THE Taoiseach told the Dunnes payments tribunal that his statement to the beef tribunal that the party leader would be unaware of party donations related to a different time from that of Mr Ben Dunne's donations to the party.
Mr Bruton was giving evidence on the sixth day of the tribunal about the donations from Mr Dunne in which he was involved.
Mr Denis McCullough SC, for the tribunal, quoted evidence Mr Bruton gave to the beef tribunal that it was not normal for party leaders to be involved in fundraising. He had also said that the party trustees did not disclose to anybody, including the party leader, the source of donations.
"I believe I was referring to the situation at another time," said Mr Bruton. "Contributions which were the subject of the beef tribunal were being discussed. At that time the party was not in any particular difficulty and at that time the party leader was not being informed. The circumstances applied at a different time."
Asked if he felt that ideally the party leader and members of the parliamentary party should not be involved in fundraising, he agreed. but added: "If a political party has substantial debts members should assist in and way they can to reduce that debt.
Earlier, he had given evidence that by the end of 1990 the Fine Gael party had substantial debts. The cost of servicing that debt was substantial. Costs were reduced from about £700,000 to about £500,000, and fundraising was increased, including from businessmen. As part of that, arrangements were made to meet Mr Ben Dunne.
Mr Bruton said the party trustees, of which he was chairman, were in charge of fundraising. Asked if it was normal to make approaches to businessmen, he said: "There was nothing normal about a debt of about £1.3 million."
This had been incurred in 1990 and it was very important to reduce it to manageable proportions. He told Mr McCullough that while it may not have been the case under previous leaders that they be involved in fundraising, he felt the debt was such that anybody who could assist should be asked to do so. All members of the parliamentary party were brought up to date with the situation, as were all party members.
He decided to use every resource, including his services, to reduce the debt.
Contact was made with Mr Dunne through Mr Michael Lowry. He knew Mr Lowry had business relations with Mr Dunne, though he did not know the details which had since emerged.
Mr Bruton said he saw Mr Dunne in the latter's home in Carpenterstown, which was more or less on the way home from the Dail to Dunboyne, where he lived.
He shook hands briefly with Mr Dunne's wife, who was present in the house. Mr Lowry was also there when he arrived, and he thought he was there when he left, but he was not present throughout the whole conversation with Mr Dunne.
Asked what he discussed with Mr Dunne, he said: "The discussion would have been largely of a social nature. Mr Dunne would have been aware the meeting was about the reduction of the debt."
At this meeting Mr Dunne gave him a cheque for £50,000. "I was very grateful. It was a substantial donation." Mr Bruton said he was unaware of a donation of £30,000 Mr Dunne had already given to his predecessor, Mr Alan Dukes.
Asked if he had any made any inquiries if Mr Dunne had any political allegiances, he said: "No When one is raising money "on do not inquire into political allegiances because people who support political parties support the political process.
He said there was "quite an amount of small talk" at this meeting. "I do remember admiring the house and the surroundings of the house. I do remember saying there would be no question of any favour resulting from the payment. It was clear from his response that he agreed. He agreed with alacrity."
Asked if he had met Mr Dunne before, he said that as Minister for Industry and Commerce he had met him along with the representatives of small Irish producers about access to the shelves of his supermarkets. He met Mr Dunne and a number of his senior purchasing managers on that occasion.
He also met him in the hospitality tent at the back of Lansdowne Road during a rugby match. "I don't remember which one. I think Ireland lost."
He said Mr Dunne was "a very engaging person. It is very easy to talk to him in a relaxed way."
Reminded that in his statement he had said he had discussed general political issues with him, he was asked if he could remember what. "No," he replied. "My conversations with most people are on the general political situation."
Pressed on the contents of the conversation, he said: "It is normal that there would be references to the working life of the other party in conversation. It was probably more about the retail trade than Dunnes Stores." He said he did not think Mr Dunne raised any point of particular concern to him.
He was asked to identify the cheque he was given at the end of the conversation in Mr Dunne's house, and he did so. It was paid into the Fine Gael bank account in the Bank of Ireland in College Green.
Mr Dunne said he would give further support to the party, but no arrangements were made about this, Mr Bruton said.
Asked if there was any further contact, he said there was none until he phoned him to say Fine Gael was making a disclosure of Mr Dunne's payments of a total of £180,000 to the party, even though the contributions had been made, like all contributions, on the assumption of confidentiality.
He informed Mrs Margaret Heffernan on the same evening. He had some discussion with her about the way it would be revealed, but agreement was reached.
Asked if other business people had been approached, he said there would have been a substantial number, some of which would have been written to, and others who would have been met. They would have been met in various places convenient to them and to Mr Bruton. Mr Dunne's house would have been convenient because it was on the way to Dunboyne.
Asked how many others he had approached, he said: "I was involved in fundraising when we were in a particular difficulty. I was less involved when financial things were more calm. In 1990 and 1994 I would have corresponded with over 100."
Of the other contributors, he said some had contributed before, and some had not.
At this stage Mr McCullough quoted to him the evidence he gave to the beef tribunal, where he had said that not even the party leader of the time was aware of contributions made to the party.
"But in this instance the approach was different because you solicited yourself?" said Mr McCullough. "Yes," replied Mr Bruton.
"So, because of the financial difficulties in 1991 and 1994 you departed from what you would have regarded as best practice?"
"I was aware of contributions made as a result of approaches I made."
When Mr McCullough said: "You said in the beef tribunal the trustees do not disclose to anyone, including the party leader at the time, contributions made" he replied: "I believe I was referring to the situation at another time."
He said that he would insist that any contribution offered for any particular activity in government or in opposition should not be accepted or should be returned.
Pressed on the desirability of seeking money from big business, he said: "I don't think there is anything very wrong in raising money provided no favours are involved."
Asked if there was a public perception that it was compromising, he said: "There was no compromising of me by any contribution. There are problems about the perception of it, which is why the Government is sponsoring the Electoral Bill, which limits donations without disclosure."
He said there was no question of any favour or any promise of any favour to Mr Dunne.
Asked if there was any letter or any record of that he said, no, but it was discussed at the meeting, and it was clear that no favours would be received.
Mr Bruton was then asked if there had been any further contact with Mr Dunne following the further payment of £100,000. He said he was not sure, he may have either written to him asking for the donation or thanking him for it.
Mr McCullough pressed Mr Bruton on the effect on him of somebody making such a large donation. Would they, for example, have ready access to him? "I think I would speak to someone with a significant role in the economy," replied Mr Bruton.
"If they had no significant role in the economy and gave a contribution, is it not the case that such a person would have greater access to you?"
"As a politician in opposition one has considerable time to take calls."
"What about an insignificant person who had made a large contribution?"
"From the point of view of a politician everyone is significant because everyone has a vote."
Asked if he told Mr Dunne he could not expect to speak to him as a result of his contribution, Mr Bruton said: "No. I would not say that to anyone. It would be discourteous."
However, he told Mr McCullough that Mr Dunne did not attempt to contact him after that.