I wish to share time with Deputies Jim Higgins, Boylan and Ring.
Private Members' Business. - Ministerial Appointment: Motion.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
"That Dáil Éireann:
–noting the Government's failure to persuade or require Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to avail of the opportunity to explain his actions in regard to the Sheedy affair to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights; and
–noting the unusual provisions of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1999
–condemns the appointment of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty by the Minister for Finance to the post of vice-president of the European Investment Bank."
Fine Gael proposes this motion because we regard Mr. O'Flaherty as an unsuitable person to fill this position. Mr. O'Flaherty is an eminent jurist – his knowledge of the law is probably unequalled in this State – and much has been made by Government spokespersons of his academic qualifications. Despite his qualifications, however, Fine Gael believes he is an unsuitable person for this position and his unsuitability arises from the role he played in the Sheedy affair.
In October 1997 Mr. Philip Sheedy was jailed for four years, having been found guilty of driving while drunk and causing the death of Mrs. Anne Ryan, a married woman with two young children, resident in Tallaght. Mrs. Ryan was taking her children to the swimming pool. Mr. Sheedy's car shot across one of the Tallaght roundabouts, became airborne and landed on top of the family car. Mrs. Ryan died in front of her children. As a consequence of the conviction, Mr. Sheedy spent six months in Mountjoy and was then transferred to Shelton Abbey.
In October 1998 Mr. Justice O'Flaherty, then a judge of the Supreme Court, met a young neighbour of his, Mr. Ken Anderson, and also Mr. Sheedy's sister from Donnybrook. They acquainted him with the plight of Mr. Philip Sheedy and he promised that he would see what he could do. On 14 October 1998 Mr. Joe Burke, a close and long-time friend and political associate of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, visited Mr. Sheedy in Shelton Abbey. Some weeks later Mr. Sheedy's case was relisted and on 12 November 1998 he was released from prison on the orders of Mr. Justice Kelly. He had served an unprecedented one year of a four year sentence.
He was wrongly released from custody in a case which was wrongly listed, in the wrong court, before the wrong judge and with no proper notice to the DPP, the Garda Síochána or the Ryan family. Some time later Mr. Ryan, the bereaved husband of the late Anne Ryan, saw Mr. Sheedy going about his business in Tallaght. Mr. Sheedy's release was raised in the press and with individual Deputies, and a political furore followed.
The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights considered the matter. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform conducted an inquiry into the courts division of his Department and very soon two judges were involved. When the Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton, was asked by the Government to conduct an inquiry into the affair, he acted quickly. The Hamilton report was made available to the Government on 14 April 1999. The report of the Chief Justice was sent to the committee on 16 April. The committee also received a letter from Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty offering to appear voluntarily before the committee.
On 17 April, however, despite assurances given on RTE and to the press, Mr. Justice O'Flaherty resigned and subsequently refused to appear before the committee. Later in the year the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John O'Donoghue, introduced legislation to provide pensions for Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty and the other persons who had resigned as a consequence of the affair.
One year later, on 19 May 2000, Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty was nominated by the Government as vice-president of the European Investment Bank, a position which is the equivalent in salary and status to that of a European Commissioner, where Mr. O'Flaherty will earn almost £600,000 over the next four years. This is surely the greatest come-back since Lazarus and no one in Government or on behalf of the Government has made an attempt to explain what brought about Mr. O'Flaherty's extraordinary change of fortune. How can the Government justify the appointment of a person to such an exalted position whose actions had the country on the brink of a constitutional crisis just one year ago and who resigned under threat of impeachment by the very same Government? What hold has Mr. O'Flaherty on the Government to explain this significant appointment?
The then Chief Justice, Mr. Hamilton, examined the Sheedy affair and he concluded that the case would not have been relisted and that Mr. Sheedy would not have been released were it not for the intervention of Mr. Justice O'Flaherty. He concluded that this intervention was inappropriate and unwise, that it left his motives and his actions open to misinterpretation and that it was, therefore, damaging to the administration of justice. One year later, how can the Government justify appointing Mr. O'Flaherty to the post he is now set to occupy, against the background of this criticism, in writing, of the then Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton? What hold has Mr. O'Flaherty on the Government which would lead it to appoint a former judge who acted unwisely and inappropriately and whose actions damaged the administration of justice?
Mr. Liam Hamilton accepts that Mr. Justice O'Flaherty became involved in the Sheedy case in the spirit of humanitarian interest. Supreme Court judges are the guardians of the Constitution. They vindicate the constitutional rights of individual citizens. They are very familiar with the rights of citizens and sometimes those rights are in conflict. When the rights are in conflict, some take precedence over others. I suggest that in the Sheedy affair, Mr. O'Flaherty's humanitarian interest was faulty and the rights of the late Anne Ryan, her husband and her children should have taken precedence over the rights of the unfortunate Mr. Philip Sheedy. Yet despite all this, the Government saw fit to appoint Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty as vice-president of the European Investment Bank.
Some time after his resignation, the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, came into the Dáil and promised that he would introduce legislation to provide pensions for the three persons who resigned. It is quite clear from his remarks on the record of the House that his expectation was that once pensions were provided, none of the parties involved, in particular Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty, would take part in public life again. In that context, there was sympathy in this House for the pension provisions. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said on 5 May 1999:
As to why the Government decided to pay pensions to the judges, it took the view that, from the information available, the errors of judgment by the three individuals, including these two individuals, were quite serious but took into account that all three had taken the honourable course by resigning and had collectively helped to avert a difficult if not unprecedented position, from a constitutional stand-point.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day acknowledged that there was a constitutional crisis, that the resignation avoided it and, as a kind of quid pro quo, pensions were provided to persons whose careers in public life were finished, and that was why they were so generous.
I am sure others will speak about the pension Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty received, which was £40,000 per year, but according to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the estimated capital cost, the estimate given by the Department of Finance, was £699,000. One might have one's pension suspended on request for three or four years but the capital cost of £699,000 will not change. The generosity of the pension and the remarks made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform show that it was the view of the Government 12 months ago that Hugh O'Flaherty's service in public life was over and that he was being taken care of because he had not made it difficult for the Government. How can it be explained 12 months later that he is being given a post in Europe equivalent to that of a European Commissioner?
The position of the Progressive Democrats in this affair is extraordinary. It was this issue that drove them closest to the brink when it arose in the House last year. The Taoiseach had not mentioned to the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, that he had made representations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on behalf of Mr. Sheedy. She withdrew from Cabinet, sulked in her Department, briefed journalists that the Government was at risk and, ultimately, rejoined the Cabinet only when a deal was brokered between her and the Taoiseach by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, which involved a grovelling apology and an admission of culpability by the Taoiseach. Is this the same Deputy Harney who now sees no problem appointing Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to this position? Can she explain how events which almost brought down the Government last year are airbrushed from history to such an extent that one of the principal actors in the drama is being appointed to the European Investment Bank? To paraphrase the late Jim Kemmy, the Tánaiste was Mighty Mouse last year but looks very like Mickey Mouse this year.
When the Progressive Democrats were founded under the leadership of Deputy O'Malley they had a sense of moral purpose and the necessary sense of moral outrage to accompany it. They have become a pale shadow of their former selves. Rather than being defenders of the Republic they have become posers, soundbiters and playseekers. Their epitaph will be very short –"Founded by Desmond O'Malley in 1985, buried by Mary Harney in 2000 AD".
How can the Tánaiste possibly justify the moral cowardice of her position? Is it any wonder that even her most loyal supporters are dismayed? Is it any wonder that her membership in the constituencies is disappearing like froth on the river? The Progressive Democrats are always in difficulty when the Attorney General, Mr. Michael McDowell, holds a significant position. He is a curious mixture of academic brilliance and flawed political judgment.
The high priest.
The Tánaiste should inform the House if the Attorney General has influenced her in the acceptance of this appointment. There is no explanation which could possibly justify the contrast between the position taken by the Tánaiste last year and the position taken last week. If she has an explanation she should come into the House and offer it to us. The Tánaiste's position is even more difficult to understand when it is recalled that the late Mrs. Anne Ryan was a constituent of hers.
The Taoiseach and his spin doctors are keeping a very low profile in this affair. There is a pretence that this appointment is the sole responsibility of the Minister for Finance and that other Ministers, including the Taoiseach, were only involved on the periphery and simply asked if they had any objections. De jure, the issue is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance but as every person who has ever served in Cabinet knows the de facto position is very different. Appointments of this magnitude are the preserve of the Taoiseach and only made after detailed consultations and discussions between the parties in Government.
True.
The Taoiseach is central to this appointment and may have been central to other events in the Sheedy affair. The Taoiseach has confirmed that he made representations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on behalf of Mr. Sheedy. It has been confirmed that Mr. Joe Burke, a close associate of the Taoiseach, retained the architectural services of Mr. Sheedy and visited him in Shelton Abbey a few weeks before his release. It has also been confirmed that Miss Celia Larkin who at the time ran the Taoiseach's constituency office, visited the O'Flaherty family on Mr. O'Flaherty's resignation. There is no evidence that any representations were made by the Taoiseach or anyone on his behalf to Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty on behalf of Mr. Sheedy. It is a fact however that Mr. O'Flaherty's appointment has already stoked the flames of rumour and fanned the fires of cynicism and the Taoiseach must have been aware that this would be a consequence when he sought to appoint Mr. O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank.
This is a public scandal, as Senator Keogh said rightly. At a time when revelations at the two tribunals of inquiry have undermined confidence in public life and the profession of politics has ethical questions hanging over it this appointment will reinforce cynicism and further convince the public that there is a golden circle which always arranges its affairs to suit its members who, whatever it is, will always get away it. This is an unwise and inappropriate appointment. It undermines standards in Government and this House. Those who wish to stand by the Republic should vote with Fine Gael tomorrow evening when we go through the lobbies.
The Minister for Finance has to some extent been a scapegoat in this affair but I wish to put some questions to him which he may answer in reply. Why is the Government appointing a person it considered impeaching 12 months ago as vice-president of the European Investment Bank? What qualifications in banking does Mr. O'Flaherty have? Is the Minister aware that all other vice-presidents of the European Investment Bank have banking experience? Who first mentioned Mr. O'Flaherty's name for this appointment? Were any other names considered? Were any representations made to the Taoiseach or any other Minister to appoint Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty? Did the Minister receive any representations from the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or any of his Cabinet colleagues asking him to nominate Mr. O'Flaherty? When he consulted his Cabinet colleagues did anyone object? Was a deal done with the Progressive Democrats on the basis that if they agreed to the appointment their nominee would be appointed to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development? Was any consideration given to the Sheedy affair in the context of the appointment? What briefing was given to the representatives of the Danish and Greek Governments? Was the briefing in writing or verbal? By whom was it given and to whom? I would like the Minister to address these important questions to enable us understand the thinking of the Government when it chose to appoint Mr. O'Flaherty to this position.
This is an appalling Government. Scandal follows scandal. The common factor is that at the centre of each scandal there seems to be a Fianna Fáil personality. In three years we have moved from the Haughey affair to the Burke affair, Flynn affair, Ellis affair, Sheedy affair and Foley affair. Apart from wringing her hands in dismay, the Tánaiste refuses to take action and continues to prop up an incompetent sleaze-ridden Administration.
The Taoiseach has had several chances. He has promised to restore ethics to public life but we lurch along an ever downward slope where unethical behaviour seems to be part of the culture of the Fianna Fáil Party. The Taoiseach is always promising and never acting. The public is sick of it, sick of the ducking, weaving, diving, forgetting and procrastination. Tomorrow night the House will sink to a new low when the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste drag their reluctant backbenchers through the lobbies in support of an appointment that none of them can justify, even to themselves.
They are all here tonight.
Public life has been diminished more in three years as a result of the Taoiseach's handling of affairs than ever before. The Tánaiste is the only person who can call a stop. She should read again the pledges given to the people when her party was founded in 1985, she should act on those pledges and abandon this discredited Government. It is time to let the people decide, to give them the opportunity to pass judgment on these matters.
(Mayo): Friday last was payback time for Hugh O'Flaherty and the key question is, “Why?” I have heard the expression “done deal” used more than once in the last few days to describe this latest scandal. It was a done deal from the moment Mr. O'Flaherty dug in his heels and decided that he was not going to resign his Supreme Court position. It was a done deal because Mr. O'Flaherty had a tale to tell, a tale that had not come out and has not come out and a tale that could only be suppressed in the best Fianna Fáil tradition of resorting to its favourite instrument of political patronage by having poor Mr. O'Flaherty looked after.
They are good at it.
(Mayo): What hold has Mr. O'Flaherty on Fianna Fáil and on whom in Fianna Fáil that he has had to be rewarded with a European job with a salary of over three and a half times his generous £40,000 judicial pension? On numerous occasions, Fianna Fáil has shown utter contempt for the intelligence of the Irish people. It would be difficult, however, to find a more contemptuous or arrogant act than the appointment of Mr. O'Flaherty as vice-president of the European Investment Bank. Mr. O'Flaherty took an oath on taking office as Supreme Court judge in which he said:
In the presence of Almighty God I, do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Judge without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.
In the Sheedy affair, Mr. O'Flaherty drove a coach and four through his judicial oath of office. In spite of the oath, he showed quite extraordinary favour and affection towards Philip Sheedy. Not alone did he allow himself as a senior judicial figure to be approached on Mr. Sheedy's behalf – something a judge must never do and which flouts his very oath of office – he was responsible for setting in train a conspiracy and a scheme that was illegal and unconstitutional to have Mr. Sheedy illegally released from jail and, in so doing, he deliberately subverted the Constitution.
According to Mr. O'Flaherty, he recalled a similar case over which he presided in the Court of Criminal Appeal and which he felt might assist the early release of Mr. Sheedy. The case in question was the DPP v McDonald. This is a totally misleading and fallacious argument and is nothing other than a transparent fig leaf which holds no water. The DPP v McDonald had nothing to do with reviewing sentences or relisting cases. It was not a reviewed sentence but an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal and had no relevance to the Sheedy case.
Mr. O'Flaherty subsequently summoned the county registrar to his judicial chambers. He mentioned the Sheedy case to him and suggested to Mr. Quinlan that it might be possible to have the case relisted in the Circuit Court. Mr. Quinlan, secure in the knowledge that he had the support and encouragement of one of the top judges on the bench, undertook to make the arrangements to have the Sheedy case returned to the Circuit Court. Small wonder that his reply to a query from Mr. Sheedy's solicitor as to what was going on elicited the comment, "You don't want to know". The rest is history.
The case was wrongly listed. It was heard by Judge Cyril Kelly who should not have heard it. It was heard in the wrong court and should have been referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal or have gone for judicial review to the High Court. The case was called out of sequence – No. 1 instead of No. 19. Neither the DPP nor the Garda was notified. The case was called while the solicitor representing the Chief State Solicitor was out of court taking a telephone call. Judge Kelly pretended to the court that he had an up-to-date psychological report when this was patently not the case. The entire management of the case was illegal and unconstitutional from start to finish and Philip Sheedy was wrongly and illegally released from jail.
Judge Kelly and Mr. Quinlan were forced to resign but the person who triggered the entire scandal was Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty. Had Mr. O'Flaherty not launched himself with so much enthusiasm into the Sheedy affair, had he not displayed such manifest judicial indiscretion, then Mr. Sheedy would not have been released and the probability is that the most unprecedented judicial scandal in the history of the State would have been avoided.
Despite these facts, this is the man the Government has rewarded with one of the top and most lucrative positions in Europe. The courts are the cornerstone of democracy. By his actions and those of his colleague, Mr. Cyril Kelly, Mr. O'Flaherty has done irreparable damage to public confidence in the courts yet the Government is about to reward him with an annual salary of £147,000 and all the attendant perks. Mr. O'Flaherty wrote to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and offered to tell all but subsequently refused to come before the committee on the pretext that he was constitutionally prohibited. This is the man the Government is now going to reward with a £588,000 salary over a four year period on top of his judicial pension.
On Friday, 16 April 1999, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, on the instruction of the Government, wrote to Hugh O'Flaherty and stated that the Government had decided at its meeting of that morning to forward the report of the Chief Justice to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The Minister went on to state that he had been asked to advise Mr. O'Flaherty that the Government would consider at its meeting of the following Tuesday, proposing resolutions for the consideration of the two Houses of the Oireachtas pursuant to Article 35.4.1 for Mr. O'Flaherty's removal on the grounds that the facts admitted to the Chief Justice or established by him in his report amounted to misbehaviour within the meaning of the said provision of the Constitution.
This was a situation in which Mr. O'Flaherty, a Supreme Court judge and a leading contender for the position of Chief Justice which was shortly to become vacant, was given a clear ultimatum by the Government to resign within four days for abusing his position and for stated misbehaviour or else the Government was going to have him unceremoniously booted from office. However, 13 months later the man deemed by the Government to be unfit and unworthy to be allowed to continue as a judge of the law courts is elevated to a top banking position where, presumably, a certain amount of judicial discretion will be involved.
The report of the Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton, made Mr. O'Flaherty's position as Supreme Court judge totally untenable. Mr. Hamilton, a senior judicial colleague who sat and served with Mr. O'Flaherty for many years, stated in the coldest possible terms that his colleague's intervention in the Sheedy affair was inappropriate and unwise. He could have gone further and stated that it was illegal and unconstitutional. However, his remarks were tantamount to saying so when he concluded that Mr. O'Flaherty's action was damaging to the administration of justice.
Can one imagine a situation in which a judge who is solemnly and constitutionally obliged to administer justice is denounced by a colleague because his actions damaged the administration of the justice system he is supposed to uphold and maintain? In the 80 year history of the State a Supreme Court judge had never been forced to resign, yet this is the man the Government wants this House and the people to regard as competent and fit to hold an office with a much higher rate of pay than the position from which he was forced to resign.
What is the real reason the Government stuck its neck out on this issue? Philip Sheedy was obviously somebody very special. Anyone whose early release from prison could have created the kind of constitutional convulsion which led to the fall of two well connected Fianna Fáil judges and a well connected Fianna Fáil county registrar is no ordinary individual. There is, of course, the Fianna Fáil agenda which runs through the case: Deputy Brian Lenihan's initial representations on behalf of Mr. Sheedy; Senator Don Lydon's stale psychological report; the Taoiseach's forever friend, builder Joe Burke, who visited Mr. Sheedy in Shelton Abbey prison, who had a business relationship with Mr. Sheedy and who was to be a witness in a court case in which Mr. Burke was involved and the Taoiseach's representations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform looking for day release for Mr. Sheedy. The whole saga is riddled with politics and questions which must now be answered.
This is not a case of unwarranted curiosity but of the public interest and the integrity of the judicial system. It is totally wrong to reinstate Mr. O'Flaherty to public office without insisting that he explain the full circumstances that led to his exit in disgrace from his previous public office. On 16 April, Mr. O'Flaherty was prepared to make a statement to the joint Oireachtas committee and to answer any and all questions surrounding the case. However, on 5 May he argued that the Constitution did not permit him to do so. Mr. O'Flaherty must think the people are fools. If there was no constitutional impediment on 16 April there was none on 5 May.
Whatever about Mr. Kelly's position and the constitutional separation of powers, because he was, after all, sitting on the Bench and had heard the case, all the legal advice is to the effect that there was no constitutional problem with Mr. O'Flaherty coming before the committee. When he met Mr. Ken Anderson and Philip Sheedy's sister regarding the Sheedy case he was not exercising a judicial function but was exercising his dog in Herbert Park.
The manner in which Deputy Harney and the Progressive Democrats are prepared to buy into this project has shocked ordinary decent people and elected members of that party. As Deputy Noonan said, this time last year the Progressive Democrats engaged in a Mexican stand-off because the Taoiseach had deceived the Tánaiste about his involvement and actions in the Sheedy affair. For several hours she and her party colleagues barricaded themselves behind closed doors in their Molesworth Street offices and continued to sulk until such time as the Taoiseach apologised to them. Now with Sheedy revisited she is prepared to back possibly the most scandalous act of political patronage and nepotism, which it is, because one must realise that Mr. O'Flaherty was very much part of the Fianna Fáil family.
A very dear part of it.
(Mayo): The promotion of somebody to high office as a representative, a delegate or an ambassador of this country who was ignominiously drummed out of office a little over a year ago is politically indefensible. Nobody expects much from Fianna Fáil in terms of moral rectitude, ethics or probity. Fianna Fáil standards are variable, a little like a dimmer light switch that can be switched up or down depending on the circumstances or the atmosphere at the time.
Everyone knows that Fianna Fáil has only one core value, survival at all costs. The Progressive Democrats was supposed to be different – it was the mould breaker. It would like us to think it had values and standards, is different from Fianna Fáil and is the moral and political watchdog to keep this Fianna Fáil juggernaut on the straight and narrow. The days of huffing and puffing are now over. If the Tánaiste and her colleagues are not prepared to call a halt to this appointment, its political race is run and it deserves the public odium and political cost that will inevitably ensue.
The European Investment Bank has made it abundantly clear there is no obstacle to the Government changing its mind on the appointment. Deputy O'Malley on 25 April 1999 expressed considerable concern at the Government proposal to reward the two judges with pensions. He felt the Government should not rush in with the pension legislation but wait for some weeks in the hope and expectation that some explanation would be forthcoming as to why these events happened. He said it was inexplicable that the people concerned acted as they did. That was what Deputy O'Malley said then. His hope was not realised. The Government bulldozed through this House and the Seanad £40,000 of an index-linked pension for life for Mr. O'Flaherty and no explanation was given as to why he did what he did in the Sheedy affair. Is Deputy O'Malley prepared to troop through the division lobbies tomorrow evening in craven capitulation behind the soldiers of destiny whom he reviled when he abandoned them as having no principles when he set up the Progressive Democrats? Does Deputy O'Malley still stand by the principles of the Republic? What has become of the Progressive Democrats' insistence on public accountability? If Deputy O'Malley does not have the principle to do the honourable thing in what is a watershed low in jobs for the boys, he and his colleagues should not dare to put a toe, let alone trespass, on the high moral ground again. They stand for absolutely nothing. They should take the only course of action open to them and rejoin Fianna Fáil because they have no legitimate entitlement to a separate, let alone independent, identity.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring.
That is agreed.
I thank my party leader and Deputies Noonan and Jim Higgins for the opportunity to speak about the outrage of the honest decent people at this appointment. What annoys me intensely about the outrage expressed in newspaper editorials and by political correspondents is the qualification attached to it, that Hugh O'Flaherty is an eminent person, eminently qualified. Hugh O'Flaherty is not an eminent person. He is a small man. He was found to interfere with the course of justice. A sentence of four years was overturned by the interference of a man who should have known better and who political correspondents claim is eminently qualified. He is a shabby little man who acted in a shoddy manner. The Minister for Finance should not shake his head. That is a fact. If young Sheedy – I am very annoyed about the problems he caused – had not the courage to pay his debt to society, he certainly should not have appealed to Hugh O'Flaherty to spring him from jail and Hugh O'Flaherty should have known better than to interfere.
I ask the Deputy to be more temperate in his remarks about a person outside this House. It is all right to speak about his suitability for office, but not to make remarks about his personality.
Hugh O'Flaherty has struck at the core of our democracy. The cornerstone of our democracy is to uphold law and order and to have respect for the Judiciary and our courts. It does not surprise me that this shabby little man acted in that manner because he compounded his actions by taking a shabby little pension from this shoddy Government – outrage upon outrage. That pension was bulldozed through here by a majority made up of Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and the Independents. Is it any wonder people are cynical?
Imagine the outrage of a community if a cashier in a corner shop was found with her hand in the till and sacked and three months later was appointed manager of the local credit union. One might say that would be ridiculous, but that is no more ridiculous than Hugh O'Flaherty's appointment to the EIB by the Government.
We should not be surprised by this appointment. The Government's hallmark is the pro motion of wrongdoers. Mr. P. Flynn, a former EU Commissioner, had his hand in the till and £50,000 has been unaccounted for. The former Deputy Ray Burke, who had his hand in the till, was promoted to the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs. There were also the cases of Deputies John Ellis, Liam Lawlor and Dennis Foley and now there is the appointment of Hugh O'Flaherty. All of that has the blessing of the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, leader of the declining democrats.
Is this the last stand? Will the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, stand up like Custer and say "enough is enough"? He is the only one left to take the moral ground that was taken so righteously by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, when she sat in the seat now occupied by Deputy Howlin, and demanded heads on plates and a carving knife for far less. The Progressive Democrats are in disgrace. There is public outrage about this appointment. Young people are annoyed about politics and I am not one bit surprised.
I thought we had moved on from the bad old days in relation to law and order. As a boy, I was told there were two laws in this country, one for the rich and one for the poor. What happens to the poor? They go to jail. Now we know what happens to the rich. They go to Europe and get paid £140,000 a year. There must be law and order and the law must be applied equally.
I do not like to be critical of anybody, particularly of a person's family. This is a bad night for politics and politicians and the people do not have much time for politics or politicians. Why was this man appointed to this position? I will not get an answer to that question from the Minister for Finance. We will probably have to wait another few years, as in the case of the tribunals, to find out the truth. We all know why he was appointed, but we will not say so until we learn the truth.
A group of people in this House, the Progressive Democrats, upset me. Half the members of that party say they are upset and annoyed by this appointment and the other half say they agree to it. The half who do not agree with the Government appointee will have an opportunity tomorrow night to walk through the lobby with Fine Gael, Labour and whatever decent TDs are left in this House. I cannot depend on the Independents to join us because they have no backbone. They will not let down the Government. We depended on the Tánaiste and the Progressive Democrats because they were the moral voice of the country. They told us in this House that when they got into Government, they would keep an eye on Fianna Fáil and on the Government. The Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, did not keep an eye on Fianna Fáil last week when she allowed this appointment. The people are outraged by it. They believe there are two laws in this State, one for the rich and one for the poor, and we know what has happened.
I wish to share time with Deputy Briscoe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes the nomination of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty by the Minister for Finance for appointment by the board of governors to a post of vice-president of the European Investment Bank.".
I wish to emphasise that the Government regards the European Investment Bank as a most important organ of the European Union, with the potential to make a decisive contribution to advancing the Union's economic and social goals and to confront the challenges of future enlargement. In view of this and that under the rotation system that operates within the constituency we share with Greece and Denmark whereby Ireland is represented on the management committee for four years in 12, it is of paramount importance that a person of the highest calibre is put forward for this position.
The decision to nominate Mr. O'Flaherty was made on the basis of the qualities of the person who would be able to do a good job for the European Investment Bank over the next four years. I assure Deputies it was his outstanding qualifications and wide legal experience which were decisive in his nomination.
The controversy that surrounded Mr. O'Flaherty's departure from public office last year should not be allowed to obscure a record of long and distinguished service to his profession – 30 years of practice at the Bar and almost a decade sitting in the highest court of the State. At European level, let alone at national level, there are few people who could bring such experience and talents to bear on the position in the bank. It will bring credit to Ireland that we can provide a European institution with yet another personage of such intellect, qualifications and experience.
I assure the House that before making the nomination I had, in the normal way, consulted extensively with my colleagues in Government. The governors from the two EU member states which, with Ireland, take turns to nominate a vice-president to the bank, Denmark and Greece, have also been consulted. Mr. O'Flaherty has been put forward as our common candidate for the vacancy that will arise when the term of the Greek vice president expires on 5 June.
I wish to outline a general background to the European Investment Bank, which will help the House to appreciate the importance of the job, why I felt we needed to choose a person of the highest calibre for such an appointment and why Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty is suitable to fill such an important post. The European Investment Bank was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1958. The members of the European Investment Bank are the member states of the European Union which have all subscribed to the bank's capital. Ireland became a member on our entry into the European Economic Community in 1973.
The European Investment Bank was set up as the European Union's financing institution, with its main task being to contribute, through its long-term loans, towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the member states of the Union. The European Investment Bank enjoys its legal personality and financial autonomy within the EU system. In performing its mission, the bank places emphasis, first and foremost, on promoting convergence and regional development, while at the same time supporting the other economic priorities defined by its board of governors.
The House does not need to be reminded that in recent years the bank has been both imaginative and proactive in responding to the concerns of the ECOFIN Council and the Heads of State and Government. The objectives of the bank include: fostering the economic development of the less favoured regions; improving the European transport and telecommunications infrastructure; protecting the environment and promoting urban development; attaining Union energy policy objectives; enhancing the international competitiveness of European industry; supporting the activity of small and medium size industries; extending and modernising infrastructure in the health and education sectors with the objective of encouraging growth and employment and assisting urban renewal.
Loans granted by the European Investment Bank in favour of economically sound projects, therefore, encompass a wide range of activities: communications networks; energy; protection of the natural and urban environment; the development of industry and services; and enhancement of health and education facilities. The European Investment Bank raises substantial volumes of funds on the markets, which it directs on the most favourable terms towards financing capital projects in accordance with the objectives of the European Union. Outside the European Union, the EIB implements the financial components of agreements concluded under European development aid and co-operation policies. European Investment Bank policies are established in close co-ordination with member states and the other institutions of the European Union.
I would like the House to have a full appreciation of the governance structures of the European Investment Bank. The management of the bank is structured around the board of governors, the management committee and the board of directors. The role each of these plays in the running of the institution is as follows. The board of governors consists of Ministers designated by each of the member states, usually ECOFIN Ministers. They represent the member states as shareholders in the bank. The board of governors lays down general directives on credit policy, approves the balance sheet, profit and loss account and annual report, decides on capital increases and appoints the members of the board of directors, the management committee and the audit committee. As Minister for Finance, I am the governor for Ireland and, in this capacity, I will attend the annual meeting in Luxembourg on 5 June.
The board of directors ensures that the bank is managed in keeping with the provisions of the treaty and the statute and with the general directives laid down by the governors. It has the sole power to take decisions in respect of loans, guarantees and borrowings. Its members are appointed by the governors for a renewable period of five years following nomination by the member states and are responsible solely to the bank. Directors are non-resident and serve in a part-time capacity. The current director from Ireland is a senior official of my Department. Under the constituency rotation arrangement, Ireland also provides an alternate director when we hold neither a vice presidency nor a position on the bank's audit committee.
The management committee of the European Investment Bank is composed of eight members, the president and seven vice-presidents. For the coming four years, one of the latter will be Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty when his nomination is endorsed by the governors of the bank. The management committee oversees the day-to-day operation of the EIB. All major decisions are taken collectively, but the lead responsibility for supervising the different activities of the bank is currently divided among its members. The management committee recommends decisions to directors and ensures that these are implemented. The president or, in his absence, one of the seven vice-presidents chairs the meetings of the board of directors. The members of the management committee are responsible solely to the bank. They are appointed by the board of governors on a proposal from the board of directors.
The management committee operates in such a way as to give each vice-president responsibility for certain functions of the bank and also give them responsibility for certain geographical areas in which the bank operates. The Greek member of the management committee, who will be replaced by Mr. O'Flaherty, currently has responsibility for regional development policy, the Cohesion Fund, project evaluation and financing operations in Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Albania, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey and countries of former Yugoslavia. Obviously it will be a matter for the president and vice-presidents to decide the portfolio of work for Mr. O'Flaherty, having regard to his competencies and those of the other members of the management committee.
Including prisons.
The specific functions of the bank which come under the remit of the various members of the management committee are manifold, but would typically include credit risk and loan portfolio monitoring, legal affairs and relations with the Court of Justice, accountancy and control of financial risks, relations with the European Investment Fund, information and communications policy, financial and treasury policies, capital markets, accounting policies, human resources, budget and relations with the European Parliament, trans-European networks, economic and financial studies, environmental policy issues, internal and external audit and information technology. It will be evident that the management committee can benefit from a diversity of skills and experience.
A member of the management committee also serves as vice-governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, while the president is also governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and chairman of the supervisory board of the European Investment Fund.
As I noted earlier, the position for which Mr. O'Flaherty has been nominated for appointment by the board of governors is one of seven vice- presidential positions and the vice-presidents, with the president, form the management committee of the bank. Decisions by the management committee are often taken on foot of consideration of financial and legal documentation that is both detailed and complex. Some of the projects the EIB approved recently include a framework agreement with the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, a 90 million facility for small projects in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary and a 120 million facility for smaller-scale investment schemes in Spain.
The House does not need to be advised of how complex the legal arrangements affecting the conduct of business in the financial arena have become, nor of the pace of development of financial instruments and legal arrangements. In these days, no sensible banker travels without a lawyer in tow. Such is the reality of modern finance, and the European Investment Bank is often at the leading edge.
A vice-president with the legal experience of Mr. O'Flaherty will be in a position to make a valuable contribution to the business of the management committee. The House will agree that the strength and depth of his legal background is outstanding. I know from personal experience and knowledge that the range of issues with which the European Investment Bank deals is very wide and the contracts with individual firms and organisations which it enters are extremely complex commercial and legal documents. Mr. O'Flaherty is uniquely qualified to make a contribution to the European Investment Bank not only on the portfolio which he will be allocated, but to the organisation as a whole.
Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty is a man with an exceptional intellect, vast experience and extensive knowledge which will be invaluable to the bank. I have not heard any serious questioning of his ability to carry out his future role within the bank in a most effective manner.
The Minister has not been listening.
As a person who enjoyed a highly successful legal career that spanned 40 years and ranged from the position of barrister to serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he is without doubt well-equipped for the position in all its aspects.
While serving as a barrister-at-law for the period 1959 to 1976, Mr. O'Flaherty carried out a wide-ranging practice involving constitutional, European, tort, contract, employment, company and revenue law. He advanced from there to serve as a senior counsel for a decade and a half from 1976 to the time of his appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ireland in 1990. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal on all matters relating to constitutional law and, additionally, the court hears appeals from the trial courts on various types of disputes. In this capacity he was the author of over 500 opinions affecting practically every area of law in every part of Irish life.
Other positions he held during the course of his career include trustee of the Trier Academy of Law in Germany from 1990 to the present. This academy provides courses and seminars concerning the laws of the European Union for lawyers and others throughout Europe. He has lectured at Fordham Law School, Duquense University and the John Marshall Law School on all aspects of the law including Irish and international law and the inter-relationship between various systems of law. He was also the chairman of the National Archives Advisory Council during which he presided over the production of a strategic report dealing with the preservation and enhancement of the archival treasures of Ireland.
From the wide-ranging and high level experiences to which I referred, it is clear that Mr. O'Flaherty is a very capable man and will undoubtedly be a valuable addition to the management committee of such an organisation. It is of paramount importance to choose a highly qualified person for the post and with his vast range of experience Mr. O'Flaherty will make a telling contribution to the management of the bank when facing the challenges that lie ahead for it in the climate of an expanding Europe as an important institution of the European Union.
It is an extraordinary speech.
I am satisfied that Mr. O'Flaherty is an outstanding candidate and I am convinced that he will be an excellent vice-president, serving the European Investment Bank and this country well throughout his tenure at the bank.
There has been a concern among Deputies and the public at the position whereby Mr. O'Flaherty would continue receiving a pension from public funds at the same time as earning a substantial salary from the European Investment Bank. In that regard, Mr. O'Flaherty has informed me today that it is his intention, on his appointment to the position in the European Investment Bank, to forego his entitlement to his judicial pension for the duration of his period of office in the bank. I commend Mr. O'Flaherty on his public-spirited response to the concerns being voiced.
(Mayo): How magnanimous.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton, in his report on the Sheedy affair, acknowledged that Mr. Justice O'Flaherty only became involved in this case "in a spirit of humanitarian interest", yet what he did "left his motives and actions open to misinterpretation." Mr. O'Flaherty's mistake was that he had not anticipated the construction that could be put on what he did.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): No, he was caught.
He paid a very high price for that mistake.
So did the Ryan family.
When he realised that his seeking to remain in office as a judge was threatening to compromise the integrity of the Judiciary, he did the honourable thing and resigned.
He did not appear before the Oireachtas committee.
So, he was not threatened with impeachment?
For a man of Mr. O'Flaherty's integrity, the public humiliation suffered at the suggestion of demeaning or damaging our justice system should not be underestimated. However, are we entitled to condemn such a man for the rest of his life for making a mistake for which he paid a huge price?
(Mayo): He was well rewarded.
That is now in the past, or rather it should be.
(Mayo): He got double the salary he was getting.
Nobody has ever denied that Mr. O' Flaherty was a very able judge. He is enormously well versed in domestic, European and international law and jurisprudence. Furthermore, he has great depth of experience and knowledge outside the law. He is eminently qualified to serve as vice-president of the European Investment Bank and, on that basis alone, he deserves this post. However, this position will also give Mr. Hugh O' Flaherty the second chance which I believe every individual should afford his or her neighbour who has admitted they were wrong and suffered the consequences. I put it to the House that the vast majority of Deputies from all parties are of a similar view. I commend the amended motion to the House.
When I heard the motion had been tabled, I telephoned the Minister for Finance's office yesterday and asked to be allowed to speak on it because I am proud of my long friendship with Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty. I have known him since I came into politics in 1965.
Into politics?
He is a wonderful person. Sadly, Mr. O'Flaherty was out for a walk and he met a neighbour of his who explained that he had a problem regarding the lady with him whose brother was Mr. Sheedy. Mr. O'Flaherty's offence, if it was one, was to say that he could not discuss the case with her but that she should talk to her lawyer because he thought a Bill had been passed a couple of years previously under which a person, if he or she was worried that an individual may take his or her life or something like that, could take action. He said to his neighbour to tell the lady to tell her lawyer to look at that law. That was all he did.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): He did not know anything about law.
The next day he went to his office and he called the registrar, as many judges do when they want to check up on something. He mentioned to the registrar that he had had the meeting and he had told the person to ask their lawyer to look at the particular legislation.
This is a perversion of the facts.
He asked whether that was the right advice.
(Mayo): Judges do not do that.
They do.
Deputy Briscoe without interruption.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): They should not do that.
In that case, the whole Judiciary will have to resign because that is what they do.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The judges will not like that if they read it.
Leave the Deputy alone, he is doing fine. Do not heckle him.
The registrar called over to him the following day and said that was the correct advice, that there was particular legislation which the lawyer could look up. That was the extent of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty's involvement and I have no hesitation in saying that. Given the spin that has been put on the matter tonight—
(Mayo): By the Chief Justice.
—one would think he went down and unlocked the jail to let the man out. As the Deputies are aware, Mr. Sheedy was not even a supporter of Fianna Fáil. It is not as if he was doing a political act for a supporter of our party or anything else.
That makes it all right.
That is the only spin that was not put on it earlier. We are lucky to have a person of the calibre of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty. He is very respected not only by those who know him, but internationally. I feel strongly that the former Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton, did not envisage that the matter would end in the resignation of Mr. O'Flaherty. He was almost taken aback by the savagery of the attack of the Opposition parties in this matter.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): And the Deputy's Government.
The matter was dealt with by the Government.
It was unfortunate. Deputy Howlin knows, as do other Members, that at the time I believed an injustice was being done to Hugh O'Flaherty. I told Deputy Howlin at the time that I believed the man was being treated unfairly. If I had a complaint, it was with the haste with which he was asked to resign. Time will tell on this issue. I am a little disappointed that some of his many colleagues at the Bar and those who are retired did not speak out on his behalf and defend his good name. I know Hugh and his family, the suffering he has endured and the mercilessness of people in this House who would seek to govern our country and people. It makes me sad.
I do not often speak in the House. A long time ago, someone, possibly my late father, said that more people talked themselves out of the House than into it, so I have always been restrained in the number of contributions I make.
Is the Deputy planning on leaving us?
I am coming to the glorious end of a long political career. When I look around, I think that perhaps it is just as well because it is not becoming nicer or kinder.
The Deputy's record is 35 years.
I also feel strongly about the demonisation of Hugh O'Flaherty by certain sections of the media. RTE has been extremely harsh on him. I am satisfied that 50 years from now when historians examine the role of the media in the times in which we live, not just on the O'Flaherty case but on many other items, they will speak of the McCarthyism of the media in Ireland. It is all very well for you to snigger Deputy McManus – you are always sniggering. Since I came into the House 35 years ago—
Deputy Briscoe should address his remarks through the Chair.
The hardest person I have ever met in my 35 years in politics is Deputy McManus.
Coming from Deputy Briscoe, I take that as a compliment.
She has no compassion. There is not a compassionate bone in her body. I almost welcome being interrupted by her with her sniggers.
Hugh O'Flaherty is a great Irishman and will be seen in years to come as such. I have no doubt that he is the most qualified person for this post.
There is a tyranny in the media and they have us tearing each other apart. Last week, during Private Members' business, when Deputy McGahon was tearing our party apart, sitting next to him in the Fine Gael benches was none other than the newly independent Deputy Lowry. I pointed this out to one of my colleagues. It is dreadful that we are tearing ourselves apart for the satisfaction of a few in the media. There are a few sensible people who write well and with balance and we all know who they are. They are very good and they tend to strike a balance. There are many—
Are they in the gallery at present?
No, I do not recognise them in the gallery. I refer especially to Sam Smyth. It is all very well for Deputy McManus to remark on that. I suppose she will now say he supports Fianna Fáil.
I did not say a word, nor do I abuse other Deputies, incidentally.
It is very easy to cast a spin on something. Deputy Quinn and I were members of Dublin Corporation for years. Deputy Quinn is an architect and designs houses. City Quay was one of his projects. No one thought to suggest that there might be a conflict of interest. He was a fine architect and the corporation acquired some beautiful buildings from him and his company. However, in today's climate—
I must interrupt. The building competition to which Deputy Briscoe refers was an open competition which the company of which I was a partner won.
I have no problem with that.
A bit of innuendo there.
Allow Deputy Briscoe speak without interruption.
I have not made any allegations about Deputy Quinn. In today's climate, Deputy Quinn would not have got away with that. People would use the Freedom of Information Act to see what was in the files. We did not think that way and I, for one, defend Deputy Quinn and say that what he did was perfectly—
On a point of order, since my name has been mentioned, I must state and the records will show that when the relevant housing committee of Dublin allocated the contract in question, as vice-chairman of that committee, I declared an interest and absented myself from the committee members' room until such time as the decision was taken.
I did not know the Deputy was a member of the housing committee. I thought he was a member of the planning committee. Perhaps he was a member of that as well.
There should be a press council, someone to monitor the monitors, because no one monitors them at present. People are being fed a daily diet of misinformation. I listened to a phone-in on the Joe Duffy radio programme. Many people had gained their information from what they had read in some of the newspapers. It is unfair that they should be misinformed in that manner.
I am happy to know Hugh O'Flaherty. He is a great Irishman and a compassionate man. He showed great humanity in advising in the manner he did. He did not interfere directly and I deny the Opposition's allegations to the contrary.
(Mayo): Did the Deputy read the Hamilton report?
Deputy John Bruton does not seem to have any regard for the reputation of his Members and does not seem to require proof of wrongdoing.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy should stick to the motion.
You do not like it?
Deputy Briscoe should address his remarks through the Chair.
No one in the House likes what Deputy Bruton did to Senator Cosgrave or Anne Devitt.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Fianna Fáil has its own problems.
What he did was horrible. He should have sent the findings of the inquiry to the Flood tribunal. He has no loyalty to his people. As I remarked once, loyalty is a two-way street.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Fianna Fáil will not publish its report.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak. I say to people who know me as a straight and honest person that they can have the utmost confidence in Hugh O'Flaherty. I commend and compliment the Minister for Finance and the Government for recognising the goodness and rightness of what Hugh O'Flaherty did. If he is guilty of a sin, it is the guilt of having too much humanity.
Debate adjourned.