No humble pie for Cullen

THERE were lessons for everybody in the Quigley report, said Martin Cullen on Thursday.

What lessons has the minister learned? Well, erm ... that he was right, that he was vindicated, and everything had been followed to the letter of the law.

His comments on one aspect were unquestionable. Cullen was subjected to disgraceful levels of personal intrusion by some sections of the media, and was put in the uncomfortable position of having to publicly respond to all the unsubstantiated innuendo.

The nub of the story was - and should have remained - political. And on that level, his reaction to the report - long on self-justification, short on humility - was a more subdued version of Alastair Campbell’s grandstanding on the Hutton Report, in which he grabbed the broad-brush findings and used them to batter all his detractors to a pulp.

There was one difference, though. Hutton was a whitewash and the report didn’t throw the BBC as much as one crumb of consolation. Dermot Quigley’s report was different. It found no wrongdoing in the awarding and performance of Monica Leech’s various contracts when taken ‘in the round’.

But Cullen’s baloney about being vindicated handily ignored the clear pattern of political cronyism that seeped out of the report like water from a sieve. The notion that Cullen’s reputation has escaped scot-free from this inquiry is wishful thinking. Only a politician blinkered by his sense of righteousness could proclaim there were lessons to be learned for everybody but refuse to publicly admit that also included himself.

IT was reminiscent of a comment made by the late Mick Doyle after Ireland got thrashed by New Zealand in the Rugby World Cup years ago. They demolished Ireland in the first half and eased off the throttle after the resumption.

Look at the positive, said Doyle: we drew the second half.

For the unvarnished truth is, that while not formally breaching the guideline, Cullen was clearly cavalier in his approach.

Ms Leech’s first assignment was with the Office of Public Works. Yes, it was the OPW who contracted her. But, it was Cullen who made the initial suggestion, not once but twice.

Quigley could find no precedent for a PR specialist being taken on by the OPW to publicise projects in any other constituency. What was going on in Waterford that made it more important than anywhere else in the country? Of course, Cullen tangentially benefited from this, getting a positive bounce from all that good publicity.

It was Cullen who suggested Leech when he identified an urgent need for a PR consultant to help him roll out some of his big projects in Environment. Unfortunately, the time limitations and restrictive terms of reference did not allow Quigley to explore if the ‘urgency’ that Cullen referred to was borne out by the evidence.

There were a couple of reasons for this. There was unsatisfactory monitoring and records of the work that Leech did for the department. Ergo, the former Revenue head was unable to make any qualitative judgment on whether or not the need was as urgent as the minister claimed.

Because of the lack of records, it was also impossible to gauge to whom Ms Leech was most answerable, the minister or the department. Quigley postulated about the 70/30 split in favour of the department but there was also question marks over diary entries which showed her marked down frequently to attend local meetings in Waterford and also about her eight trips abroad with the minister.

Generally, on the optics of Ms Leech’s appointment, Quigley did not mince his words.

“There are risks in a minister proposing a named person for a contract. Such a procedure may not least give rise to a perception of impropriety, for example, that a supporter, associate or an acquaintance of a minister was getting special treatment; or of a minister seeking to influence a subsequent procurement process.”

Lessons for everybody, said the minister. But the main lesson relates to him.