A tale of two politicians with a taste for large humble pies

Today, a tale of two frazzled men and two large humble pies. And plaques to commemorate the eating of the humble pies by the two frazzled men. David Andrews will confront a large pie tomorrow at about 2 p.m. John Bruton has been staring at a humble pie since the weekend.

John Bruton was very unhappy with my column last Wednesday. This was because I wrote that on his first night as Taoiseach in December 1994 he hotfooted off to dine with a HNWI (High Net Worth Individual). He denied this on the morning of publication and secured a "correction" the following morning in The Irish Times. But, as I wrote in a Letter to the Editor, published on Friday, there is a plaque in an elegant room in the Kildare Hotel and Country Club which reads: "To commemorate the occasion of John Bruton TD dining with Dr Smurfit in the Yeats Room on his first day as Taoiseach, Saturday, 17th December, 1994."

Actually, December 17th, 1994, was John Bruton's second day in office. So instead of hotfooting it on his first night in office to dine with a HNWI, he hotfooted it on his second day in office to dine with a HNWI. It's a pity he didn't refer to this when he was demanding a "correction" from The Irish Times last Wednesday morning.

The significance of dinners with this HNWI and several other HNWIs for the purpose of getting from them large amounts of money to fund Fine Gael is simply that such funds and such dinners don't always come for nothing.

Before John Bruton became leader of Fine Gael in 1992, his predecessor, Alan Dukes, dined with another HNWI, also in Co Kildare. The HNWI was Ben Dunne and the venue was Barberstown Castle. At that dinner Mr Dukes arranged (a) for Mr Dunne to support the democratic system by giving over large chunks of money to Fine Gael; and (b) for John Bruton to discuss "policy" on retail issues with Mr Dunne, who, at the time, had a largish interest in the retail business.

John Bruton at the time was (I think) opposition spokesman on industry and commerce (or whatever it was called then) and his remit included the retail trade. That meeting never took place as far as I know, although John Bruton did later hotfoot it to Mr Dunne's home one evening for a meeting arranged by his "best friend for life", Michael Lowry.

I have known a few shopkeepers in my time (my father was one) and I do not recall any of them being invited to discuss their business with the relevant spokesman of the main opposition party at any time. They didn't have the quids for the quo. Mr Dunne did have the quids and there was to be no problem with the quo.

John Bruton got into quite a pickle in May of last year over HNWIs, when he told the McCracken tribunal that in 1991 he had been engaged personally in frenetic fund-raising activities on behalf of Fine Gael and had personally contacted hundreds of people. In his evidence to the beef tribunal in June 1992 he had conveyed the impression that he and other front bench politicians were never routinely involved in such fund-raising activities. His attempts to "clarify" that contradiction were less than convincing.

John Bruton is not corrupt, in the sense that he has ever used or attempted to use politics for his own financial gain. It is implausible that he would ever contemplate doing so. But he has operated a system for financing his political party that could be open to abuse. It allows HNWIs to buy influence and access in a manner that undermines the equality that is supposedly at the heart of our democratic system. And it was all done in secret.

Yes, his government in 1996 did introduce legislation that has gone a tiny bit of the way towards cleaning up that system, but it still permits the abuse of that system by enabling HNWIs to buy influence and access. And, by the way, this is no reflection on HNWIs, for they are merely availing of an opportunity afforded to them by politicians.

Now to the other frazzled man with much humble pie to consume. Tomorrow, after sulking for several months, David Andrews will deign to have a face-to-face meeting with the Secretary-General of his Department, Padraic MacKernan.

The extraordinary situation in which the two heads of one of the most crucial Government Departments did not talk to each other for several months was entirely the doing of David Andrews. As Padraic MacKernan said in one of his letters, he was available "as always" for a meeting with his Minister.

And the meeting tomorrow takes place entirely because of the intervention of Bertie Ahern. Not that Bertie ordered David Andrews to meet Padraic MacKernan but that he signalled that this is what he expected and wanted.

David Andrews was wrong on two fronts in his dealing with personnel issues within the Department of Foreign Affairs. First, he intervened in a carefully crafted middle-ranking promotion process within the Department by insisting on the promotion of three officials with whom he was personally acquainted.

No doubt his high estimation of the qualities of the three people concerned was valid, but what could not be valid was his estimation of the qualities of these three people versus the qualities of the other applicants for the positions concerned because he couldn't possibly have known all the other contenders.

The other front on which he was wrong was the manner in which he handled a series of ambassadorial postings. Of course, the appointment of ambassadors is properly a matter for the Government, and it would be absurd if the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not have a very direct involvement in such decisions.

But options for ambassadorial postings were outlined to him in March by Padraic MacKernan. He failed even to discuss these with MacKernan and instead, on the Thursday before the Whit weekend (over two months later), he submitted a radically revised list to MacKernan without appreciating what the implications of his revisions would be for the ambassadors concerned.

Of course, the personal preferences or circumstances of ambassadors should not be the sole determinant of decisions on ambassadorial postings, but who would argue that the personal and family circumstances of ambassadors should not be taken into account?

The suggestion that the Minister was expected to behave as just a rubber stamp trivialises the issue. He was and should be expected to behave in a rational adult manner and to treat people likewise.

Wherever the meeting tomorrow between Andrews and MacKernan takes place, it should have a plaque to commemorate the event.