Cullen PR case - Second investigation a good idea

ALTHOUGH exonerated in a legal sense of any impropriety by the Quigley report into the awarding of the Leech PR contracts, Transport Minister Martin Cullen has possibly another hurdle to face before the saga ends.

The Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) is an independent body which has yet to decide whether to proceed with a second investigation into the circumstances of the contracts.

It is the minister’s own role in the episode which attracted the scrutiny in the first place and the consequent public perception of impropriety which caused Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to order the inquiry by Dermot Quigley, a former Revenue commission.

Monica Leech is a public relations consultant who is also a political associate and supporter of Mr Cullen. She was awarded two contracts, valued at over €300,000, for consultancy work undertaken for the minister during his time in the Office of Public Works and the Department of the Environment.

Questions were raised about the manner in which the contracts were awarded. Once that entered the public domain, it became crucial that the widespread unease it generated be allayed.

In the wake of the Quigley investigation, Mr Cullen’s ministerial post is not in jeopardy and while he was cleared of any wrong-doing a question mark must remain about his lack of good judgment.

Upon his appointment as Environment Minister, Ms Leech was granted a contract without the necessary tendering process.

While Mr Cullen’s lack of judgment was compounded by the fact that it was exercised in the absence of any departmental advice on the matter, he could not be described as a naive political animal.

Common sense should have prevailed and he should have recognised that the awarding of the contract to a close political associate without the safety net of a tendering process would have repercussions.

Inevitably it did, and apart from speculation about the minister’s political future, it encroached on his and Ms Leech’s personal life, feeding mischievous rumours about their relationship.

The Quigley report was critical of the fact that Mr Cullen had proposed her name for the contract and said it could give rise to a perception of impropriety.

Given that the minister had referred to a particular name, it was unlikely that any reasonable person would ignore the fact and not give due regard to the minister’s opinion.

It is quite obvious that there was a serious lack of guidelines in the granting of this contract, whereas the disbursement of public money must be very tightly governed by precise rules and regulations.

It was not unexpected that public insinuation surrounded this transaction, nor that there was a deep suspicion of cronyism, which Quigley has now dispelled.

Whether the report will quell scepticism is another matter, and a decision to go ahead with SIPO investigation could go a long way to satisfy public confidence.

That, more than the minister’s political future, is important.

In the interim, at least, if the loopholes that Quigley identified are dealt with urgently, and safeguards are put in place, some good will have emerged from this saga.