FG leader is confident election will change everything

Taoiseach-in-waiting seeks not to give the answer but to change the question about what constitutes quality of life

Taoiseach-in-waiting seeks not to give the answer but to change the question about what constitutes quality of life

He could be just a very short time away from a final shot at becoming Taoiseach, and John Bruton suggests he is unruffled by opinion poll figures which suggest that, when the time comes, he will be fighting against the odds.

He wants you to believe that he takes a relaxed attitude to his party's poll rating and his own personal support refusing to rise despite scandal after scandal, and despite the Opposition's best efforts to make itself relevant. All this will change, be believes, when an election campaign starts.

When his chance comes, he says, he wants to replace a Government motivated by economic statistics and day-to-day survival with one fired with the desire to improve people's quality of life and trust in politics - and led by him.

READ MORE

Faced with a Government surfing along on waves of impressive economic statistics, Mr Bruton is attempting to change the question. His Big Idea is for "a quality-of-life-driven government in Ireland. We must measure and debate quality-of-life measurements with the same rigour and self-congratulation as we measure and debate GDP."

The second prong of Fine Gael's attack on the Government will be on the issue of standards in politics. In particular, Mr Bruton has lost no opportunity in recent weeks to attempt to tie Mr Ahern into the Haughey era. It is a task at which the opposition has so far failed, as the popularity of the Taoiseach continues to soar above the sea of allegations of corruption and sleaze.

Faced with the reality that you cannot knock the Government on measured economic performance, Mr Bruton's penchant for the minutiae of public policy comes to the fore.

However, he now has his various ideas for reform marshalled and ordered behind one easy-to-understand policy theme: success must be measured in terms of improved quality of life, not abstract growth statistics.

Faced with a Government trumpeting such statistics, Mr Bruton says this should no longer be seen as the measure of a government's success. In his support he reels off a series of surprising facts:

Ireland has the lowest life expectancy for 65-year-olds in the European Union.

Ireland has one of the worst records in the EU in terms of functional illiteracy.

Ireland has a high rate of mental illness, with 5 to 7 per cent of people suffering from depression at any given time.

Ireland is recycling only 15 per cent of its packaging waste, despite a target of 50 per cent by 2005.

By the year 2010 the speed at which motor traffic moves in Dublin will be halved, and down to a walking pace.

All these things mean Ireland has a poor quality of life, he maintains. Family life and community life are under increasing strain because services and support for people are not keeping pace with the extraordinary economic growth.

Transport, housing, childcare, education and parental leave are not separate problems, but "are all one problem that creates huge stress for families and children".

He says every government minister has the power to make decisions to improve quality of life, and as Taoiseach he would give every minister "a series of quality-of-life indicators which they as a minister would be seeking to achieve."

These would include targets for average journey times to work, for life expectancy, for reduction in the level of suicide. ("What greater condemnation is there of the quality of life in Ireland than the fact that an increasing number of people want to end their lives?")

`I've no doubt that Bertie Ahern, whatever about the specifics of Mr Haughey's finances, did know quite a bit about Mr Haughey's political style, his political priorities and his political way of doing business.'

Tying Mr Ahern into the sleaze allegations is a central preoccupation of Mr Bruton, who has already called on Fianna Fail to enter a period of voluntary opposition during which it would in some way cleanse itself of its past.

His contention is, basically, that Mr Ahern's failure to atone in some way for his past support for Mr Haughey disqualifies him from being Taoiseach at present.

"Bertie Ahern was amongst the Fianna Fail TDs who in 1979 overthrew Jack Lynch, someone who had been elected by the people, and installed Charles Haughey as Taoiseach without an election," says Mr Bruton.

"I've no doubt that Bertie Ahern, whatever about the specifics of Mr Haughey's finances, did know quite a bit about Mr Haughey's political style, his political priorities and his political way of doing business."

Despite this knowledge, says Mr Bruton, Mr Ahern supported Mr Haughey passionately and has never said sorry.

"Bertie Ahern was a member of a government with Charles Haughey, and indeed with the PDs, which contained not just a taoiseach who seemingly received vast amounts of money, but also a minister for justice [Mr Ray Burke] and a minister for the environment [Mr Padraig Flynn] who, it now appears, received unexplained donations of vast proportions.

"That's three people out of 15. We know that government refused to have a judicial inquiry into planning problems in Dublin when they were asked to do so by Fine Gael and Labour deputies at the time.

"One must ask therefore why, given that there was originally an alternative to Charles Haughey in the person of Jack Lynch, and that during his tenure of office there were several attempts by others to have an alternative to him as leader of Fianna Fail, why Bertie Ahern consistently chose to support the Haughey approach."

Asked bluntly whether Mr Ahern is, in his opinion, an honest man, he says: "I have no reason to suggest that he is not. Equally I can't give him vindication."

Asked why Mr Haughey got the money he says: "I don't know. I hope the Moriarty tribunal can find out."

He says he wonders not just about Mr Haughey's behaviour but about the behaviour of a substantial section of the business and political class during the Haughey era.

"What sort of Ireland was it in which business people and others felt it was somehow reasonable to be giving money to politicians, who were supposed to be people acting in the public interest, who had been elected to an office of public trust?"

So why does he think it happened? The cherished Fine Gael idea of politics as an honourable profession consisting of people of a civic-minded disposition "seems to have been devalued and indeed would have been mocked by people as `silver spoon, noblesse oblige' sort of sentiments".

He does not claim a Fine Gael monopoly on such noble motivation: the idea of serving the State "infused the work of the first government of W.T. Cosgrave and indeed members of the early Fianna Fail governments as well," he says.

In relation to restoring a sense of morality to politics, he says: "Any set of laws will be ineffective unless people understand that politics is about public service and the discharge of a public trust. All laws can be circumvented."

In relation to legal changes, he repeats his opposition to a ban on corporate funding of politics. "I don't think that substituting public funding for private funding would purify politics," he says.

Much more important, he says, is the creation of transparency, allowing businesses to make donations but strictly limiting them and maximising disclosure. "But there has to be room for a bit of spontaneity, for new parties to emerge, for people to be able to raise political support for particular causes so long as it's all done in the open, and people's donations are transparent."

He is dismissive of mutterings that his line on Northern Ireland sometimes seems overly associated with the Ulster Unionist Party's cause. He repeats the difference he has said in the past that he has with Fianna Fail: that while that party sees itself primarily as representing the nationalist view in Government, he would see himself as "not just pursuing the nationalist agenda, but being interested in all the people of Northern Ireland."

There are times, he says, when you have to come down on one side. "For example, I support the Government's view that the Patten Commission report should be implemented in full."

On the subject of abortion he has little faith in the current political approach, which is to have the divisive subject teased out yet again by politicians, this time at the all-party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.

"I have yet to be convinced that any change, either legal or constitutional, would improve the situation. I accept that from a theoretical point of view the present situation is not satisfactory, but I have doubts as to whether, from a practical point of view, legal or constitutional changes will improve it."

Instead, he says, offering practical support to pregnant women who want to have their babies would be a more useful way to reduce the number going to Britain for abortions. "Each woman will have a different crisis to overcome in making that choice, and the assistance must be differentiated to the needs of each mother in her particular situation.

"We must not simply adopt an attitude of saying we are against abortion. We must be for the things that will make it possible for women to take the option of allowing the child to live, and that's not easy for the mother, it's a huge challenge for the mother."

He also says the door is open for Mr Michael Lowry to rejoin Fine Gael, once he has paid whatever debt he owes to society for any wrongdoing in which he was involved. To suggest otherwise, he says, would be "unchristian".

"Once people have regularised whatever debt it is they have to society in terms of their tax responsibilities or other responsibilities, people are open to rejoin Fine Gael. Once whatever process that is undertaken is over, and whatever debt is paid in whatever way it is to be paid, once that's over and done with it's over and done with.

"I don't think in any society we should stigmatise people for ever. That would be totally unchristian."

He would not be drawn on whether the PD senator, Ms Helen Keogh, will run for Fine Gael in the next general election, as has been rumoured.

"It's a matter for Helen Keogh what arrangements she makes," he says. `I have great admiration for her. I haven't had any conversations with her on this, and what decisions she makes are a matter for Helen."

Mr Bruton also volunteers that his party in government will seek to bring about "profound changes" in the legal system. He is short on specifics but says the process by which civil wrongs are dealt with in the courts is too slow and too expensive.

"Lump-sum compensation is promoting litigation, not justice. We must look at the objectives of our justice system. We must ensure it can get speedy redress for people rather than making them join a lengthy queue for justice, buying tickets in a legal lottery."

Nodding towards the substantial representation of the legal profession within his party, he says he will indeed listen to their views. "But we may have to look at fairly profound change in our approach to justice. We don't want to go the way of America."

John Bruton's chances of being in government depend not just on his party having a good election and the Government having a bad one. They also depend on the Labour Party. Mr Bruton accepts that Fine Gael will not have the numbers to govern on its own, and for it to be in government Labour will have to agree.

He also accepts that they might not do so. "I have always been careful to make the point that this is a choice for the Labour Party to make. They can choose the other option," although he adds carefully: "Obviously the recent revelations must make that more difficult for them."

He prods at Labour's folk memory of coalition with Fianna Fail. "Fine Gael has shown a better ability to work in coalition than Fianna Fail." Fianna Fail, for example, created enormous problems for the PDs through the O'Flaherty appointment. Nevertheless, he repeats, "it is a decision for the Labour Party and we respect that."

As he waits for his moment to come again, John Bruton concedes there is some truth in the observation that he is perceived to perform much better in government than in opposition.

"To be leader of the opposition is a more difficult job than being Taoiseach," he says, "even though I don't minimise the difficulties of being Taoiseach."

brennock@ireland.com