Two views of John Bruton for two tribunals

AT the Dunnes payments tribunal on Monday the Taoiseach. John Bruton revealed that in 1991 he had engaged in intensive fund raising on Fine Gael's behalf. He had become leader of the party the previous November. The party's debt was then £1.3 million and it was in a financial crisis.

He told the tribunal I would have made flumerous approaches to business people, to senior people in business, in the 1991 period when I was intensively involved in this matter. Because of the quite significant financial problems that the party faced at that stage, I would have approached a very substantial number of business people, some of whom I would have met ... others whom I would have corresponded with or spoken to on the telephone".

Asked if there would have been others with whom he would have had meetings similar to the one he had with Mr Ben Dunne at his home in April 1991, he replied Yes, not exactly the same in terms of it being a call on their home, but meetings in various places that were convenient to them or to me to discuss the matter.

I would say that probably I would have corresponded with many hundreds of business people and probably would have had phone conversations or other conversations with well over too.

Asked if the people he had approached for financial contributions were people who had contributed previously to the party, he replied Some would have been people who would have been identified by trustees, by other trustees, for example, as people who contributed before. Some would have been people who I might have been told had never contributed before but felt ought to be approached in the circumstances which we were in.

Earlier, addressing the issue of whether it was normal for party leaders to be personally involved in such fund raising activities, he said. I am not in a position to offer you direct evidence on that, because I was never a trustee until I became leader of the party".

All this frenetic fund raising activity occurred in 1991.

In the following year, on June 22nd, 1992, Mr Bruton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" before giving evidence that day to the beef tribunal.

EARLY on in his evidence he was asked by counsel for that tribunal, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC. By the fact that Mr [Sean] Murray [a trustee of Fine Gael] is the person who deals with the financial contributions [from companies and individuals] are you, as leader, or other politicians within your party, made aware of the particular contributions made by a company or person?"

His response was. "No. Now that is not to say that one might not, on a random basis, become aware of contributions that are made by particular individuals, but there is no systematic informing of politicians of contributions, and in fact my understanding is that the ... it has always been the case that this particular trustee doesn't disclose the information to anybody, as a general rule, not even to the party leader at the time."

Thus, what John Bruton was telling the beef tribunal on June 22nd, 1992, was that only on a "random basis" would the party leader become aware of financial contributions made to the party and that "as a general rule" the trustee did not disclose information of financial contributions even to the party leader.

How, conceivably, can this be reconciled with the fact that either at the very time he was giving such evidence or at least up to a few months previously, he himself as party leader, was intimately and directly involved in getting financial contributions for his party?

Specifically, when asked if as leader of his party he was made aware of contributions by a company or person, he did not say. "Well, actually, the position is not just that I am made aware, I am personally intensively involved in raising money for my party.

"In the last year, or instance, I made numerous approaches to business people, I had several meetings with various people and in some instances even called to their homes. I have corresponded with hundreds of business people and probably would have had phone conversations or other conversations with well over 100. Some of these would have been people identified by trustees of the party as having previously made a contribution, others would not previously have made a contribution. Frankly, I don't know what previous party leaders did."

That would have been the truth.

Instead, in answer to that question as to whether one was made aware of contributions made by a company or person, he said. "No. Now that is not to say that he might not, on a random basis, become aware of contributions that are made by particular individuals ... etc.

ASKED on Monday how what he told the beef tribunal on June 22nd, 1992, could be reconciled with what he was then (on Monday) acknowledging as the truth, he said. "In normal circumstances the party leader would not be involved in fund raising and would not be informed of contributions received.

"But in the circumstances which we faced in early 1991 did become involved in seeking contributions directly from businesses, and while I would have been told whether contributions emerged later on or, indeed, if the contributions were given to me, I would obviously be aware of those, but it wasn't the norm for the party leader to be involved on an ongoing or systematic basis in fund raising, and there was no systematic arrangement for informing me of who had donated or who had not donated".

But that explanation for the contradiction between what he said to the beef tribunal and what he said on Monday was the truth won't wash.

Firstly, he told the beef tribunal he did not know what was normally the practice of the party leader in relation to fund raising. Secondly, why did he not tell the truth as he knew it?

Just think of what would have been the political and media fallout if a leader of Fianna Fail and a serving Taoiseach were found to have made such a deeply deceptive reply to a crucial question under oath? If Albert Reynolds had been guilty of such a deception while leader of a government involving the Labour Party, what would have happened? If Charles Haughey had been caught in such a deception while he was Taoiseach of the Fianna Fail PD government, what would have happened?