goodman.
He was afforded over £100 million in export credit insurance cover for the export of EC intervention beef to Iraq and massive IDA grants following the direct intervention of Mr Haughey himself. As a result of what was then done a legal action against the State is now pending for a total of £200 million.
Unfortunately, the beef tribunal explicitly avoided any investigation either of the finances of political parties or of the politicians at the centre of such massive favouritism. The sole member of that tribunal, Mr Justice Liam Hamilton, stated in the introduction to the report: "In view of the nature of some of the allegations, the tribunal sought particulars of contributions made by companies or persons engaged in the food-processing industry to political parties, Ministers and a number of individual members of Dail Eireann, from the parties concerned and the companies making the contribution.
The tribunal received full co-operation from all parties concerned and the relevant details were supplied as requested by the tribunal. The tribunal does not intend to refer further to this matter or report thereon as the tribunal is satisfied that such contributions were normal contributions made to political parties and did not in any way affect or relate to the matters being inquired into by the tribunal".
And that was it.
The Ethics in Public Office Act fails entirely to deal with the kind of issue that has been raised by the Ben Dunne payments. Unless a statutory and permanent commission has the legal authority to investigate the finances of public office-holders, there can never be the assurance that public policy decisions are not influenced by private financial considerations.
And the significance of public policy decisions being so influenced is that, thereby, people are treated unequally by the State. Those who assist office-holders to overcome their personal financial difficulties are more likely to be favoured by the State than those who do not.
But precisely the same consideration applies to the funding of political parties. If political parties are financed by private wealth, then the political system is biased in favour of the holders of private wealth in two ways: first, contributors to political parties, at a minimum, are likely to have more access to office-holders and thereby more influence over policy decisions; and, second, those parties that favour the interests of private wealth have an advantage over those parties that favour the interests of those without wealth.
Charles Haughey was not the only person to be debased by payments from Ben Dunne, however generous and disinterested the motivation of Ben Dunne may have been. Alan Dukes and John Bruton were also debased.
Alan Dukes and Ben Dunne are both personable people but are so in very different ways - for instance, Ben Dunne is "one of the lads", Alan Dukes is not. The dinner they arranged for themselves and their wives at Barberstown Castle in 1989 must have been a tortuous affair for all involved, even though Alan Dukes secured a commitment from Ben Dunne for the latter to pay into the Fine Gael coffers £30,000 per year over three years. According to Alan Dukes, they discussed policy.
BEN Dunne is a fine fellow in many ways, but he would not be big into issues such as European integration, European Monetary Union, fiscal policy or the combined effects of the social welfare and taxation systems. He would, however, have been hugely interested in competition policy. Whatever interchange there was between the two men and their wives, Ben Dunne clearly did not feel threatened by whatever Alan Dukes told him, because he agreed to hand over the cash.
Then in 1993 there was a meeting in Ben Dunne's home in Castleknock, between him and the new leader of Fine Gael, John Bruton. This meeting was set up by Michael Lowry. Here Ben Dunne agreed to pay over a further £100,000 to Fine Gael, having previously given a total of £80,000.
And, incidentally, would it not have been obvious to John Bruton either before or at this meeting that there was a special financial relationship between Ben Dunne and Michael Lowry? Indeed, given that John Bruton had visited Michael Lowry's extended lavish mansion in Holycross, Co Tipperary, during one of the leadership "heaves", isn't it implausible that John Bruton would not have wondered where Michael Lowry came by his considerable wealth?
And isn't it surprising that he did not ask Lowry about this on appointing Lowry to Cabinet. Or did he? Just as it is surprising that nobody in Fianna Fail seemed in any way curious over many years about the sources of Charles Haughey's spectacular wealth.
Fine Gael was in considerable debt in 1993, the year before it went into Government. It is now, apparently, in a very healthy financial state. What happened in the meantime to transform this situation? And isn't it extraordinary how coincidental it is that the revival of the party's political fortunes happened when it was returned to Government?
WE are about to have another election now, at which the parties will spend literally millions of pounds, obtained in the main, not from fun-runs or race nights or draws, but from private wealth holders. Compromises, explicit or implicit, will be made against the interests of the average person, and we will be told again and again that no undertakings were given or asked for. Even if that were always the case (and I for one don't believe that it is), implicit understandings are entered into, understandings on access, of identity of interests, or being "sound" on financial and taxation matters and the like.
Too bad for the small man and woman.