For someone so widely respected in political circles for his reputedly Svengali like qualities of persuasion, Mr Fergus Finlay, the Tanaiste's programme manager, has been slow to assemble a convincing case that might explain the Government's handling of the advertising contract for the pro divorce campaign. On radio yesterday Mr Finlay exercised a deal of energy throwing brickbats at the Opposition for its "grubby" behaviour. There was plenty of righteous indignation - something of a Labour Party stock in trade - when it was suggested that Labour might be party to the kind of chicanery for which Fianna Fail has so often been blamed. Mr Finlay presented an elaborate case for the defence, but he did little to dispel the impression that the Government was, at best, guilty of poor political judgment.
The issues in the controversy about the awarding of the contract for the pro divorce campaign to the Quinn McDonnell Patti son (QMP) agency are straightforward. In early May, Mr Conor Quinn, joint managing director of QMP and brother of the Minister for Finance, Mr Ruairi Quinn, wrote to Mr Finlay about the advertising contract. Although the Government had still to formally award the contract, the letter is clearly based on the belief that the contract was already secure. Mr Quinn even refers to appointment" to handle the advertising for the divorce referendum. Despite this, the Government continued to insist that the contract had not been finally awarded; it even invited McConnell's, the largest in the State, to pitch again for the account at a specially convened meeting on June 22nd last, less than two months after Mr Quinn's unequivocal letter to Mr Finlay. McConnell's, in their innocence, went ahead with their presentation.
Mr Finlay now accepts that the Government's subsequent failure to inform McConnell's that their bid had been unsuccessful was discourteous. But the issues involved in this episode may go beyond discourtesy. The suggestion that the presentation involving McConnell's and QMP last June was no more than an elaborate charade cannot be dismissed. On the basis of Mr Conor Quinn's letter it seems clear that McConnell's were invited to pitch for a Government contract even though this contract had already been awarded to QMP.
In fairness, Mr Finlay has demonstrated that the original contract was awarded to QMP only after a full and proper tendering process and he makes the point that the new Government understandably wanted to review all aspects of the divorce referendum campaign. But, unless new information emerges, the suspicion lingers that there was something inappropropriate about the communication between Mr Quinn and Mr Finlay. The public is entitled to expect better from a Government which likes to portray itself as the high minded guardian of ethics and accountability in public life.
The controversy undermines the Government's declared commitment to openness and accountability. It is worth pointing out that the QMP letter only surfaced in the course of the current Hanafin case in the High Court. The Government was less than forthcoming when asked to explain its behaviour and invoked the sub judice concept to avoid any comment, until it became clear that this provided no legal cover.
After another round of political sparring, this latest controversy will probably blow itself out given the solidarity between the coalition partners. But the whole episode is more than suggestive of the fact that this Government does not always practice what it preaches.