Michael D’s dissembling is damaging

AS A lifelong politician, President Michael D Higgins knows a thing or two about the art of dissembling.

But his attempts to muddy the waters about how an unaudited €317,000 fund for Áras an Uachtaráin was spent do not just test the limits of that dark art, they strike at the heart of his reputation as an upholder of socialist principles and advocate for openness and transparency.

Last week, the President’s spokesman refused to answer a series of questions from this newspaper about the recently disclosed €317,000 fund. On a campaign walkabout on Grafton Street, the President accused an unnamed Sunday newspaper of making ‘outrageous’ claims about the money being spent on topping up the pay of his executive assistant.

This newspaper never made any such assertion; we merely asked the President’s office for an annual breakdown of the expenditure and to identify whether it was spent on salary top-ups for advisers, while explaining the background to the specially created role of executive assistant.

Last Tuesday, two days after we printed his refusal to answer the questions, the President’s office said no part of the fund went on salaries or top-ups. However, it still refuses to answer whether the fund was used to pay for gifts or wardrobe.

President Higgins has assured us that all money is spent appropriately, and that it is audited on a monthly basis. Then on Tuesday, he revealed that he would release the figures in November – after the election. Why the delay if the accounts are in such good order? And 48 hours later, on the day the Irish Times wrote a stinging editorial challenging the President over his campaign, he declared he would be handing back €200,000 to the Exchequer.

So let’s be clear: the President assures us that all money is properly spent; he can tell us exactly how much money has NOT been spent, but it will take a month to detail WHAT our money was spent on.

Surely a full release would assuage the clamour for more information, while validating the President’s commitment to providing more transparency? The President justifies his recalcitrance on the basis that it would jeopardise the independence of the office. This is disingenuous because the manner of the President’s nomination for a second term, by agreement between the three main political parties, is in itself profoundly political.

President Higgins is a deservedly respected public figure. Bar an electoral thunderbolt, his re-election seems guaranteed. His recent irascibility risks suspicions of entitlement.

For all the restrictions of the office, financial accountability is one area where the President has full control. By publishing his accounts promptly, rather than indulging in delay tactics, President Higgins could set the template for his successors and enhance his legacy.

Ultimately this controversy would never have occurred if the Presidential office, like virtually every aspect of public expenditure, was open to Freedom of Information requests and accepted that transparency and accountability are crucial qualities of public service.