In accordance with an Order of the Dáil of today, I now come to deal with Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Finance on the appointment of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the vice presidency of the European Investment Bank. I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions in the order in which they submitted their questions to the Ceann Comhairle's office. I now call on Deputy Michael Noonan to put his question to the Minister.
Private Notice Questions. - EIB Appointment.
asked the Minister for Finance if he has forwarded the name of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank; if he still intends proceeding with the appointment of Mr. O'Flaherty to a position as a vice president of the bank; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I now call on Deputy Quinn to put his question.
I should inform you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that this is not the question I put into your office. My question was addressed to the Taoiseach.
The Deputy should raise that matter with the Taoiseach. The Chair has no control over what Minister answers the question.
I appreciate that but I want to put on the record that the Taoiseach is ducking and diving in refusing to answer a question about remarks he made.
The Chair has ruled in the past that one Minister may reply on behalf of another as members of the Government have collective responsibilities.
The Chair must have great admiration for the interpretative abilities of the Minister for Finance.
We will not have a discussion on the issue. There have been many rulings from the Chair that the Minister to whom a question is addressed may transfer to another Minister to whose administration he thinks the question is more relevant. The Chair has no power to compel a particular Minister to answer a question. Deputy Quinn has made his point and I ask him to put the question.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle confirm that the Chair did not direct that the question be transferred from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Finance and that this was a political decision made by the Taoiseach? I wish to protect the Chair.
The Chair has no function in the transfer of parliamentary questions, including Private Notice Questions, nor has the Chair power to compel a particular Minister to answer a question.
Is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle confirming that it was the Taoiseach who declined to take it?
I dealt with the question raised by Deputy Quinn and I now ask him to put his question.
On a point of order, the notice from the inner office staff states the question transferred from the Taoiseach. May I ask who transferred the question?
The Chair has no indication of who transferred the question. The Chair has no authority to transfer a question.
Who normally has the power to transfer a question?
We will not discuss that matter now. I wish to take the question from Deputy Quinn.
I respect the Chair's ruling and I wish to put on the record that the Chair and the Office of the Ceann Comhairle had no hand or part in the political cowardice of the Taoiseach in refusing to answer a question put to him. The question has now been changed.
That matter should be clarified at a later stage rather than let that statement remain on the record.
The Taoiseach should be asked to come in to the House.
He was here during the Order of Business.
The Labour Party is well represented in the House and we will be augmenting that—
Deputy Quinn is aware that the long standing practice in this House is that on occasions when a Minister answers on behalf of other Ministers, he answers on behalf of the Government because the Government exercises collective responsibility. It is not an unusual practice and the Chair has no control over it so I ask the Deputy to put his question.
The question I wish to read out, which has been altered to comply with the cowardice of the Taoiseach, is as follows:
To ask the Minister for Finance whether Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty should explain his role in the Philip Sheedy affair; the questions he now believes need to be answered by Mr. O'Flaherty; if the Government will now withdraw the nomination of Mr. O'Flaherty as vice-president of the European Investment Bank pending the issuing of such a statement by Mr. O'Flaherty and an examination by an appropriate committee of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Mayo) asked the Minister for Finance if in view of the unanswered questions regarding the interference of former Supreme Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty in the Sheedy case, which led to the threatened impeachment of Mr. O'Flaherty by the Government and his subsequent resignation from office, Mr. O'Flaherty should now answer questions on the matter before the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.
asked the Minister for Finance the questions the Taoiseach believes should be answered by Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty; whether Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty should answer these questions before a committee of this House; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Finance if he will review the appointment of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the vice presidency of the European Investment Bank.
I propose to take all the questions together. I dealt extensively with this matter in the course of the debate in the House on 23 May 2000. At that time I made it clear that 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 and that it was his outstanding qualifications and wide legal experience which were decisive in his nomination.
I emphasised that 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 practice at the bar and almost a decade sitting in the highest court of this State. At European level, let alone at national level, there are few people who could bring such experience and talent 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 will now set out the position regarding Mr. O'Flaherty's nomination as it is at the moment. I have already formally submitted Mr. O'Flaherty's name to the bank. This was done on 18 May 2000. Deputies will be aware that the nomination was the subject of High Court proceedings in the interim. The EIB is aware of the position in regard to court action, through contacts with my Department at official level.
As the Taoiseach and I have made clear on a number of occasions, it is our intention to maintain the nomination of Mr. O'Flaherty. It is now a matter for the bank to carry through the written procedures and I will speak to the president of the EIB to ask him to expedite this.
Was the Minister for Finance briefed by the Taoiseach or his officials prior to coming into the House to answer these questions? Was he briefed about the contents of the Taoiseach's radio interview? If he was briefed, will he explain to the House what was in the Taoi seach's mind? If he has not been briefed, will he explain to the House what he is doing here this afternoon?
I am here to answer questions because I am the Minister for Finance, the Minister responsible for processing the nomination of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank.
Was the Minister briefed by the Taoiseach or his officials on the subject matter of all the questions, particularly of those questions transferred from the Taoiseach's office to the Minister to be answered here? The Ceann Comhairle has informed the House that any Minister may answer and that the Minister for Finance is the appropriate person to answer. Now it seems that the Minister is dodging the subject matter of the majority of questions which have been tabled.
The Deputy is answering his own question.
I will come to the Deputy later, unless he is up a tree somewhere investigating something.
Anytime.
The Deputy's question asked if I have forwarded the name of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank, if I still intend proceeding with the appointment of Mr. O'Flaherty to the position as the vice president of the bank and if I will make a statement on the matter. I have answered that.
Does the Minister for Finance agree with the Taoiseach that Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty should avail of an opportunity as soon as possible to explain what was referred to as the "missing bit" in the whole sorry, sad Sheedy saga? Has the Taoiseach conveyed to the Minister for Finance his interpretation of what that missing bit might be? Is the missing bit contained in the comprehensive briefing notes the Minister is now reading?
I understand that Mr. O'Flaherty is giving wide ranging interviews to news organisations as we speak and I am sure all relevant questions have been put to him.
Did the Minister for Finance discuss the content of his reply with the Taoiseach before answering this question?
As Deputy Quinn is aware from his long experience as a member of Government, all members of the Cabinet share collective responsibility.
That is not what I asked. Has the Minister discussed the contents of his reply with the Taoiseach? The Minister is being remarkably arrogant.
The Minister is supposed to be accountable. This is most unsatisfactory.
(Mayo): Was the Minister for Finance at the Cabinet meeting on Friday 16 April 1999 when a collective decision was made by him and other members of the Cabinet to write to Mr. O'Flaherty to inform him that the Government had decided to forward the report of the Chief Justice to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights, and to advise him that the Government would consider at its meeting the following Tuesday proposing resolutions for the consideration of the two Houses of the Oireachtas, pursuant to Article 35.4.1º of the Constitution, for his removal on the grounds that the facts admitted to the Chief Justice, or established by him in his report, amounted to misbehaviour? Was the Minister at that Cabinet meeting? Why did he write to Mr. O'Flaherty in those terms? Why, if Mr. O'Flaherty was deemed unsuitable to remain as a Supreme Court judge, should he now be deemed suitable for a senior position as vice-president of the European Investment Bank with a salary of £170,000?
Deputy Jim Higgins, as a former member of the Cabinet and spokesman on justice, equality and law reform, is aware there was a Supreme Court decision regarding Cabinet confidentiality and that it is not possible for members of the Cabinet to confirm or deny what has gone on in Cabinet.
Was the Minister there?
Is the Minister aware that the Taoiseach said on the radio yesterday evening that Mr. O'Flaherty had questions to answer about his involvement in the Sheedy case?
As Deputy John Bruton is aware, because there is an outstanding picture of him standing in the office adjoining mine, Ministers for Finance have very little time to be listening to the radio.
That is appalling arrogance.
A disgraceful answer.
Will the Minister for Finance answer the question I asked. He has had notice of it. He should perhaps read the question in front of him. What are the questions which should be answered by Mr. O'Flaherty in the collective view of the Government and the Taoiseach? If Mr. O'Flaherty is prepared to answer those questions on a radio show, how can he justify his refusal to answer them before a committee of this House? Is the Minister happy with a situation in which a former judge will answer questions on a radio show but refuses point blank to answer them before a committee of this House?
Is the Government satisfied with that anomalous situation?
This is the third occasion on which I indicated to the House my reasons for putting forward the name of former Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty as our nominee to the European Investment Bank. I am satisfied that Mr. O'Flaherty is the most outstanding candidate we could put forward at present.
The Minister should answer the questions he was asked.
I am not in a position to answer any questions on behalf of Mr. O'Flaherty.
Will the Minister—
I apologise, Deputy Bruton, but I must call Deputy Joe Higgins. Each of the previous speakers has had an opportunity to ask two supplementary questions; therefore, I must call on Deputy Higgins at this point.
The Minister did not answer my question.
I will call on Deputy Bruton again later.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister for Finance agree that this sorry saga highlights the fact that the traditional practice exercised by Fianna Fáil and other major parties in Government of nominating favoured people and cronies to important positions to which their qualifications are not relevant has been completely discredited? Does he also agree that the Taoiseach's remarks on radio last evening in relation to Mr. O'Flaherty's appointment represent nothing more than a cynical attempt to distance Fianna Fáil from a decision which opinion polls have shown was rejected outright by a large majority of ordinary people? Instead of defending a Cabinet decision, the Taoiseach, when confronted with a crisis, responded in the usual way by speaking out of both sides of his mouth at once and allowed the hapless Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, to carry the can.
A question please, Deputy.
(Dublin West): Does not this entire saga show that the Government is in almost complete disarray and that the situation cannot be remedied by any action the Minister for Finance might propose to take? Did the Minister discuss the situation which has developed in the past 24 hours with the Tánaiste? Will it be necessary to hold another bonding session in a villa in the south of France to repair the damage that has been done or have we passed that stage? Will we be faced with a general election in the near future as a result of the fallout from this affair?
On the Order of Business this morning the Taoiseach stated that "The Government is collectively responsible for the nomination of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank. As leader of the Government I fully stand over that decision. With all my colleagues we made the decision. The Government had no reason to believe anything untoward needed to be added by way of explanation with regard to the controversy surrounding the Sheedy affair."
I have no intention of annoying the Minister but I believe that the questions which were—
I wish to make clear to Members that from this point on questions will be taken on the basis of the proportionality of the parties. I will call the leaders of parties first.
Will the Minister indicate what the Taoiseach meant when he said that Mr. O'Flaherty has questions to answer about the "missing bit"?
I understand that, during the course of his radio interview, the Taoiseach stated that it is always open for Justice Hugh O'Flaherty to "give his account of it". I also understand that Mr. O'Flaherty has availed of that opportunity by giving a number of radio and television interviews.
Given that the Minister nominated Mr. O'Flaherty to become a member of the EIB and in light of the fact that Mr. O'Flaherty has given interviews on radio, what does the Minister think of Mr. O'Flaherty's point blank refusal to answer questions before a committee of the House which represents the people of Ireland?
I understand Mr. O'Flaherty outlined his position on that matter on the relevant occasion in 1999.
Does the Minister not agree that there is a complete contradiction between Mr. O'Flaherty's willingness to answer questions on a talk show and his refusal to answer the same questions before the elected Assembly of the Irish people? Does he agree that Mr. O'Flaherty's behaviour is completely contrary to any understanding of democratic accountability?
I made the decision to nominate Hugh O'Flaherty as the Government's candidate for membership of the board of the Euro pean Investment Bank and I took into account his qualifications and qualities when making that decision. I am quite satisfied that Mr. O'Flaherty is the most outstanding candidate Ireland has ever put forward for that position.
Will the Minister indicate whether the Taoiseach, prior to the Government's decision to appoint Mr. O'Flaherty to this post, indicated that Mr. O'Flaherty had questions to answer in order to deliver the "missing bit"? Did the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach put those questions to Mr. O'Flaherty? Did the Minister discuss with the Taoiseach the meaning of the comments he made last night before deciding to answer a question on behalf of the Taoiseach in respect of the various invitations and suggestions he made to Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to answer questions in order to provide the "missing bit" in the Sheedy saga?
As Deputy Quinn is undoubtedly aware, discussions and conversations between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance are confidential.
The Minister was sent in here to answer our questions.
Do I understand that, after only three years in office, the Charlie McCreevy who was revered as being blunt and painstaking is the arrogant man who sits in front of me now? Is it not an indication of the extraordinary transformation that has occurred within the past 36 months that the Minister should state that conversations between himself and the Taoiseach in respect of the appointment of a man the Government wanted to impeach are confidential? Is that the stage we have reached? Is such behaviour worthy of Deputy McCreevy?
It is not appropriate to question—
If I was to attend a school where lessons in arrogance were taught, I would attend the one frequented by Deputy Quinn.
A Deputy
The Deputy has got under the Minister's skin.
We have returned to the days of the banana republic.
Is the Minister for Finance confident that Mr. O'Flaherty will say nothing in his interviews which would affect the Government's decision to appoint him? If so, will he indicate the basis for his confidence?
I am only aware that Mr. O'Flaherty is giving interviews to two national broadcast stations.
(Mayo): Who approached the Minister on behalf of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty? Did the Minister approach Mr. O'Flaherty before consulting with his Cabinet colleagues? Did he discuss the Sheedy affair with Mr. O'Flaherty when he spoke to him? How was the appointment made and why was a Cabinet meeting not called in respect of it?
The answer to the Deputy's first three questions is no, no and no. The answer to the latter questions is that the matter was decided by the Government.
(Mayo): Why was a formal Cabinet meeting not called? We are discussing an appointment to a position equivalent to that of commissioner. This is one of the senior executive positions in Europe and it carries a considerable emolument of £170,000. Why were normal Cabinet procedures not adhered to? Why was this matter not formally placed before the Cabinet on due notice, which, under the Cabinet rule book and long established practices, is a period of not less than two weeks? Why did the Minister take a short-cut and adopt a nod and wink approach to this most senior appointment? Why did he become involved in a situation which even he did not have to be a rocket scientist to realise had the potential to become a political time-bomb?
A nod and wink approach was not taken in respect of the appointment of Hugh O'Flaherty as our nominee to the European Investment Bank.
The Minister referred to the case being taken by Mr. Denis Riordan which is under appeal to the Supreme Court. I understand that Mr. Riordan, in the first instance, is seeking a stay on the appointment until the Supreme Court adjudicates on the substantive issue.
If the plaintiff is refused this stay, is it the Government's intention to proceed with the appointment at that stage or will it await the hearing of the substantive issue by the Supreme Court?
The High Court rejected the judicial review claim brought by Mr. Denis Riordan who was unsuccessful in his request for the High Court to put a stay on the appointment, pending an appeal. The result is that the appointment can and will proceed now unless Mr. Riordan persuades the Supreme Court to stay the appointment, pending an appeal to the court. In the absence of any such Supreme Court order, the appointment will proceed in the normal way. I understand that Mr. Riordan intimated his intention in interviews to apply to the Supreme Court this week for both a stay and a substantive resolution but that newspaper reports today indicate that he has decided not to proceed along that course this week.
Arising from the Minister's reply to Deputy Jim Higgins in which he stated that the decision to nominate Mr. O'Flaherty was a Government decision, am I to understand that while no Cabinet meeting occurred, as such, that the decision was a Government decision? If it was, will the Minister outline the procedures adopted to make the decision a Government decision? Was it an in corpore meeting?
The matter was decided by the Government at a normal meeting.
Was it on the agenda of a Government meeting?
The Deputy will undoubtedly be aware that appointments to a wide variety of Government positions, including State boards, are not always included in documentation at a Government meeting.
I accept that.
I could produce a bundle of files which the Deputy left in the Department of Finance when he was Minister, including some left in the last week or so of his reign, particularly on the last day.
Was the Government meeting which ratified or decided on the appointment of Mr. O'Flaherty held prior to or following the public announcement?
The appointment of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank was, as per the statute of the European Investment Bank, a matter for the governor, in this case the Irish Minister for Finance. Those procedures were followed and members of the Government were consulted before Mr. O'Flaherty was ever alerted to the Government's decision to appoint him.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister agree that this affair shows that the method of appointment of friends of political parties to important positions in this State or in Europe as a reward or for some other reason has been totally discredited?
It is called democracy, Deputy Higgins.
(Dublin West): Cronyism might be a better description.
I will allow Deputies Bruton and Quinn to ask one final supplementary .
All Members should be allowed to ask questions because we have not succeeded in getting any answers at all from the Minister.
We are engaging in repetition here. We have spent almost a half an hour on this question and we must move on.
Does the Minister concur with the finding of former Chief Justice, Mr. Liam Hamilton, that Mr. O'Flaherty's intervention in the Sheedy case was inappropriate, unwise and damaging to the administration of justice?
That matter was dealt with in 1999.
This is most unsatisfactory.
I will allow Deputies Noonan, Higgins and Quinn to ask a final question.
As the Minister refuses to give us any insight into the Taoiseach's mind, perhaps he will give us some insight into his own. Is he sorry now that he nominated Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty and does he wish he could turn the clock back?
No.
Arrogance personified.
It seems that arrogance is now defined as not agreeing with the Opposition or some other loud body of opinion.
Even the Taoiseach said the people should be listened to.
(Interruptions).
(Mayo): The Minister's approach and manner display an appalling contempt for this House and the public's right to know the details of this sad saga. The Taoiseach obviously believes that Mr. O'Flaherty has questions to answer. Does the Minister share his belief? What kind of twisted logic is the Minister applying here? He sat in Cabinet and booted this man from office on the basis that we was not fit to continue serving as a Supreme Court judge but is now of the opinion that Mr. O'Flaherty has manifest qualities which deem him suitable for one of the highest banking positions in Europe.
Perhaps the Deputy could give me some insight into his own logic in making a connection between an appointment to the European Investment Bank and the issues which arose in 1999.
They involve the same person.
Deputy, there are Members in your party around and about you and sitting in the front row to your right who were given a second chance and some of them should recall that very well.
That is beneath the Minister.
That comment is contemptible.
The Minister should get out.
I protest at the Minister's attempt to drag a person's private life into this debate.
The Minister should do the decent thing and go.
The Minister might like to reflect on his remark.
Will the Minister do the decent thing for once and withdraw the remark?
Deputies
Withdraw it.
I did not name anybody.
None of the Minister's colleagues support his remark.
The people sitting behind him are embarrassed.
I am sorry to say this but the Minister is very sick.
I regret the House has come to the point where the Minister for Finance is unable or unwilling to answer the questions put to the Taoiseach. Is he prepared to recognise that he is not in a position, for whatever reason, to say what was on the Taoiseach's mind when he made the comments he did and does he believe the Taoiseach has questions to answer in respect of what he believes Mr. O'Flaherty should say in respect of the missing part of the Sheedy saga?
The Taoiseach has been interviewed at length on this matter on a number of occasions, most recently on Eamon Dunphy's "The Last Word" yesterday on which he was interviewed for the best part of an hour.
This is a very bad day for this House.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.