A limp response to affair of huge public concern

JOHN Bruton smeared thick paint yesterday on the pane of glass behind which the Government had been operating. Then, blind to public concern, he declared the Revenue Commissioners would have to do their duty in upholding the law.

It was a limp response to a question which went far beyond that of possible law-breaking, to one of public confidence in the political and administrative system and its relationship with big business.

The Taoiseach appeared unconcerned by allegations that other politicians, one of them a former Fianna Fail minister, had received large amounts of money from Mr Ben Dunne and from Dunnes Stores.

Mr Bruton appeared content to close the chapter on Mr Lowry's ministerial career and to leave it at that. Nobody was above the law but neither should they name people outside the House under Dail privilege. It was up to the Revenue Commissioners to investigate, and to punish, any possible wrongdoing.

The Taoiseach's approach may have been a case of "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. But the lack of appetite to "out" those people - politicians, public servants and newspaper executives - listed in the Price Waterhouse report was reflected in speeches from all Dail parties. Openness and transparency were a distant chimera.

Just in case some backbencher might get a sudden rush of blood to the head and name a prominent individual, the Ceann Comhairle read TDs the "rules of the club".

There was an expectation, Sean Treacy intoned, that a certain person who was no longer a member of the Dail might be named in the debate. He urged this should not happen if it could be construed as prejudicial to subsequent investigations by outside agencies". Mr Treacy need not have worried. He was talking to the converted.

For some, handing the whole shebang over to the Revenue Commissioners was equivalent to sweeping it under the carpet. Mary Harney declared this in ringing tones when she suggested the appointment of special government inspectors, under the Companies Act, to examine the affairs of Dunnes Stores, and of Michael Lowry's company, Streamline Enterprises.

But she stopped-short of calling for the naming of those people identified by Price Waterhouse because of "unorthodox payments" made by Ben Dunne to them.

Bertie Ahern appealed to the good nature of Dunnes Stores to publish the list voluntarily so all those named, including planning officials, could provide the required explanations. There was a dark cloud hanging over public life.

The Fianna Fail leader believed the tax aspects of donations to "a former prominent member of his party who served in government" should be examined. "Campaign contributions or contributions for political expenses" were, he said, "in a different category".

But any other contributions were "wide open to misinterpretation".

In the past, Fianna Fail has been "much too lax" about this, Mr Ahern conceded, but all that had changed. As for the future, he and his front bench were determined that "anyone who abuses their position or knowingly flouts the rules will be gone". A line would be drawn under "bad habits which may have grown up over the last 30 years".

Dick Spring's contribution was even more dispiriting. Abandoning the high moral ground and the need for the public interest to be served through publication of the Price Waterhouse report, the erstwhile campaigning Tanaiste spoke warmly about the contribution made by Mr Lowry as minister, while emphasising the eventual need for public answers to relevant questions.

But his real focus was on the Coalition Government. The honourable and open way in which the resignation had been handled would strengthen the Government rather than weak en it, Mr Spring said, and the rainbow panties would not be found wanting when difficult decisions had to be taken.

Prionsias De Rossa joined with Fine Gael and the Labour Party in circling the wagons - and in making space for Mr Lowry. As for the Price Waterhouse report and "its 100 names", the Democratic Left leader could only bring himself to admit "it may be" in the public interest to publish the report in full. He also called for the early passage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill which provides for the disclosure of donations of more than £500 to political parties.

If a head of steam continues to build beneath the public-interest aspect of this controversy, nothing short of a clean-up of the relationships between business and politics will be tolerated by the public.

The fact that Dunnes Stores engaged in fruitless negotiations with the Department of Finance in recent months, seeking changes in the law concerning family trusts, is deeply disturbing. The entire affair raises questions about the exercise of business and financial muscle within our society. The ramifications go far beyond Mr Lowry and the operations of Dunnes Stores.

Just how beholden are political parties to big business? On the basis of these latest revelations, the public has a right to worry. Rather than operate within the comfortable constraints of Dail club rules, the Government and opposition parties have a duty to clean up their act.