asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he informed the Taoiseach of his shareholding in a company (details supplied); his views on whether in view of the responsibility of his Department for this company, his ownership of the shares represented a conflict of interests; his views on whether such a shareholding was consistent with established Cabinet procedures; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Minister's Shares in Mining Company.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he will make a statement on the disclosure that he has been a shareholder in a firm in respect of which he will be required to make a decision regarding an application for a mining licence; his views on whether such a shareholding is consistent with guidelines issued to Ministers on taking office; the action, if any, he intends to take as a result of the disclosure; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he complied with Cabinet procedure instructions on conflict of interest by knowingly retaining shares in a mining company which he knew was likely to apply to his Department for a mining licence; if he was liable through his shareholding, to gain financially from the grant by him of mining licence to the company in question.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the action, if any, it is intended to take in view of the disclosure that he had been a shareholder in a firm in respect of which he will be required to make a decision regarding an application for a mining licence; his views on whether such a shareholding is consistent with guidelines issued to Ministers on taking office; the action, if any, it is intended to take as a result of the disclosure; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, in relation to media reports to the effect that he has held shares in a company (details supplied) for four years, including a period during which the company was applying to his Department for a mining licence, if he informed the Taoiseach of his shareholding; whether such a shareholding was consistent with established Cabinet procedures; the steps, if any, it is proposed to take in relation to the matter.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the transactions between his Department and a company (details supplied); and between his Department and the Geological Survey of Ireland and Kilkenny County Council in relation to that company, while he was a shareholder in that company from January 1993 up to 21 October 1994; and the personal dealings, if any, he had in regard to the report on the company's planning application prepared at the request of Kilkenny County Council under the aegis of the Geological Survey of Ireland, which is under the aegis of his Department.
I put one of my questions to the Taoiseach but he chose to refer it to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.
I, too, put one of my questions to the Taoiseach which was also referred to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.
I propose to take these Private Notice Questions together.
As the House will know, it was open to me to give a personal explanation to the House on this matter which would preclude subsequent questions. I have not taken this option but have chosen to inform the House fully in response to Private Notice Questions and I am happy to answer any supplementaries which may arise. Given the importance of the issues which the Government is dealing with at the moment I apologise to the House that inattention to the detail of my personal affairs has resulted in an unnecessary distraction for Members and, more particularly, for my colleagues in Government. I am genuinely sorry that an oversight on my part in failing to link, however inadvertently, a nominal share holding in the then Conroy Petroleum and Exploration Company with a possible perception of a future conflict of interest in dealing with a mining application by Arcon, should be a source of some embarrassment to me or to my colleagues.
One of my first statements to the House as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in early February last year was to inform the Dáil that I was delegating responsibility for mining, among other duties, to the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Noel Treacy. The industry in particular knows how well and how seriously he has taken those responsibilities; his initiative in setting up and directing the National Minerals Policy Review Group which is undertaking the most comprehensive examination of the whole sector since the foundation of the State is the best manifestation of his commitment to his allocated task. In addition, he oversees the day-to-day work of the officials in the Exploration and Mining Division and the Geological Survey of Ireland in their business interaction with mining enterprises. There were, of course, occasions when I was kept informed of progress of the application because of my ultimate responsibilities under the relevant statutes.
At no stage did I intervene in any of the ongoing and predictable technical discussions between my Department, including the Geological Survey of Ireland, and Kilkenny County Council, on the Arcon application. The House will know of the public and transparent nature of many of these procedures.
Although I had, from the outset, delegated responsibilities for mining to the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, I accept that, as Minister with formal statutory responsibility, I should have made the connection between the minor shareholding I had in Conroy with the preliminary work undertaken by the Department in processing the Arcon development at Galmoy. While I recognise that some people could allege that in a narrow and technical sense I was in breach of Cabinet guidelines because a possible conflict of interest might arise there was, however, no breach of the spirit of the guidelines in this case. It never entered my mind at any stage that the forgotten nominal Conroy shareholding I bought nearly five years ago could be interpreted as affecting any of the decisions that would be taken on Arcon. The processing of the Arcon application has been dealt with at all times on the basis of the best professional advice from the staff of the Department.
The two safeguards which might have activated this linkage did not arise. The fact that the Arcon proposal had never been submitted to a Government meeting meant that the discipline of declaring possible interest under Cabinet Procedure Instructions which might have been prompted by such an event never occurred. In addition, when I first read the Cabinet Procedures Instructions in 1992 as the incoming Minister for Labour no such potential problems arose in my mind.
For completeness and absolute clarity I am stating to the House that, in February 1990. I purchased a small shareholding in Conroy for £960. This was among a number of small shareholdings I had acquired around that time, nearly five years ago. This must be put in some context. I have never had anything more than a small number of nominal shareholdings; I have never actively traded in these shares and therefore, when the shareholding in Arcon was brought to my attention on Friday by a journalist. I realised immediately the perception that could arise, no matter how small my shareholding was, of a potential future conflict of interest. Obviously this was embarrassing and I regret that circumstances did not arise earlier which would have alerted me to this possible future conflict of interest. I did not, and would not, knowingly or consciously, retain financial interest in any enterprise where such a possibility could arise.
Having sold the shareholding on Friday for £430 I subsequently advised the Taoiseach on Friday afternoon on the matter. He accepted my explanation and in particular that while it might be possible to make a case that some small technical breach of Cabinet procedures had occurred inadvertently, there was no breach of the spirit of the Cabinet guidelines. The House should also be informed that in 1989 and in 1990 I acquired small shareholdings in a number of publicly quoted Irish companies. In locating and then checking through my personal financial records around that time, on Friday last, I was reminded that among these small purchases were minor shareholdings in Glencar and Ennex. There has been no active consideration of proposals involving my Department in the companies and no papers of any kind have been put to the Minister of State. Deputy Treacy for decision relating to these companies in recent years. However, as technically they, too, fall within my Department's responsibilities and could be open to the same construction I also disposed of them last Friday at a loss. The value of these shares was £620 for Glencar and £100 for Ennex.
In summary, therefore, I regret that this minor shareholding in Arcon from which I derived no benefit of any kind should be a complication when there are such important demands to be made of Government. As the House will I am sure accept there was no question of the shareholding having any influence in dealing with the Arcon mining application. I again wish to apologise for any inconvenience I have caused to my Government colleagues and the Members of this House.
Is the Minister telling the House that he completely forgot that he owned £1,000 worth of shares in Arcon?
I owned £400 worth of shares in Arcon and it was an inadvertent act of omission on my part. I purchased the shares five years ago. I did not seek to hide anything about the Conroy Petroleum shares. I have a copy of the share certificate and it certifies that Brian Cowen, TD, Leinster House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, owned those shares. If I was in the business of making a few pounds, as has been suggested and implied in all the allegations and contentions that have been made, this would not be the way to go about it. After I bought the shares I became increasingly disinterested in them. It was a modest shareholding and, unfortunately, as time passed it became even more modest. I acknowledge, despite the inadvertent act of omission on my part, that once it was brought to my attention I decided immediately to do what I did without instruction from anybody as that was the proper thing to do. At no stage did I seek to put personal self-interest before the proper discharge of my duties.
Deputy J. Bruton rose.
I call Deputy Molloy; I must call the Deputies who have tabled questions.
The Minister has not answered my question.
That was terrible stuff.
Why did the Minister lay such heavy emphasis on the fact that some of the responsibilities for energy matters have been delegated to the Minister of State? Is the Minister not aware that under section 2 of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act at all times the Minister who holds the portfolio has full responsibility for all the decisions made?
The Minister has said that.
I am so aware and I do not dilute that point. For the benefit of the House I am indicating the division of responsibilities in regard to the day to day workings of that area of the Department. I am giving due credit to the Minister of State for his good performance in this regard.
The Minister seems to be saying that he had forgotten all about this shareholding until it was brought to his attention by a journalist on Friday last. I presume the Minister is referring to the journalist from the Sunday Business Post who broke the story. Is it not the case that a journalist who had nothing to do with the Sunday Business Post contacted the Minister's office on Thursday, that the Minister expressed surprise that he had such a shareholding and that it was through this mechanism that this affair has been triggered and not by the Sunday Business Post?
I do not know what the Deputy is referring to; the only journalist I spoke to was the journalist who carried the story in the Sunday Business Post. I spoke to her on Friday. I did not speak to any other journalist about that matter either last week or any other week.
Did the Minister's office?
I will have to check that matter; as of now I do not know but I do not see the relevance. I have nothing to hide and I am seeking to give an open and honest account. It was me who got back on to the journalist concerned and answered the questions openly and honestly to the best of my ability. It was the cause of some embarrassment and I knew that I would not be top of the pops in the Sunday Business Post as a result. I do not see the relevance of the Deputy's question but if he wishes to ask me another supplementary question which leads on to something else I would like to hear it.
In his reply the Minister did not give details of the transactions between his Department and Arcon and Kilkenny County Council in relation to the planning application and the advice his Department gave to Kilkenny County Council in processing that application. Is it true that a report commissioned by the Geological Survey of Ireland, and sent by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to Kilkenny County Council in connection with Arcon's planning permission, referred to possible serious safety risks attached to Arcon's planning application; that Arcon's planning application did not contain enough information and that, effectively, on that basis Kilkenny County Council could not grant Arcon planning permission? Is it also true that when Kilkenny County Council drew this matter to the Minister's attention he required all copies of the report to be withdrawn, overruled the advice of senior officials and caused the report to be changed before reissuing it in a form that would allow Kilkenny County Council to grant permission to Arcon?
I totally and utterly, without equivocation, refute the charge made by Deputy Hogan. I stated that at no stage did I intervene in any of the ongoing——
Deputy Hogan, withdraw that.
——and predictable technical discussions between my Department, the Geological Survey of Ireland and Kilkenny County Council on the Arcon application. The House will know of the public and transparent nature of these procedures. I assure Deputy Hogan and anybody else who seeks to question my integrity inside this House with privilege or perhaps outside, without privilege, that at no stage did I interfere in the technical discussions between the experts in my Department and those in Kilkenny County Council. At no stage was any political direction ever given by me to change one scintilla of anything. There were ongoing discussions between Kilkenny County Council, the Geological Survey of Ireland and the Exploration and Mining Division. The Deputy may be aware, as it is in his county, that there were two planning applications and I presume that, subject to everything being done properly, he will not object to the issuing of a mining licence, based on the consideration of the mining board.
Let me nail this for what it is — another part of the new Fine Gael tactic to smear me or this Government. If Deputy Hogan wishes to insinuate or to express in explicit terms that I have done anything in the performance of my duties against the national interest, that was wrong or in any way incompatible with the performance of my duties I look forward to him saying that outside the House because I will vindicate my good name.
The Minister should say it in this House.
I will say inside this House with all the clarity at my command that I do not accept it. Of course, I recognise a political opportunity when I see one. I know a political attack when I see it but I also know when somebody seeks to take a more significant step than that and if the Deputy is suggesting explicitly that I in any way interfered from my position I refute it and say so unequivocally and with the full knowledge of the situation.
I admire the Minister's huffing, puffing and bluffing on this matter. No amount of shouting at me will deflect me from saying what I have to say. Will the Minister confirm that an original EIS report was changed in his Department?
There were complex discussions over a long period between the technical staff of my Department and Kilkenny County Council in which I was not a party, I simply agreed that they should proceed. The discussions involved technical and statistical data, to which I had no input. I deal with policy issues. The files will show that at no stage did I give a direction to anybody or make any suggestion as implicit in Deputy Hogan's statement.
You did.
The Minister made a full and abject apology to the House for a mistake and I have to accept it a face value. If I discover afterwards that there is some other angle to it I will come back to it.
Will the Minister accept that I have in my possession a copy of the original report prepared for the Geological Survey of Ireland in regard to the safety of the tailings pond which contains a sentence "However it has not been demonstrated that the site proposed for the tailings impoundment is the optimum site in terms of the risk of dam failure. This is a significant issue which cannot be resolved by appropriate planning conditions or regulatory requirements".
Quotations at Question Time are deemed out of order.
What is the Deputy accusing me of?
I am asking a question. Will the Minister accept that I have in my possession——
I do not know what the Deputy has in his possession.
——a copy of the original report presented to Kilkenny County Council on 27 April? Will he further agree that the final report eventually presented to Kilkenny Council on 4 May 1994 omitted one key sentence, which I already quoted, which said it was a significant issue that could not be resolved by appropriate planning conditions. As the Minister is responsible for Geological Survey of Ireland, which commissioned this report, could he tell us how, why and by whom this report was altered?
I came into this House to answer Private Notice Questions and I have answered fully on the mining shares that may have been in my ownership. If Deputy Bruton wishes to put down any questions on the detail of anything in my Department he can do so at any time and the full position will be given.
I assure the Deputy and everybody in this House, and more importantly the public for whom it is my privilege to work, that I have done nothing, given no direction to anybody to do anything untoward in any respect. As I await the submission of further questions and the formulation of replies I do not accept that there has been any wrongdoing by anybody in this matter and I will not be shifting it on to anybody else.
I have a professional and competent staff in that division who are mindful of the national interest at all times and I will await Deputy Bruton's questions. Let me make it clear that he will not attach that assertion to me. I state that categorically so that there are no further insinuations regarding my good name and character. Whether this allegation is true or false, I am sure there are explanations but that is a matter that will have to be dealt with later. Let me indicate clearly that nothing was ever said, done or indicated by me to do anything of the nature outlined.
I too am disposed to accept the Minister's statement on the shareholding as it is probably not of great significance. I do not believe the Minister made the purchase to enrich himself when he subsequently became Minister but I would like him to explain how he happens to choose three companies whose activities come within his area of responsibility.
The question I want to put to the Minister relates to the second matter which is the subject of Deputy Hogan's question and which, by comparison, is far more serious in its implications. The Minister says he wants time to answer detailed questions but the question required him to say he will outline in detail his own personal dealings in regard to the report of the Arcon planning application. That is in the question. Is the Minister aware of a report prepared by consultants — Cairns — from Scotland? Is he aware also that under the law neither the planning authority nor An Bord Pleanála could have granted permission for this mine if there was any sentence in the report which indicated that the consultants felt they had insufficient information in the Arcon environmental impact study to make the decision? Is the Minister aware also that the report which is on the files of Kilkenny County Council had such a sentence excised and has he any knowledge of where that took place?
That should be adequate, Deputy.
It is not.
I have made clear that I have not had any dealings with Kilkenny County Council or any other county council in relation to issues of this kind. It is not a matter for me. These are technical issues of great complexity, dealt with by professional people in my Department whose competence I will stand over. If any Deputy wishes to put down a question in this regard it will be answered. The questions being asked now are totally separate from the mining shares issue, as I understand it. It is a totally different issue but I want to make clear that there are answers to those questions which are well grounded. No one should attempt to imply that there has been some wrongdoing in this instance. To my knowledge there has not been any wrongdoing. I have total confidence in the competence and professionalism of the people who work in my Department. That is my position in relation to those matters but in regard to the question as it applies to me, I repeat that I have had no dealings with Kilkenny County Council; it would not be my function nor my business to have dealings with the council on such matters. I deal with the broad policy areas. If the Deputy has any other question in relation to mining or any other issue I ask him to put down that question when it will be dealt with in as full and open a way as I have sought to answer the queries here today in relation to my personal position.
These questions must come to finality. A final question from Deputy John Bruton.
Accepting the truthfulness of the Minister's replies, would it not be wise for all Ministers to dispose automatically of all shareholdings in companies dealing with the Departments for which they assume responsibility? Would it be useful if all shareholdings by Ministers in all companies were to be disclosed immediately so that no other Minister would find himself in the position in which the Minister now finds himself where apparently — through inadvertence — he forgot that he had a shareholding in a company he was dealing with? Will he agree also that this is not a trivial matter — to use the words of the Minister for the Environment — and that it is important that procedures are seen to apply to the holding by Ministers of shares, be they large or small? Should the same rule not apply to all so that not only should a conflict of interest not arise but there would be no possibility of suspicion of a conflict of interest?
We are having a widening of the subject matter of the question.
The Deputy will know that Ministers are not debarred from having shareholdings. Clearly, under the Government instructions, it is important to ensure that there can be no perception that, given a certain set of facts, one is unable to perform one's duty independently and properly in all cases. In respect of myself, I have done so impartially and correctly at all times. There has not been at anytime a conflict of interest in relation to me. I accept I could have saved myself some problem here today if I had realised the situation and disposed of my shares before assuming office. To err is human but I am saying honestly and without equivocation that I did my job, that the shareholding in question did not inhibit me doing that job and will not inhibit me from doing it in the future. I am thankful that many Members of the House accept that.
Mr. Rabbitte rose.
The Deputy may put a very brief and relevant question.
Does the Minister understand that the significance of the point at issue in terms of the Cairns report is, on the one hand, the quality of the drinking water and, on the other, the potential hazard to working miners arising from a possible fracture to the tailings pond? Will the Minister agree to place a copy of the Cairns report in the Library?
The Deputy has gone way outside the parameters of the private notice questions of which I received notice. I would ask the Deputy to hold back on giving any opinion on this matter until a question is put down and I or my colleague, Minister of State Treacy, has had an opportunity to give a full and frank reply in relation to any matter which can then be debated here properly during Question Time.
The Minister was given notice of these questions. All these matters are contained in the questions.
The Minister should not become arrogant.
I am stating clearly that I have had no direct dealings in relation to this matter.
All of the details of the dealings with Arcon were covered in this question.
The House has been generous. There is no need for the Minister to become arrogant.
Nobody will ask the Minister for financial advice.