THE latest political controversy over the appointment of QMP, the company in which the Minister for Finance's brother is a leading partner, to conduct the Government's divorce advertising campaign will be raised in the Dail and possibly in the High Court next week.
Fianna Fail has tabled a series of Dail questions to the Tanaiste, Mr Spring, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr Taylor, and the Minister for Finance, Mr Quinn, about the procedures adopted in the appointment of QMP (Quinn McDonnell Patti son), of which Mr Quinn's brother, Mr Conor Quinn, is joint managing director, to run the divorce advertising campaign.
Counsel for Mr Des Hanafin, the petitioner in the referendum case, has suggested that the Tanaiste's adviser, Mr Fergus Finlay, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform's adviser, Mr Richard Humphreys, and Mr Conor Quinn may be required to give evidence in the High Court.
Mr Finlay set out yesterday to explain why Mr Conor Quinn could believe that QMP had been appointed to conduct the £500,000 divorce campaign by May 2nd, 1994, although McConnell's advertising agency and QP were invited to make presentations for the contract to a Cabinet sub committee on June 22nd 1995 and the formal contract with QMP was announced last September 13th.
Expressing "my own anger at the kind of grubby attempts to link either Dick Spring or Ruairi Quinn" with the awarding of the contract, Mr Finlay said that QMP and McConnell's had emerged as the leading contenders after six agencies had been invited to tender in November, 1993. Attempts to get the two agencies to work jointly on the failed.
On May 4th 1994, the ad hoc committee of Labour advisers and civil servants recommended to Mr Taylor that QMP should get the contract. He accepted that recommendation.
When a Cabinet sub committee was established to run the divorce campaign after the fall of the Fianna Fail/Labour government and the formation of the rainbow coalition, Mr Finlay said Mr Taylor decided that they should review all preparations, including the choice of advertising agency, for the campaign. It was for this reason, he explained, that McConnell's and QMP were invited to make presentations to the Government.
The Irish Times has confirmed that McConnell's was not aware, at the time of these presentations, that QMP had already been chosen for the contract. Its understanding was that the competition was open at that stage.
The political row over the contract erupted in the High Court last week "hen a letter hone Mr Conor Quinn to Mr Finlay dated May 16th, 1995, was laid before the court. Clearly implying that he believed that he had been awarded the contract, Mr Quinn stated:
Following our discussion on May 2 (1995) concerning our appointment to handle the advertising for the divorce referendum, I fully appreciate the sensitivity about the appointment and the inevitable media comment about Conor and Ruairi.
After tabling a series of questions for the resumption of the Dail next week, Fianna Fail maintained that Mr Finlay's explanation was "misleading" and left a number of questions unanswered. Under the Fianna Fail/Labour government, only one meeting of the cabinet's divorce sub committee had taken place, a spokesman said, and no discussion took place about the contract. There was no decision by the government, a cabinet sub committee or a minister to appoint Mr Quinn he added.
Fianna Fail also pointed out that on May 30th, 1995 the Minister, Mr Taylor, had told the Dail that "no public relations or advertising firms have been engaged to date in connection with the (information) programme".
The Progressive Democrats spokeswoman, Ms Helen Keogh, said that the facts that were now emerging were very disturbing. Why, on July 4th 1995, did Mr Taylor inform the Dail that he had not appointed an advertising agency for the divorce campaign, she asked. Mr Taylor had stated: "Details will be announced shortly when the process of selection has been completed".
Ms Keogh added that on July 30th and August 2nd 1995, Government sources were persisting - that no decision had been made on the awarding of the contract.
