Any suggestion that the former Taoiseach, Mr John Bruton, gave conflicting evidence to the Dunnes payments and beef tribunals was entirely wrong, the tribunal heard. Mr Bruton would have dealt with the matter in full and shown that the suggestion was baseless if it had been put to him at the tribunal, said counsel for Fine Gael, Mr
Kevin Feeney SC.
Mr Feeney said that when giving evidence, Mr Bruton had been asked
"a few questions" concerning the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef
Processing Industry. The questions referred both to Mr Bruton's evidence and, on one occasion, to a statement he made to the beef tribunal.
"Due to the fact that this matter was not directly relevant to the terms of reference of this (Dunnes) tribunal, the matter was dealt with briefly and without Mr Bruton having any access to the transcripts of his evidence at the beef tribunal," Mr Feeney said.
Mr Bruton had made it clear, in answer to the current tribunal, that his evidence to the beef tribunal related to fund-raising practices that obtained at a different time. This had been accepted by counsel for the (Dunnes) tribunal.
"There was no suggestion made during Mr Bruton's evidence, nor was it put by counsel for the tribunal, that Mr Bruton gave conflicting evidence to the beef tribunal. If that issue was being ventilated to this tribunal, full reference to Mr Bruton's transcript of evidence to the beef tribunal would have been necessary and required in fairness.
"That would have clearly established and demonstrated that any suggestion of conflicting evidence was entirely wrong. If such suggestion had been made, as wrongly reported, Mr Bruton would have willingly dealt with the matter in full and shown that such suggestion of conflict was baseless."
Later yesterday, counsel for the tribunal, Mr Denis McCullough SC, said he had not suggested that Mr Bruton had misled the tribunal.
He had put it to the former Taoiseach that in evidence he had given to the beef tribunal, he had said the party leader was not aware of the source of party funding, but that that was not the practice he had followed in 1991.
Mr Feeney, in his submission to the tribunal, also said yesterday that Fine Gael's annual accounts included full provision for all income, including the sums received from Mr Ben Dunne as contributions.
"Mr Dunne's contributions were properly and fully accounted for by
Fine Gael and contained in the annual accounts, independently audited. That was an entirely different approach than that taken by either Mr Haughey or Mr Lowry in relation to the funds which were given, and paid to those parties," he said.
With regard to the apprehension that contributions could affect decisions or provide access to particular persons, Mr Feeney said the
1997 Electoral Act obliged disclosure by all parties of relevant donations.
In considering its recommendations, the tribunal should have regard to the fact that very many of the general issues which had arisen at the inquiry had been addressed by the 1997 Act and the
Ethics and Public Office Act of 1995. A scheme had been put in place which had not yet had time to operate in full. With time, the annual disclosure in the register, properly filled out, would be available to - among other things - assist future taoisigh in selecting cabinets.
He said it would clearly be Fine Gael's view that the most important recommendation of the tribunal must be that the 1995 Act and the 1997 Act should be reviewed, both in the light of the findings of the tribunal, and as to the effectiveness of the legislation as it operated.
"The primary obligation must be on the politicians to disclose receipt of funds. This tribunal has shown the length to which parties and politicians and individuals might be prepared to go to stop the disclosure of funds," he said. Any legislation must not take away from the primary obligation on the individual politicians to make honest disclosures.
Mr Feeney also referred to the evidence given to the tribunal by
Mr Paul McGrath TD, and said it was clear from his evidence and that of Mr Michael Lowry that there was a "considerable amount of common ground". "There is no doubt that a meeting took place, there is no doubt that Mullingar and the development in Mullingar was spoken of and there is no doubt, apparently, that there was a reference to Mr
Ben Dunne," counsel said.
The dispute between the parties was whether it was Mr McGrath, as indicated in Mr Lowry's evidence, or whether it was Mr Lowry who raised Mr Dunne's name.
But what was clear was that the conversation could have had no interference with proper or due procedures, given that the vote which
Mr McGrath had taken part in had already occurred and, in addition, that vote amounted to no more than a recommendation.