I will not detain the House overlong, but a few points remain to be made prior to what I understand will be a reply by the Taoiseach. It has been suggested in the press, and repeated by a number of people who should know better, that some Members of this House were actuated by constituency jealousy or malice in the manner in which they conducted themsleves in relation to this matter. It is as well to put on the record how untrue that is.
Deputy Pat O'Malley who is by coincidence a member of the same committee came into the possession of information, which was not difficult to come into possession of, it is fair to say, prior to 21 November 1988, to the effect that there was an intention on the part of Food Industries plc at least to investigate, and certainly to pursue with some degree of enthusiasm, the possibility of an acquisition of all or part of the assets including the sugar quota of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. That information came into his possession and at that time the record shows the committee in question were investigating the circumstances of that company, its viability, its future plans. In that context they had already made demands to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann to explain to the committee the problems they were facing, their intentions in relation to how these problems might be resolved and to indicate what future plans they had for the disposal of some or all of the assets and the closure of some or all of their facilities. These issues were raised and it was in reply to them that the document, the subject matter of this discussion to some extent, came into being. They were raised at a meeting with the Sugar Company at Thurles, I understand.
Deputy O'Malley did not seek to sensationalise the matter, to make any cheap points arising from the matter, draw the attention of the media to the issue or to make any points which could have embarrassed Deputy Lawlor on a constituency basis. The Deputy's behaviour has been exemplary and has been a model for all people in this House. He put down a Written Question to the Minister for Agriculture and Food which did not, because of the rules of this House, refer specifically to Deputy Lawlor but to a person in respect of whom details had been supplied and asked the Minister if he was aware of the potential conflict of interest. The Minister replied to that written question on 26 November 1988. It is of some significance that at that juncture a member of the Government was aware that Deputy O'Malley was worried about a potential conflict of interest and that he had time to consider the issue and, I suggest, bring it to the attention of the Taoiseach if he saw any conflict in the matter. We do not know what happened at Cabinet level. We do not know what the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, sought to do with the situation which had been brought to his attention by Deputy O'Malley, but that there was a conflict of interest there can be no doubt and that Deputy O'Malley had in the gentlest possible way brought it to the attention of a Minister who has responsibility for Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann is also very clear. The Minister who is a member of a Cabinet with collective responsibility was at that time put in possession of enough information and, I suggest, motivation to raise the issue with Deputy Lawlor and bring to his attention the anomalous position in which he then was. That happened in November 1988.
Deputy Lawlor has not contributed to this debate thus far — and perhaps he is elucidating his version of events elsewhere, or perhaps he wants to reserve his position — but he has, as Deputy O'Malley, the leader of my party, pointed out, put on record some at least vestigial account of his involvement in this matter. One thing I think deserves special regard by Members of this House when they are viewing this matter and its significance is his statement that the question of the Sugar Company or the acquisition of any part of that company was never considered at any board meeting of Food Industries plc. That is a matter within the exclusively private knowledge of that board but if it is the case — I suggest it must be the case and is true — that the company were at some level actively investigating that possibility and if it was not discussed at the board meeting, then it was discussed somewhere else. The well measured truth which tells the darker untruth would be served in this matter by saying that it was never discussed at a board meeting. It must have been discussed at some level if it existed at all as a project in the minds of the directors. The information this House is entitled to get, when a disingenuous bland statement of that kind is made in public that it was never discussed at the board of Food Industries plc, is where it was discussed, who was actively pursuing it and if Deputy Lawlor was party to those discussions. Those are the issues which have to be resolved, and a half smokescreen to the effect that it was not discussed at a board meeting does not suffice in the circumstances.
If the matter was discussed at any level outside the board, inside the board, by a sub-committee of the directors of that company or the executives of that company, then it must be the case that what the company would clearly want to know in relation to the affairs of the Sugar Company were their plans, the problems they had encountered, their dealings with the IFA, their intentions in relation to their sugar quota and the difficulties they were experiencing in relation to their capitalisation, profitability and maintenance of their various plants. Those were very significant issues which arose in the context of any attempt to pursue the issue of acquiring any part of that company or indulging in a joint venture with them.
It follows from that that sensitive information which would be of assistance to that board would by any standards be something which the board of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann would be most keen to keep secret from a potential rival in the food industry and a potential negotiating party in terms of first, any joint venture, or, second, any acquisition of their assets. It is an inescapable and logical conclusion from the fact that Food Industries plc were pursuing actively the question of a joint venture or an acquisition of part or all of the Irish Sugar Company that a conflict of interest of fairly substantial proportions would arise between a director on their board and if that person also came into confidential information in relation to the policies and problems being encountered by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. There is no escaping that conflict of interest and there is no point in saying in public through the media or to this House here today that there was not a conflict of interest: there was a clear and unambiguous conflict of interest. The attitude of the Sugar Company in particular in relation to the letters they sent when they enclosed that information to the clerk of the committee in question clearly underlined that they regarded the information as sensitive and, therefore, asked for it to be treated in confidence. If one gives information in confidence to a member of a board of directors of a company which might mount a hostile take-over of your company, might seek to purchase some of your assets, would know your negotiating position and bargaining position and the strength of it in relation to any negotiations, a conflict of interest would necessarily arise and there is no point in sweeping under the carpet the conflict of interest which did actually arise.
As I have said that conflict of interest was apparent to anyone from the outside who viewed that situation and if it was sufficiently apparent to Deputy Pat O'Malley to encourage him to write to the Minister and draw it to his attention it must have been equally apparent to the Minister when he contemplated Deputy O'Malley's question that the conflict of interest was a real one and, I suggest, it must have also been apparent to Deputy Lawlor that he was in a position of major conflict of interest. I should stress that this House and the committee of which Deputy Lawlor was until today a member are not in any sense empowered to try Deputy Lawlor or adjudicate on his moral qualities or whatever and it would be very wrong for us to attempt to do that but he has described himself as a "non-executive director" of that company and I can only echo what Deputy Dukes said in relation to that adjective which he applied to himself by saying that there is a huge question mark as to what that meant. As I understand it, Deputy Lawlor devotes a substantial amount of his time to furthering the interests of that company and he put a considerable amount of time and effort, on what basis of remuneration we do now know, into the Bailieboro acquisition and made efforts which no non-executive director would normally make on behalf of a public limited company in these circumstances. To suggest that he was simply a non-executive director, an honorary member of the board, is simply deceiving us again; he was not that and it is wrong to suggest that he was.
The letters which were sent to Deputy Lawlor on 17 September 1988 and to the clerk, Mr. O'Brien, on 18 November 1988 deserve some close scrutiny because the letter to Deputy Lawlor indicates that the items covered included an update of the effect on the group, that is, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, of continued production in Thurles; historic capital investment in individual factories; numbers, age and structure of the Thurles workforce and negotiations with the IFA. The letter went on to say that, as had been the practice, the company were willing to co-operate with the committee and supply fully the information they required but on that occasion, however, they had to be mindful of the sensitivity of the Thurles issue and they were concerned that the information being forwarded might mistakingly be perceived and used to political advantage. It also said that the information forwarded on the Thurles update was put before the company's board meeting on 17 November and the consideration of the document by the board should not be misinterpreted. The only decision by the board relating to Thurles was taken in November 1987. That letter showed clearly that the board had devoted some considerable time to deciding what kind of response they were to make to the committee's inquiries made at Thurles prior to the date of that letter.
I am informed, and believe, that at a meeting of the board of directors of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann prior to 18 November the advisability of releasing the document to the committee of the Oireachtas was discussed at some considerable length and that reservations were expressed by board members — some of whom are the Minister for Agriculture and Food's nominees, it must be remembered — regarding a potential threat to confidentiality that might arise if the document were forwarded to the committee. I am also informed, and the matter has been raised by Deputy O'Malley yet again in a disallowed private notice question today, that Deputy Lawlor's role was discussed at that meeting, that members of the Sugar Company board stated their awareness at that meeting of an interest on the part of Food Industries plc in acquiring some or all of the assets of the Irish Sugar Company, and that the matter was finally put to a vote of the board of directors as to whether the particular material should be released to the committee, of which Deputy Lawlor was chairman.
If it is correct, that again shows that in the minds of the members of the board of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, some of whom are ministerial appointees, the conflict of interests to which Deputy O'Malley had pointed in his question to the Minister was alive issue and clear enough to people closely involved at that time. The question then arises in those circumstances as to why it was not apparent to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and, if it was apparent to him, why he did not consult the Taoiseach and, in those circumstances, why the Taoiseach did not immediately warn off Deputy Lawlor and tell him that he was, in effect, riding two horses in different directions, that he should decide to stick with one or other but make his position very clear very quickly and put himself, if that were possible at the time, beyond reproach.
The statements made by Deputy Lawlor to the press seem to have suffered from a degree of variability. That point has been made before and I shall not now dwell on it, except to say that if the matter was put before Deputy Lawlor by the clerk of the committee, as the Chairman of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann requested him to do, as to how the document should be treated, it defies belief that he could make a decision as to how the document should be treated without acquainting himself of its contents. It would be most wrong of him to suggest that nothing should be done about it for three months without acquainting himself in some shape or form as to what was contained in the document. It would be equally wrong of him to arrive at a view as to whether it should be circulated unless he knew substantially what was contained in that document. The important matter is that when the Chairman of the Sugar Company wrote to Mr. O'Brien on 18 November he specifically said:
Please note that our Chairman has written to Deputy Lawlor, Chairman of your Committee, about the information contained in this update. You should contact your Chairman about this, prior to any circulation of the enclosed document.
Unless we are to believe that no such contact was made for some reason, it follows that contact was made and that instructions were obtained from the chairman of that committee as to how that letter should be treated. It follows again from that, that unless Deputy Lawlor made a decision as to how the document should be treated in complete ignorance of its contents and nature, we must put a question mark over his statement to the public that he was totally unaware of the contents of the document. It follows, as night follows day, that he either made a decision blindfolded as to what was the appropriate way to deal with a document, the contents of which he was unaware of, or alternativley, that he has again been incorrect, or that his memory had deceived him, to put the most favourable complexion on it, as to what his state of knowledge was in relation to that document.
All this arises out of, and the debate is centred on, a report from the Committee of Selection and there is no motion before this House now in relation to this set of circumstances. Therefore, this debate is bound, as were many other debates in this House, to be inconclusive. The first lesson that we can learn is that this House should debate matters which are of relevance to it and of importance nationally and should not conduct itself on the basis that every newspaper and every barstool is a location of discussion on issues but this House is silent on matters of substantial public importance.
Secondly, also of significance, is that in the nature of things the State is engaged in a major reassessment of its portfolio investments in the semi-State area. It is of the utmost importance that if the State is to deal with those semi-State bodies fairly and properly and secure their co-operation, high standards should apply in relation to the manner in which the State, through the Oireachtas, conducts itself. When the board of directors of a semi-State company, some of whom are ministerial appointees, find themselves having to vote on the question of whether they disclose information to a committee of this House and find themselves discussing the actual composition and potential conflict of interests of members of that committee as an issue in whether they should co-operate fully with a committee of this House, it is a sad day. It undermines the authority of the House in particular and the whole process of reasonable relations between the Parliament of this country and the semi-State industrial sector.
More than that, people have called in public for the establishment of a register of interests. With the greatest of respect to these, as to whether that is a good idea — and I believe it to be a good idea — it is completely irrelevant to what is happening in this circumstance. Nobody had any doubt as to the interests Deputy Lawlor had. It was a matter of public record and wide notoriety in this House that he held the particular directorship which brought about this conflict of interests. Absence of a register of interests was not relevant to the circumstances. There is a wider issue, one which must be addressed in a way which is much more complex than putting down a register of interests of Members of this House. It was a wider issue of a duty, expressed or implied, to divulge a conflict of interests and, most particularly, to refrain from involvement in an area where that conflict of interests was bound to have an effect. I say expressed or implied because there does not seem to be in this House an expressed code of conduct in these matters. There is, I think, an implied code of conduct which can be followed in this regard by any Deputy at his or her peril. That is unacceptable. There should be clear guidelines. In this case any Deputy who was in doubt as to a potential conflict of interests could have had reference to such a clear set of guidelines and would immediately have been aware that the doubts raised by Deputy O'Malley in this question and those raised by the Sugar Company directors in their deliberations as to how they should deal with that committee gave rise to a conflict of interests which demanded immediate disengagement by Deputy Lawlor, not disengagement three months later when the matter came tumbling out in a slightly accidental fashion. It is not a question of a register of interests, desirable though that may be. It goes much deeper than that. There is an enforceable rule in this House and one which every semi-State body and every member of the public knows operates in this House, that one can deal with an institution of State without any reservations that one's dealings are tainted by a conflict of interests on the part of those with whom you are dealing.
The Taoiseach doubtless, in his reply to this debate, will deal with the last issue which ought to be addressed, which is, that once the question put down by Deputy O'Malley came to the attention of the Minister, it was the Minister's duty to tell the Taoiseach that a member of the Opposition had put to him a potential conflict of interests and that the Minister would like the Taoiseach's advice as to how he should deal with that matter. The Minister for Agriculture and Food should have informed the Taoiseach of the potential conflict of interests and if he did not, this House is due an explanation from him and from the Taoiseach as to why that was not done.
The Taoiseach did become aware at a later time of the issues around which this debate centres. It seems that Deputy Lawlor initially took the view that no conflict of interest had arisen and that the matter was maliciously generated, although the record shows clearly it was not. He believed that in the circumstances his membership of the committee was not affected and that his continued chairmanship of it did not come into question. When the Taoiseach was acquainted with the circumstances, did he send for Deputy Lawlor, put to him the conflict of interest and ask for his explanation, or was it merely a matter of Deputy Lawlor's seeking the paternal advice of the Taoiseach as to what he should do next? Before his chat with the Taoiseach Deputy Lawlor was undoubtedly of one mind and saw the matter completely in one light, but after it he saw it in a different light. The House is entitled to know whether Deputy Lawlor sought the advice of the Taoiseach or the Taoiseach summoned Deputy Lawlor to give him a strict instruction to resign his chairmanship and membership of that committee.
The company in question is a very substantial one, whose economic power is very great indeed. It is a company which has a dominant role in one of our dominant businesses. It has grown dramatically in power and influence and other bodies, including RTE, have seen the speed with which it can react to any questioning of the propriety of its activities. It is a powerful company, staffed and directed by powerful men. They are influential people and it is no secret in this House that they seek to use their influence in the interests of the company in a rigorous and robust manner. In those circumstances in particular, it is of the utmost importance that a clear dividing line be writ large between those who exercise on the part of the people a function in relation to the examination, supervision and control of the semi-State sector and those who serve the private capital interests of the company in question.
I have no objection to Members of this House having directorships of a company or private interests but it is of the greatest importance when those interests come into conflict with public duties as Members of this House, members of the Government or members of committees of this House, that the public have absolute confidence that a strict code of conduct will automatically come into play and that somebody who finds himself in a position of ambiguity will immediately seek advice from a capable adviser and receive appropriate advice in the circumstances.
The failure of the Minister for Agriculture and Food to note the conflict of interest pointed our privately and in a gentlemanly fashion by Deputy O'Malley last November raises serious questions in the mind of every observer as to whether it was thought then, as it was thought prior to this debate, that the matter could simply be swept under the carpet. The Government tried to avoid a debate on this issue. Although the majority of Members of the House wanted to debate the issue, the Government said there would be no debate. Why was that attitude taken in regard to a matter of public importance, which it undoubtedly was since it ended with the resignation of the chairman of one of the committees of the House? Why was an attempt made effectively to stifle debate on the matter? This is a piece of a greater pattern. I do not want to elaborate now because it would be irrelevant.
The attitude shown by the Government in relation to the power and duty of this House is echoing the attitude shown by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Burke, as to the comparative legislative roles of the Government and the House. This House is one of the great institutions of State. It is not here to be trampled down by the executive of the day. It is entitled to debate issues which it wants to debate and not to have its desires thwarted by Standing Orders, however conscientiously they are carried out by the Chair — as I accept that they are — or by the will of a minority who happen to support the Government of the day. The House has a wider interest and the public has a greater interest in securing adherence to proper standards of behaviour.
If this debate had not occurred this afternoon, this House would have failed yet again in its duty to vindicate its own standards, membership and procedures. It would have done so yet again at the behest of a Government who seem to value those things in a very small measure. The manner in which this debate was treated by the Government, the manner in which they attempted to prevent it, the manner in which the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, failed to take the very gentlemanly hint by Deputy O'Malley that there was something awry and failed to secure proper action by the Taoiseach over a period of months — all these things are part of a piece and show low standards in high places.