Line in sand may not hold back tide for Ahern

BERTIE AHERN is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea as he stands up to make his presidential address to the Fianna Fail Ardfheis tonight.

His plan to launch the party's general election campaign on a high will be marred by his knowledge that Charles J. Haughey, former leader of only six years ago, will be named by Ben Dunne next week as the recipient of £1.1 million in payments as Taoiseach.

The coincidence of timing of the three important events - the pre election ardfheis to position the party for the campaign, the start of Mr Dunne's oral evidence at the tribunal of inquiry on Monday, and the planned calling of the election in 11 or 12 days - has upset the party hierarchy. The identity of "the senior Fianna Fail figure" may have been known to every dog on the street for four months, they say, but the naming of Mr Haughey in public is different. They are angry.

There is panic, approaching hysteria in some cases, in the party as to how to handle the allegation that a Fianna Fail Taoiseach received more than £1 million pounds in payments from a single businessman in the early 1990s. While the temptation is there to bluff and bluster, as Brian Lenihan did yesterday when he said that"these are matters of historic interest", Mr Ahern knows he is presented with a deadly serious political problem.

How Bertie Ahern, who would be seen as Mr Haughey's protege since he entered the Dail in 1977, can distance himself from the emerging revelations will determine the damage to the party.

He believes he has a strategy to do so. He drew a line in the sand for Fianna Fail, as he said, in his Dail speech on the nomination of Alan Dukes to succeed Michael Lowry last December. He enunciated the principle that "anyone who abuses their position or knowingly flouts the rules will be gone".

He followed through on that position, in principle, when, without naming Mr Haughey, he told the party faithful at the opening of the ardfheis last night that "there would be no place in our party today for that kind of past behaviour, no matter how eminent the person involved or the extent of their prior services to the country".

While that principle may carry him through this phase of the payments controversy, however, he is acutely conscious that he may be forced to take a more active stance within weeks.

Mr Ahern finds himself in an embarrassing, even invidious position, on the Haughey payments allegations this weekend. He last met Mr Haughey when he visited him in hospital in January. It is understood that they did not, in the circumstances, discuss the emerging controversy. He has received no direct information about Mr Haughey's position since.

From indirect sources, the Fianna Fail leadership believes Mr Dunne will state that the payments to Mr Haughey were for personal, rather than party, purposes. That is some source of consolation. The leadership also believes no favours were sought, or received, for the money.

But the party hierarchy has no knowledge as to whether Mr Haughey declared any payments received for tax purposes. And Mr Ahern, in a key passage in his "line in the sand" speech, did state "It has been suggested that a former prominent member of my party who served in Government may have received directly or indirectly financial payments from Dunnes. If that has any substance, the same approach is required (as in the Lowry case). Financial gifts have to be declared for capital acquisitions tax purposes, if they exceed the threshold."

Engulfed in uncertainty about the course, and fate, of the tribunal, Mr Ahern would find it difficult to expel Mr Haughey from the party. Senior sources say that the former leader's membership is only a technicality at this stage. He has not gone to a party meeting since 1992. He does hold any officership.

Though Mr Haughey was invited to the ardfheis he will not be attending this weekend. Party sources read this, however, as an act of self interest by Mr Haughey to avoid the media glare, more than a gesture of goodwill to the party.

The leadership is also conscious that the party's national director of elections, Mr P.J. Mara, could prove another focus of controversy. Mr Haughey's former spokesman is directing the election campaign. This led Mr Ahern to question Mr Mara about the Haughey allegations at a recent meeting. He is satisfied that Mr Mara knew nothing about any payments and will say so.

Mr Ahern believes that he can handle the Haughey bombshell in the election campaign by drawing a line in the sand with the past. It remains to be seen whether this strategy will succeed.