Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Mar 2002

Vol. 550 No. 2

Suspension of Member: Motion.

I move:

That, having regard to the report of the Public Offices Commission of the results of an investigation into a complaint concerning Deputy Ned O'Keeffe which report was laid before Dáil Éireann on 13th December, 2001, and having regard to the findings and determinations of the commission contained in that report and taking into account his loss of ministerial office, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe be suspended from the service of the House for the period of 10 days on which the House shall sit or up to the date of dissolution of the 28th Dáil, whichever shall occur earlier, and that the period of that suspension shall commence forthwith.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.

Members are aware that they are required to make declarations under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. Following a Private Members' debate on 29 November 2000, approximately 15 months ago, complaints were made by Deputies Quinn and Dukes in relation to interests which, in their view, should have been declared by Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.

The Public Offices Commission carried out an investigation in accordance with section 24(1) of the Act. In respect of the report, six allegations were made against Deputy O'Keeffe and he was found to have contravened two of them. Deputy O'Keeffe was found to have contravened section 7 by not declaring a material interest which he and connected persons had in the subject matter of the proceedings. That contravention was not a continuing one. However, it was found to be negligent and serious. In fact, the report stated that the contravention could not be said to be a minor matter, and that the contravention was at the lower end of any scale of seriousness.

The report also found that Deputy O'Keeffe contravened section 13 of the Act in failing, as required, to disclose the interests of his wife, son and daughter-in-law in the feed mill business. That contravention was continuing at the time and was found to be negligent, that is, not inadvertent, which would have been less serious, or reckless or intentional, which clearly would have been more serious. In all the circumstances, the commission ruled that it was a serious matter. The remainder of the allegations, of which there were four or five, fell.

Deputy O'Keeffe, in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Act, furnished a supplementary statement to the Clerk of the Dáil subsequent to that report.

The role of the Committee on Members' Interests is outlined in section 28 of the 1995 Act. The committee does not have the power to alter, revise or otherwise change the findings of the commission. Despite the fact that the Act makes no provision for so doing, the committee decided to allow Deputy O'Keeffe to make submissions on his behalf. This was done in accordance with the rules of natural justice.

Most meetings of the committee are held in private as many of the matters are personal to Members or relate to other sensitive issues. This was also the intention in regard to this hearing, and Deputy O'Keeffe's legal team was so advised. When the hearing began, it was pointed out that Deputy O'Keeffe had a preference for a public hearing but, as everybody here is aware, it takes time to put arrangements in place for public sessions and the hearing would have had to be postponed. The matter had already been delayed for 15 months at that stage and the Deputy was anxious to have it finalised.

The sole function of the committee was to adjudicate on the appropriate sanction to be applied under the Act. There is precedent in this area, and the committee was obliged to take account of that precedent to ensure equity, balance and justice.

The deliberations of the committee are entirely private. As the terms of the motion suggest, however, and without wishing either to reprise the submission made by Deputy O'Keeffe or breach the confidentiality of the deliberations of the committee, the fact that he had lost ministerial office weighed heavily with the committee. Despite this, the committee formed the view, on the basis of the determination made by the commission, that it would have to cause this motion to be moved. In fact, there is no provision in the Act to take account of any matter other than the commission's report.

There are serious issues relating to regulation of conduct in the Oireachtas which bear revisiting in the future, and the question of self-regulation should be central to future deliberations in this area.

I thank the committee members for having undertaken a most unpleasant task and for having observed confidentiality in this and all other matters. I assure the House, on my own behalf and on behalf of the members of the committee, that they will not serve on this committee if they are returned to this House.

I welcome the opportunity to make this statement to the House. No doubt many Members, including members of my own party, will regard today's debate as an irritant at a time when there are other important issues to be dealt with. However, this debate is very important to me, both professionally and personally. It is important also to my wife and family.

At the outset I want to outline to the House the findings of the Public Offices Commission into my alleged contravention of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 in December 2001. The commission was asked to investigate six alleged contraventions. It found that four were without foundation and that I had committed two breaches of the Act. Importantly, however, it found that the two breaches I had committed were not intentional. I repeat that as it is most important. The two alleged contraventions which were upheld by the Public Offices Commission were found to have been inadvertent, in other words, not intentional.

What is patently clear to anyone who is interested is that I was not found to have committed a pre-meditated, wilful wrongdoing, deception or corruption but I was found to have committed two inadvertent omissions. The first was when I omitted to declare to the Dáil, before speaking on the Labour Party motion on 29 November 2000, that I had a material interest in the subject matter of the proceedings by reason of the fact that Ballylough Milling Limited, which is a family owned company, was licensed to purchase and use mammalian meat and bone meal and, second, that I omitted to disclose in my statements of additional interests that my wife and children had interests in Ballylough Milling Limited, as these interests constituted additional interests for the purpose of section 13 of the Act. I will return to both of those omissions later, but I must first outline certain important matters.

I find myself in this position today because in this House I fall into the category of another head among all parties in this House, including Fianna Fáil. What is abundantly clear is that one is infinitely more expendable if one does not have sensitive information about times past and in the increasing tradition of Irish politics, mine was a case of "Let's have the hanging, followed by the trial".

The situation which has led to this debate began in early December 2000 – some 15 months ago. I have absolutely no doubt that there was a concerted campaign to force my resignation as Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The campaign involved a neighbouring family, a vexatious file, which included stolen documents sent to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, sensational allegations, planted stories, colleagues, very senior political advisers and a most willing journalist.

As soon as I became aware of the allegations, I knew I needed professional assistance. I quickly came to the conclusion that what I needed was impartial, soundly-based legal opinion. I take this opportunity to thank both Donal Spring, solicitor, and John Rodgers, Senior Counsel, for their commitment, loyalty and moral support. Their contribution over the past year is greatly appreciated by all of us, including my wife and family.

Sadly, I am absolutely satisfied that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Joe Walsh, behaved in a manner which questioned his integrity on several occasions but, suffice to say, I do not find myself alone in this view.

No Government Department can function in an orderly and proper way if there are individuals intent on protecting mini-empires. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has suffered from such behaviour and the taxpayer has had to pay the price on more than one occasion. I must add, however, that there are outstanding public servants in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development who go beyond the level of public duty expected of them in their jobs, and I commend them.

Once there was the genesis of a story, the media masseurs got to work with gusto and guile. The story was massaged, embellished and primed by senior members of Fianna Fáil and their masterful minders into an issue of national importance. The political pressure was skilfully, wilfully and, with masterful precision, communicated to the nation via a prominent journalist.

It is no coincidence that this same journalist has displayed a curious loyalty to certain politicians in recent years. He has the ear of the most influential politicians, their minders and indeed their Law Library loyalists. If he is with you, then you can look forward to favourable treatment in a daily newspaper, on radio and sometimes on television but if, for whatever reason, he dislikes you, then you better watch out. Need I say more?

We have now reached a stage in Irish politics where a journalist can be pumped and primed by the highly-paid unelected advisers of the most senior politicians as part of some agenda to sacrifice whoever, whenever and however. So I am another scalp, but who cares? Does anybody care about the mechanics and methodology of how it was achieved? Perhaps they do not, but they should. If it is me today it will be someone else tomorrow. I care passionately about the warped way politics are being conducted. Wrongdoing on the part of any politician is totally unacceptable.

I now return to what the Public Offices Commission found against me. There were six allegations, of which four were found to be without foundation. Two were upheld, and these were deemed to have been unintentional omissions.

In regard to the first omission, which was my failure to make a declaration of an interest in the subject matter of the Labour Party motion, it was well known to the Opposition that I was personally opposed to the Government motion which I was obliged by the Whip system to support. The motion itself was irrelevant because a decision had already been taken by the Government to support a motion at European level a few days later which would resolve the issue anyway.

I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Opposition who gave evidence to the Commission confirming my position at that time, including Deputy Upton, who is present, and Deputy Penrose.

In regard to the second allegation of my failure to disclose an additional interest, I have at all times argued strongly that the meaning of this section of the Act is not at all clear. My contention in this regard was amply demonstrated by the failure of Deputy Quinn, the Leader of the Labour Party and one of the main complainants in this matter, to explain what additional interests meant when he was asked at the Public Offices Commission.

Deputy Quinn said: "An additional interest is that in addition to, say, being a shareholder of a particular company that activities that you as an officeholder or an individual member of the House might be engaged upon would confer additional interest that would enhance the value of that shareholding". That is what Deputy Quinn understood additional interests to mean whereas they are defined in section 13(5) of the Act as follows: "In this Section "additional interest", in relation to an office holder, means any interest specified in the Second Schedule of which the office holder has actual knowledge of [and this is the important point] (a) the spouse of the office holder, or (b) a child of the office holder or of his or her spouse, which could materially influence the office holder in or in relation to the performance of the functions of his or her office by reason of the fact that such performance could so affect those interests as to confer on or withhold from the office holder or the spouse or child a substantial benefit”.

Deputy Quinn's explanation could not have been more incorrect. Yet there is a proposal before the Dáil that I be suspended from this House because of my failure to properly complete my declaration in this regard, even though Deputy Quinn was Minister in the Department which introduced this legislation.

Deputy Quinn also made unfounded, appalling and disgraceful allegations against me in this House and elsewhere. One of the allegations he made, which was by far the most serious made against me in regard to this matter, was that I had: "personally exercised my powers under the 1996 order and had refused applications for bonemeal licences and that given the very limited number of such licences and that one of them was held by my family farm, an application for the issue of additional licences must be seen as coming from a person in direct commercial competition." Deputy Quinn was forced at the commission to accept that this allegation was completely unfounded and without any justification whatsoever.

I regret Deputy Quinn is not in the House. I say to him, in his absence, to forget about party politics completely and deal with this issue as a man. He should deal with it with honour. He should rise above the pettiness which subsumes him. I call on him to apologise to me publicly. He should be decisive for once in his life and stand up and apologise, or stay seated, but he is not here. He ran away and was cowardly again.

I would also like it to be noted on the record that the commission found that I, as a Member of this House, had made the most fulsome declaration since the introduction of this Act. The same cannot be said for many Members present. A number of people were forced to make amendments to their declarations to this House on numerous occasions.

I accept that these omissions were probably inadvertent like mine, but it begs the question why I am being asked to pay such a heavy price for my omissions when no action was proposed or suggested against other Members in regard to omissions they made? It is my genuine belief that there are other omissions by Members of the House and by office holders past and present which have not come to light. It will be interesting to see how they will be dealt with in the future.

The commission found that my two contraventions were not intentional. Such a finding puts me into the shade in comparison with the behaviour of certain individuals in this House. I have not lied to this House nor misled it and I have not been the subject of an inquiry. I will watch events in these areas in the coming months with more than a passing interest. I resigned as Minister of State a year ago and it has taken until today for the House to deal with this entire saga.

Last week the Committee on Members' Interests conducted an investigation into my behaviour in private. Why was it held in private? I do not know. I wanted the hearing to be held in public. I had nothing to hide. I insisted that the hearing before the Public Offices Commission should be heard in public. I would welcome every aspect of the hearing being made public – my case, how it was presented and, most particularly, how the decision of the committee was arrived at. I have nothing to hide, personally or otherwise. I think the whole thing was a joke. I went before the hearing somewhat sceptical about its objectivity, balance and belief in natural justice. I was not privy to the committee's deliberations during which this suspension was adjudicated upon, and that is regrettable.

Should I have been so doubting about my colleagues? Should I have been so jaundiced? Sadly, I believe my concerns were fully justified. I will let the Members of this House make up their minds after hearing the following example. At the height of the superbly orchestrated storm about my behaviour in December 2000, there was a debate on "Morning Ireland" which involved Deputy Howlin, deputy leader of the Labour Party. In the course of the discussion he said that my position as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development was untenable. Deputy Howlin's name was attached to an amendment to a Dáil motion calling for my suspension as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Now Deputy Howlin, the expert commentator for the Labour Party, recommends a ten day suspension for me. Is it any wonder the profession of politics is so debased in the public's eyes?

The impartiality of the other members of the committee is, I believe, equally suspect. Where is the honesty? Where is the objectivity? Where is the integrity? I will give Members my honest answer, it does not exist. This is the reason the committee sat in private, conducted its deliberations in private and came to its conclusions in private.

Politicians sit as judge and jury for other politicians. That is fine for Deputy Howlin and his committee colleagues, but is he not the same politician who has a problem with members of the Garda Síochána judging other members of the Garda Síochána? How could I expect a committee made up of members with party interests, political interests and self-promotion interests to come forward with anything other than today's proposed suspension?

I have already paid the price. I lost my job as Minister of State. It is what is called the "resign or be sacked" syndrome. My decision was achieved by highly paid advisers whose lives are spent feverishly pedalling mistruths, half truths and lies. I spoke to the Taoiseach on Friday, 16 February 2001 and told him of my decision to resign the following day, but as soon as the Taoiseach's ever-skilful advisers heard about my decision they ran to the media to say that if Ned O'Keeffe did not resign he would be sacked. The newspapers on Saturday morning so informed the nation.

Later that day, as arranged with the Taoiseach, I tendered my resignation, but the picture had been painted. I was resigning because I had been told that if I did not I would be sacked. Let me tell the House, just in case there is a doubt, I resigned of my own free will. Many of the Members present know that Ned O'Keeffe is his own man, but as I have come to learn, maybe rather late in life, the truth is not really that important to some people in this House or to the agents of people in this House.

Those same individuals continue to meet and greet me in and around this House and their forked tongues make poor John Mills in "Ryan's Daughter" look like an amateur, but then I am being encouraged to believe that it is just business, nothing personal.

I stand over my record of 19 years in this House. The only thing Ned O'Keeffe can be found guilty of is working too hard for his constituents and his area. I will stand up for myself even on a day like today when I sense that colleagues, including party colleagues, wish that I would accept my hanging and stay silent during this trial.

What more pain and punishment does this House wish to inflict on me? I know this does not matter much to many Members present, but it matters to my wife, my family and my loyal constituents in Cork East. Let every Member present remember that this matters an awful lot to me.

I have given everything to politics for almost two decades. I stand over my record and am proud of it. I have taken nothing from politics other than the satisfaction of fairly representing the people of Cork East who matter greatly to me and whom I look forward to representing again and again in the future.

Deputies, the decision is yours.

I support the proposal of Deputy Killeen, Chairman of the Ethics Committee. I say that as an Opposition Member and a member of that committee. I do not intend to comment on or interfere in regard to any of the references, the internal Fianna Fáil matters, referred to by the Deputy. This is a matter for Fianna Fáil to deal with.

The motion before the House arises as a result of a decision of the Public Offices Commission. The procedure is that where complaints are made against an office holder, they are dealt with by the independent Public Offices Commission. The matter goes to the Ethics Committee only after a finding by the Public Offices Commission. I say that to make it clear that the findings in this case were arrived at by that independent body, which was set up under the Ethics in Public Office Act.

It may be a matter for discussion in the House, with a view to reviewing this legislation, as to whether it should be possible to appeal against such findings. If one looks at the Act, that is not possible. Since we, the legislators, have provided for complaints against office holders to be dealt with by the Public Offices Commission, and we did so without provision for appeal, we have a responsibility and a duty to accept the decision of that independent Public Offices Commission. This brings me to the Ethics Committee, a small committee of five people, chaired by Deputy Killeen. During the time I have served on that committee Deputy Killeen has always had my full confidence and fulfilled the role of chairman with great impartiality and full integrity. I totally support him in that regard. The same can be said of the other members of the committee who dealt with this matter. It is important to say that the decision arrived at by the committee was unanimous. There was no question of party politics being involved.

I understand the hurt and upset felt by Deputy O'Keeffe. It is an invidious position in which to be but if we are to have a system of self-regulation, where we deal with our own business – in this case the penalties arising from the decision of the Public Offices Commission – Members will have to be prepared to serve on the Ethics Committee and to bring that process to its conclusion. That is what happened in this case. It was on that basis that the Ethics Committee fully considered the report from the Public Offices Commission and the submissions made on behalf of Deputy Ned O'Keeffe in mitigation.

Much has been said about the committee meeting in private. In issues of this kind most people would prefer to have them dealt with in private. It is correct to say that during the course of the submission made on behalf of Deputy Ned O'Keeffe a suggestion was made that the matter should be dealt with in public. When it was pointed out that that would cause a delay, it was conceded it would be better to proceed in private. Arising from that the committee arrived at a unanimous decision, on the basis of which a resolution was tabled. On that basis we are here to support the decision of the Ethics Committee.

This is a distasteful motion to have before the House because we are censuring and asking the House to suspend a Member. I serve on the Members Interests Committee. As the chairman of that committee has said, it is not a committee for which there will be a queue in the next Dáil because we are charged under the law to receive complaints under the code of ethics against Members. It would be much easier not to serve on that committee and much easier not to sit in judgment on any Member. None of the five will queue up to do that again.

The House has passed laws to set standards of behaviour required of Members and set means for adjudicating on whether those standards are met. For office holders, it is not the committee of the House that determines whether the law of the land has been breached, it is the Public Offices Commission. Those standards have been tightened since the charges were made against Deputy O'Keeffe by the 2001 Act which came into force in December 2001.

Under the law the Standards in Public Offices Commission, as it has been titled since enactment of the new provision, adjudicates on a complaint against a Member. The Standards in Public Offices Commission consists of Mr. Kevin Murphy, the Ombudsman; Mr. John Purcell, Comptroller and Auditor General; Deputy Pattison, Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann; Mr. Kieran Coughlan, Clerk of Dáil Éireann and Ms Deirdre Lane, Clerk of Seanad Éireann. It was they who adjudicated on whether there was a breach of the Act and made the decision. All that was submitted to the committee to adjudicate on was the penalty to be enforced on foot of the decisions of that commission.

I was a Member 15 years last month. I respect and admire virtually every Member and I have great admiration and respect for Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. I greatly resent what he said tonight about my integrity as a member of the committee, almost more so because I understand party political banter, and his slur and slander against the integrity of the other Members. Deputy Killeen is chairman of the committee. He is an honourable person and one of the most decent people I have worked with on any committee of the House. Deputy Flood is a most decent and honourable Member. Deputy Browne, who will retire from the Dáil at the next election and has served this country and his constituents well, is a decent and honourable man. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is another decent and honourable individual. None of us took satisfaction in any of this and none of us will queue up to sit on this committee again. We had a job of work to do and we did it to the best of our ability with absolute impartiality and total unanimity.

For any Member who has been found by an independent commission to have breached the law to come in here and say it was a joke, that it lacked objectivity, is to run in the face of reality and to hide from the facts of the case. On the one complaint Deputy O'Keeffe has made about the matter being decided in private, most Members who are called before our committee would like their matters to be decided in private. We have adjudicated at some length on charges and found there were no substantive charges against a distinguished Member of the House. I am glad we did all that in private.

Had Deputy O'Keeffe requested at any time, and given notice, that his inquiry should be conducted in public we would have been delighted to do that. That option was given to him on the last day he came to make submissions to us. We offered to adjourn because we could not go into public session at that early hour. We met at 8.30 a.m. to facilitate his legal team and we could not go into public session because there were no facilities at that time. We offered to adjourn to go into public session if that was what he wanted, but he simply said no, he wanted to go ahead. It is unfair to say that, and I make my comments in defence of the committee.

We have enshrined laws and new standards of behaviour for Members which we are all struggling to live up to. Many of us will fail. Many will amend our declarations, but we are all subject to the law. If we cannot enforce it in a self-regulatory regime, we will have to hand over the whole thing to an external regulator. Deputy O'Keeffe said I have double standards, that I want an external regulator for the Garda Síochána but that I am content with an internal regulator for Members. He was found wanting not by Members but by an external regulator, the Standards in Public Offices Commission. If he impugns the character of any of the individuals I have named who are members of that commission he will be alone in that charge.

I began by saying I had great personal regard for a colleague and Deputy whom I have admired and respected, and continue to do so. Due and impartial process was observed in all of this. That Deputy Quinn made the charge in the first instance is a reality. That a general charge was broken into specific charges and adjudicated on by the commission is a matter of recorded fact. It falls to this House to decide, for the second time, on a proposal by a committee to take action against an individual Member who was found wanting in relation to the standards we have set ourselves. It may happen again, to any Deputy. We have to abide by the regulations we have set or abandon them.

It is somewhat two-faced that Members of the House who will not vote against this motion tonight will put their arms around Deputy Ned O'Keeffe later and say it is dreadful that he has been so badly treated. As a member of the committee and with great regard for my colleagues who serve on it, I am sick of such double standards. If we do not live up to the standards in the law passed by the House, we should abandon them. We should not pretend to the public that we are setting standards if we are not willing to face the consequences of breaching them. My first comment on this motion tonight was that I take no satisfaction in the fact it is before us. I will not, however, allow my integrity and that of members of the committee who have such a painful and thankless task to be impugned by someone who was found wanting by the Public Offices Commission.

I hope this resolution will be passed, as it was a unanimous decision of a cross-party group. I regret there is a necessity for a complaint, but we have to learn to abide by the law in cases where Members do not declare an interest. That was the core of the matter which led to this motion coming before the House. We should strive harder to comply with the rules, while appreciating that none of us will be virtuous on all occasions. A good case has been put in mitigation by Deputy O'Keeffe's legal team and that was taken on board when the committee deliberated. I regret that this motion is before us, but we have to abide by the law. I hope Members will understand that this is a necessary action.

This will probably be one of my last speeches in the House as I am in the twilight of my political life. Although I am sitting beside Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, I cannot say that we have ever been particularly friendly. We are acquaintances at best. I have chosen to sit beside him as I feel the punishment he is about to receive is a little excessive. On his behalf, I would like to say that he cast no aspersions on the Public Services Commission. He is quite firm in his conviction that he did not intend to do so, as I am sure Deputy Howlin will be pleased to hear. Deputy O'Keeffe has lost his State car, his Minister's salary and his ministerial pension is affected as contributions to it have stopped at a particular level. He has had to pay his own legal fees, which have been fairly considerable. No Member of this House is allowed to have legal fees reimbursed if they engage a lawyer on their behalf.

Deputies who know me are aware that I believe in treating people in a humane manner. Deputy O'Keeffe's punishment is excessive and the House should consider the matter carefully before making its judgment. It is important to note that although the commission said the Deputy breached the rules, it was satisfied that his contravention was unintentional. For that reason, I feel we have imposed a pretty harsh penalty on him. His punishment may serve as a warning to other Members of the House to behave themselves, but I feel, to a certain extent, that Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is something of a victim of our desire to teach a lesson. I wish him well in the years ahead.

Similarly, I wish all Deputies well in the years to come, although this is not necessarily my final speech in the House. I hope Deputies will demonstrate a sense of humanity in relation to this matter. We often criticise each other, but it usually stays in the political arena. We can be friends in the corridors, we drink coffee together and we talk about the issues of the day. Dáil Éireann is not as people perceive it from afar. I will not say any more, other than to thank the Chair for allowing me to speak.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn