I welcome the opportunity to make this statement to the House. No doubt many Members, including members of my own party, will regard today's debate as an irritant at a time when there are other important issues to be dealt with. However, this debate is very important to me, both professionally and personally. It is important also to my wife and family.
At the outset I want to outline to the House the findings of the Public Offices Commission into my alleged contravention of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 in December 2001. The commission was asked to investigate six alleged contraventions. It found that four were without foundation and that I had committed two breaches of the Act. Importantly, however, it found that the two breaches I had committed were not intentional. I repeat that as it is most important. The two alleged contraventions which were upheld by the Public Offices Commission were found to have been inadvertent, in other words, not intentional.
What is patently clear to anyone who is interested is that I was not found to have committed a pre-meditated, wilful wrongdoing, deception or corruption but I was found to have committed two inadvertent omissions. The first was when I omitted to declare to the Dáil, before speaking on the Labour Party motion on 29 November 2000, that I had a material interest in the subject matter of the proceedings by reason of the fact that Ballylough Milling Limited, which is a family owned company, was licensed to purchase and use mammalian meat and bone meal and, second, that I omitted to disclose in my statements of additional interests that my wife and children had interests in Ballylough Milling Limited, as these interests constituted additional interests for the purpose of section 13 of the Act. I will return to both of those omissions later, but I must first outline certain important matters.
I find myself in this position today because in this House I fall into the category of another head among all parties in this House, including Fianna Fáil. What is abundantly clear is that one is infinitely more expendable if one does not have sensitive information about times past and in the increasing tradition of Irish politics, mine was a case of "Let's have the hanging, followed by the trial".
The situation which has led to this debate began in early December 2000 – some 15 months ago. I have absolutely no doubt that there was a concerted campaign to force my resignation as Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The campaign involved a neighbouring family, a vexatious file, which included stolen documents sent to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, sensational allegations, planted stories, colleagues, very senior political advisers and a most willing journalist.
As soon as I became aware of the allegations, I knew I needed professional assistance. I quickly came to the conclusion that what I needed was impartial, soundly-based legal opinion. I take this opportunity to thank both Donal Spring, solicitor, and John Rodgers, Senior Counsel, for their commitment, loyalty and moral support. Their contribution over the past year is greatly appreciated by all of us, including my wife and family.
Sadly, I am absolutely satisfied that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Joe Walsh, behaved in a manner which questioned his integrity on several occasions but, suffice to say, I do not find myself alone in this view.
No Government Department can function in an orderly and proper way if there are individuals intent on protecting mini-empires. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has suffered from such behaviour and the taxpayer has had to pay the price on more than one occasion. I must add, however, that there are outstanding public servants in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development who go beyond the level of public duty expected of them in their jobs, and I commend them.
Once there was the genesis of a story, the media masseurs got to work with gusto and guile. The story was massaged, embellished and primed by senior members of Fianna Fáil and their masterful minders into an issue of national importance. The political pressure was skilfully, wilfully and, with masterful precision, communicated to the nation via a prominent journalist.
It is no coincidence that this same journalist has displayed a curious loyalty to certain politicians in recent years. He has the ear of the most influential politicians, their minders and indeed their Law Library loyalists. If he is with you, then you can look forward to favourable treatment in a daily newspaper, on radio and sometimes on television but if, for whatever reason, he dislikes you, then you better watch out. Need I say more?
We have now reached a stage in Irish politics where a journalist can be pumped and primed by the highly-paid unelected advisers of the most senior politicians as part of some agenda to sacrifice whoever, whenever and however. So I am another scalp, but who cares? Does anybody care about the mechanics and methodology of how it was achieved? Perhaps they do not, but they should. If it is me today it will be someone else tomorrow. I care passionately about the warped way politics are being conducted. Wrongdoing on the part of any politician is totally unacceptable.
I now return to what the Public Offices Commission found against me. There were six allegations, of which four were found to be without foundation. Two were upheld, and these were deemed to have been unintentional omissions.
In regard to the first omission, which was my failure to make a declaration of an interest in the subject matter of the Labour Party motion, it was well known to the Opposition that I was personally opposed to the Government motion which I was obliged by the Whip system to support. The motion itself was irrelevant because a decision had already been taken by the Government to support a motion at European level a few days later which would resolve the issue anyway.
I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Opposition who gave evidence to the Commission confirming my position at that time, including Deputy Upton, who is present, and Deputy Penrose.
In regard to the second allegation of my failure to disclose an additional interest, I have at all times argued strongly that the meaning of this section of the Act is not at all clear. My contention in this regard was amply demonstrated by the failure of Deputy Quinn, the Leader of the Labour Party and one of the main complainants in this matter, to explain what additional interests meant when he was asked at the Public Offices Commission.
Deputy Quinn said: "An additional interest is that in addition to, say, being a shareholder of a particular company that activities that you as an officeholder or an individual member of the House might be engaged upon would confer additional interest that would enhance the value of that shareholding". That is what Deputy Quinn understood additional interests to mean whereas they are defined in section 13(5) of the Act as follows: "In this Section "additional interest", in relation to an office holder, means any interest specified in the Second Schedule of which the office holder has actual knowledge of [and this is the important point] (a) the spouse of the office holder, or (b) a child of the office holder or of his or her spouse, which could materially influence the office holder in or in relation to the performance of the functions of his or her office by reason of the fact that such performance could so affect those interests as to confer on or withhold from the office holder or the spouse or child a substantial benefit”.
Deputy Quinn's explanation could not have been more incorrect. Yet there is a proposal before the Dáil that I be suspended from this House because of my failure to properly complete my declaration in this regard, even though Deputy Quinn was Minister in the Department which introduced this legislation.
Deputy Quinn also made unfounded, appalling and disgraceful allegations against me in this House and elsewhere. One of the allegations he made, which was by far the most serious made against me in regard to this matter, was that I had: "personally exercised my powers under the 1996 order and had refused applications for bonemeal licences and that given the very limited number of such licences and that one of them was held by my family farm, an application for the issue of additional licences must be seen as coming from a person in direct commercial competition." Deputy Quinn was forced at the commission to accept that this allegation was completely unfounded and without any justification whatsoever.
I regret Deputy Quinn is not in the House. I say to him, in his absence, to forget about party politics completely and deal with this issue as a man. He should deal with it with honour. He should rise above the pettiness which subsumes him. I call on him to apologise to me publicly. He should be decisive for once in his life and stand up and apologise, or stay seated, but he is not here. He ran away and was cowardly again.
I would also like it to be noted on the record that the commission found that I, as a Member of this House, had made the most fulsome declaration since the introduction of this Act. The same cannot be said for many Members present. A number of people were forced to make amendments to their declarations to this House on numerous occasions.
I accept that these omissions were probably inadvertent like mine, but it begs the question why I am being asked to pay such a heavy price for my omissions when no action was proposed or suggested against other Members in regard to omissions they made? It is my genuine belief that there are other omissions by Members of the House and by office holders past and present which have not come to light. It will be interesting to see how they will be dealt with in the future.
The commission found that my two contraventions were not intentional. Such a finding puts me into the shade in comparison with the behaviour of certain individuals in this House. I have not lied to this House nor misled it and I have not been the subject of an inquiry. I will watch events in these areas in the coming months with more than a passing interest. I resigned as Minister of State a year ago and it has taken until today for the House to deal with this entire saga.
Last week the Committee on Members' Interests conducted an investigation into my behaviour in private. Why was it held in private? I do not know. I wanted the hearing to be held in public. I had nothing to hide. I insisted that the hearing before the Public Offices Commission should be heard in public. I would welcome every aspect of the hearing being made public – my case, how it was presented and, most particularly, how the decision of the committee was arrived at. I have nothing to hide, personally or otherwise. I think the whole thing was a joke. I went before the hearing somewhat sceptical about its objectivity, balance and belief in natural justice. I was not privy to the committee's deliberations during which this suspension was adjudicated upon, and that is regrettable.
Should I have been so doubting about my colleagues? Should I have been so jaundiced? Sadly, I believe my concerns were fully justified. I will let the Members of this House make up their minds after hearing the following example. At the height of the superbly orchestrated storm about my behaviour in December 2000, there was a debate on "Morning Ireland" which involved Deputy Howlin, deputy leader of the Labour Party. In the course of the discussion he said that my position as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development was untenable. Deputy Howlin's name was attached to an amendment to a Dáil motion calling for my suspension as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Now Deputy Howlin, the expert commentator for the Labour Party, recommends a ten day suspension for me. Is it any wonder the profession of politics is so debased in the public's eyes?
The impartiality of the other members of the committee is, I believe, equally suspect. Where is the honesty? Where is the objectivity? Where is the integrity? I will give Members my honest answer, it does not exist. This is the reason the committee sat in private, conducted its deliberations in private and came to its conclusions in private.
Politicians sit as judge and jury for other politicians. That is fine for Deputy Howlin and his committee colleagues, but is he not the same politician who has a problem with members of the Garda Síochána judging other members of the Garda Síochána? How could I expect a committee made up of members with party interests, political interests and self-promotion interests to come forward with anything other than today's proposed suspension?
I have already paid the price. I lost my job as Minister of State. It is what is called the "resign or be sacked" syndrome. My decision was achieved by highly paid advisers whose lives are spent feverishly pedalling mistruths, half truths and lies. I spoke to the Taoiseach on Friday, 16 February 2001 and told him of my decision to resign the following day, but as soon as the Taoiseach's ever-skilful advisers heard about my decision they ran to the media to say that if Ned O'Keeffe did not resign he would be sacked. The newspapers on Saturday morning so informed the nation.
Later that day, as arranged with the Taoiseach, I tendered my resignation, but the picture had been painted. I was resigning because I had been told that if I did not I would be sacked. Let me tell the House, just in case there is a doubt, I resigned of my own free will. Many of the Members present know that Ned O'Keeffe is his own man, but as I have come to learn, maybe rather late in life, the truth is not really that important to some people in this House or to the agents of people in this House.
Those same individuals continue to meet and greet me in and around this House and their forked tongues make poor John Mills in "Ryan's Daughter" look like an amateur, but then I am being encouraged to believe that it is just business, nothing personal.
I stand over my record of 19 years in this House. The only thing Ned O'Keeffe can be found guilty of is working too hard for his constituents and his area. I will stand up for myself even on a day like today when I sense that colleagues, including party colleagues, wish that I would accept my hanging and stay silent during this trial.
What more pain and punishment does this House wish to inflict on me? I know this does not matter much to many Members present, but it matters to my wife, my family and my loyal constituents in Cork East. Let every Member present remember that this matters an awful lot to me.
I have given everything to politics for almost two decades. I stand over my record and am proud of it. I have taken nothing from politics other than the satisfaction of fairly representing the people of Cork East who matter greatly to me and whom I look forward to representing again and again in the future.
Deputies, the decision is yours.
