NOTICE BOARD
Public Statement on the Purchase of Thornton Hall by the State for the Site of the Proposed New Prison
21st November 2005
FOLLOWING THE PURCHASE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A PRISON SITE IN NORTH COUNTY DUBLIN FROM MY BROTHER IN LAW THERE HAS BEEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INNUENDO IN THE MEDIA INSINUATING DISHONEST DEALINGS ON MY PART.
It was implied that I set up the deal, that my connections with both parties suggested corruption, that I publicly lied, that I stood to gain financially from the deal etc.
Many of my supporters have been defending my position on this, others have been misled and in fairness to all interested constituents, now that the sale is complete I believe I should put on the public record my knowledge and involvement.
To begin, I wish to state unequivocally that I have done nothing illegal or unethical and have nothing to hide and nothing to fear in this matter.
I have welcomed the publication of the minutes of meetings, I have welcomed the Dáil debate and am delighted that all that has been disclosed has served to validate my position and to confirm what I have already said.
So here is the story.
THE PURCHASE BY THE STATE OF THORNTON HALL FROM MY BROTHER IN LAW - THIS IS THE SEQUENCE AND TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
Richard Lynam, the vendor of the lands for the proposed prison, is my wife’s brother and my brother-in-law.
Richard Lynam and his wife Una had received approaches regarding the purchase of their property of more than 150 acres. I am not aware of exactly when these approaches began but I understand from them that it was during the week before Christmas 2004. Suffice it to say that I was completely unaware of them and they were not brought to my attention at that time.
Apart from the innuendo the only specific allegation made against me was that I knew that a deal had been agreed for a period longer than I had publicly stated. Kevin Myers, in his Irish Times column, stated that I had “lied”. Here are the facts –
Thursday 6 January 2005
20 days before the deal was announced.
While on a family holiday in France, I received a telephone call from Richard Lynam. An auctioneer whom he vaguely knew had called into the farmyard, said that the Government were seeking a site for a prison and asked him would he be interested in selling. He was also told that he could get a good price.
I now know but did not know then, that the auctioneer had first called to Richard on Christmas week and that Richard had told him that he would not give any consideration to any proposal until after Christmas. These were the first and only contacts made, up until that time, regarding Thornton Hall as a proposed prison site.
Richard said to me that he had heard that a farm had in fact already been bought by the Government and asked had I heard anything about that. He wondered was the auctioneer “chancing his arm a bit” but he had told the auctioneer to make him an offer. The auctioneer told Richard he would be back to him. It would be fair to say that Richard was interested but not too excited and did not really expect it to develop. I told Richard that I knew nothing specific about the prison site except the local rumours which had been circulating for months. A number of rumours were circulating of farms having been bought for the proposed prison. Obviously, as we now know, all were untrue but it was a talking point among farmers in the area and I undertook to check it out when I got back from France.
THAT WAS THE FIRST I KNEW OF THE APPROACHES TO RICHARD OR THAT HIS LAND WAS BEING CONSIDERED AS A POSSIBLE SITE.
Sunday 9 January 2005
17 days before the deal was announced.
While still in France, on the evening of 9 January I received a telephone call from Richard. He told me he was ringing me in absolute confidence. He told me that he had had a number of informal discussions with the auctioneer, since he had spoken with me, and that he and Una had decided that if they got €30 million for the property they would sell. They had told this to the auctioneer and he apparently was going to discuss it with the Government reps.
(Since then there has been discovery of various meeting minutes and it is now clear that the local auctioneer was not there at the behest of the Government in the first place, but that he was one of any number of auctioneers around the area who, of their own volition, were searching out likely properties to propose to Government as suitable in the hope of earning a “selling” or “finder’s” fee.
I now know from the discovered minutes, but did not know then, that the auctioneer had had a number of discussions with Mr. Ronan Webster, the Government agent, sometime in December.)
The only question that might arise regarding my long telephone conversation with Richard from France is “Why would he ring me about such a matter?”
The fact is that, as his brother-in-law and near neighbour and friend for over thirty years, he, like a number of other people, was in the habit of chatting to me or seeking my advice on any matters to do with responding to officialdom.
As he would be dealing with the Government on this matter, he obviously felt he should get a view from me about how Government did business. He was also concerned about what the auctioneer’s fees should be, who else would be paid and what general costs and charges would arise etc.
Of course I was stunned at the now real possibility of him being made an offer. I pressed him on how sure he was of what they had decided. Had he considered the impact it would have on family, community and everything around him? Etc etc.
Richard pointed out that he was aware that a number of other farms were also under consideration and that he had heard that an offer had been made to someone in Ballymun and that there were negotiations taking place with another landowner approximately one mile distant from Richard’s own farm. He felt it probable that the Government side were keeping a number of options open in order to play one off against the other.
Richard also told me that his next step would be to meet with the representatives of the Government. That would happen he said the following week. The main rep he said would be a Ronan Webster. That day, 9 January, was the first time that I became aware of Mr. Webster’s involvement. The name is quite uncommon and I immediately recognized that name as being the same as that of a second cousin of mine.
I WOULD STRESS HERE THAT I HAD NOT MET WITH OR SPOKEN TO RONAN WEBSTER FOR MANY YEARS AND WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE RECOGNISED HIM.
I do meet his father, my first cousin, regularly at family occasions.
I told Richard of the possibility that the fact of me being an in-law of a possible vendor and possibly a cousin of the Government agent was something which could easily be misinterpreted. I told Richard that I would try and contact my cousin Ronan Webster immediately and establish whether or not he was the same person as was acting for the Government. As I was unaware of where Mr. Webster either lived or worked, I rang his father, from France, seeking his telephone number. He told me that Ronan was abroad on holiday but would be back on Monday and he gave me Ronan’s office number. I made no mention of the issue to him.
On Monday (10 January), from France, I rang Ronan Webster’s office. He was not expected in but they would get him a message and ask him to ring me.
On the Tuesday (11 January) morning while at the airport waiting for a flight home, Ronan Webster rang me. We quickly established; -
THAT
(i) RONAN WEBSTER WAS IN FACT MY DISTANT COUSIN DEALING WITH THE PRISON SITE PURCHASE FOR GOVERNMENT AND,
(ii) HE WAS FULLY AWARE OF THORNTON AS ONE OF THE SITES BEING CONSIDERED BUT HAD NO IDEA THAT I WAS A BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE OWNER.
Both of us agreed that this could be seen as some kind of conflict and that it should be brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities immediately.
He would inform the Department of Justice, the Office of Public Works and the Prison authorities and I would inform the Minister for Justice. Whereas there was no imperative on me to do this, nonetheless, in the context of the Ethics in Public Office Acts, I believe that as a public representative, it was important to do so.
During the conversation when I asked Ronan how committed they were to making an offer to Richard he did confirm that at least one other local site was under consideration.
The day following my return I met with Michael McDowell, Minister for Justice, to tell him of my connection to a possible vendor. I was relieved to find that Ronan Webster had already made him aware of this.
At this stage I believe, even though I had been told of developments by Richard in strictest confidence, that I had taken the appropriate and proper action in bringing my connection with the parties to the attention of the responsible authorities.
During this period Richard had further talks with the auctioneer and had made it clear that he would agree to sell for €29.9 million.
Ronan Webster and others would be meeting with him in his house on Wednesday January 12th and if they confirmed to him that amount, he and Una would agree to sell. He asked me to come to his home and attend the meeting.
Wednesday January 12 2005
15 days before announcement of deal
Meeting took place. Richard and Una confirmed that they would accept €29.9 million. Officials confirmed that they would pay that amount if the property were finally selected and if it met all the conditions for selection. They signed the heads of agreement but were told that doing a deal would depend on a number of conditions and that there would be no deal unless all of the following conditions were met; -
1. Agreement on Boundaries, Conclusion of Surveys, Tax clearance, Sound Title;
2. Endorsement by the Mountjoy Complex Prison Site Committee as meeting their criteria;
3. Recommendation by the Minister for Justice and finally;
4. The Taoiseach and the full Cabinet would have to approve money and the site.
Only after all of those steps, could a deal be made and a contract signed.
On the other hand; -
1. Finalizing the deal would not be subject to receiving planning permission and;
2. Either party, Richard and Una on the one hand, or the Official Side on the other, could back out before the signing of the final contract.
POINTS TO NOTE; -
Contrary to media comment THIS WAS THE ONE AND ONLY MEETING WHICH I ATTENDED PRIOR TO THE SIGNING.
I DID NOT INTRODUCE RICHARD TO RONAN WEBSTER NOR DID I INTRODUCE THE PARTIES TO EACH OTHER.
THE AUCTIONEER CAME WITHOUT INVITATION AND UNINVITED TO RICHARD. THAT WAS THE INITIATION OF THE PROCESS AND RICHARD HAD AGREED THE PRICE BEFORE I MET THE PARTIES.
After the January 12 meeting Richard was told that they would be pressing ahead with these things and that if all went well they would be in a position to make a deal within a few weeks. Richard was also made aware that there were at least one other and maybe two possible sites being considered.
Tuesday January 18 2005
8 Days before the Announcement of Deal
We now know from the minutes of the Mountjoy Site Committee released under Freedom of Information request that on January 18 the Committee met to consider their options.
In the context of Kevin Myer’s statement in the Irish Times that I “knew of this deal since last year” it is of crucial importance to note that here, a mere 8 days before any deal and before the contracts were signed and the deal announced, THERE WERE STILL THREE SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION.
The publicly available minutes of the meeting confirm this and in fact name the three sites -
o One at the Ward somewhere near The White House
o Another at Coolquay near May’s Stores and,
o Richard’s property at Thornton Hall.
All of these sites are within two miles of each other.
IT IS MOST IMPORTANT ALSO TO NOTE THAT, except for being aware that at least one other local site was being considered, NEITHER RICHARD NOR I KNEW ANY DETAILS OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS NOR WHAT THE CRITERIA WERE.
The discovered minutes record the fact that Mr. Webster had brought his distant relationship with me to the attention of the members of the committee and had offered to withdraw from all further negotiation if they felt he was conflicted. The minutes noted the view of the committee that the relationship was too remote to be relevant.
The discovered minutes further confirm that it was at this meeting of 18 January when the Committee ruled out the other two sites and decided to propose Thornton Hall to the Minister.
Friday January 21 2005
5 days before announcement of deal
Richard confirmed that he had still not been offered a deal but he was of the view that the Minister would be proposing Thornton Hall to the Cabinet the following week and that if the Cabinet approved then a deal would be done immediately on the terms agreed on January 12.
SO HERE WE ARE JUST 5 DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT AND THERE IS STILL NO DEAL.
How can the Irish Times have a leg to stand on when they claim I knew “since last year”?
The article refers to me as “intentionally telling an untruth” and that “thus (I) lied to the media”.
It continues about me, “he had only just heard of the deal ‘obviously, in the last few days’”.
And then the conclusion..
“A lie. In fact not merely had he heard about the deal last year but he had actually accompanied Richard Lynam to the Department of Justice for the signing of the documents…”
I could not possibly have known of the deal last year, nor, indeed, could anybody else as there was no deal at that time.
As for the reference to the Department of Justice, the implication here is that this was sometime in the distant past. There was such a meeting; I did accompany Richard and when was that? In fact it took place not last year or indeed the previous month but 23 HOURS before the interview with the media.
It could be said that I knew of approaches which did lead to a deal.
This is true but they then have to recognize that having insisted that the Department of Justice, the OPW, the Prison Service and the Minister for Justice be informed of me knowing and having had that fact minuted and having attended a meeting in Thornton Hall with a number of people including a local auctioneer that I would hardly go on national radio and tell a lie that at least 30 people and maybe a lot more could expose immediately and which later on would certainly be exposed by access to the minutes.
So when I told the media that I just knew about it for a few days I was telling the precise truth.
Some days later it became clear to me that people were misinterpreting this to mean that I was saying I knew nothing at all about Richard being approached until a few days before the public announcement.
As soon as I became aware of that I immediately contacted the two journalists with whom I had spoken. I rang Liam Reid of the Irish Times to tell him that he had got it wrong. He did not pick up the phone but I did leave a message on his mobile voice mail. He does not recollect receiving that message. I also clarified it to Sean O’Rourke (RTÉ) who did the original interview. He remembers my clarification quite clearly and is prepared to confirm that.
There was no cover up and neither was it a difficult question to deal with and I answered it absolutely truthfully. I should state for the record that if Sean O’Rourke had asked me directly “When was I first made aware by Richard of approaches to him” I would not have given that information. I would simply have said that I would not discuss in public any matters disclosed to me in confidence by Richard. There was no reason to lie. There was nothing to be gained by lying.
I should also put on the record again, as I have repeatedly since the deal was announced, that neither I, nor my wife, had any commercial interest in the deal. In point of fact, as we are one of fewer than ten houses in the locality whose site and house will be backing directly onto the Prison grounds we could without fear of contradiction claim to be more discommoded than others.
So in summary, I do not like the idea of a major prison being situated literally in my backyard but I think it cynical of public representatives like myself to object to a development on the sole grounds that it is “in my back yard”.
Yes, I was informed by my brother-in-law of developments as outlined above and I did offer him my views. It is fair to say that even though Richard approached me in absolute confidence, I broke that confidence by disclosing my connections to the appropriate authorities but I believe that that was necessary.
My involvement is on the public record. I did not set up the deal and I can state with absolute authority that my position as a Senator in no way influenced any of the decisions. I acted absolutely properly in bringing my connections to the attention of the authorities immediately. I had no commercial interest in the deal.
Finally, I fully understand why my brother-in-law and his wife accepted the almost €30million offer. They acted honestly and above board at all times. Despite this they too have been publicly vilified.
Joe O’Toole.
21st November 2005
Back to top of the page
Public Statement on the Purchase of Thornton Hall by the State for the Site of the Proposed New Prison
21st November 2005
FOLLOWING THE PURCHASE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A PRISON SITE IN NORTH COUNTY DUBLIN FROM MY BROTHER IN LAW THERE HAS BEEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INNUENDO IN THE MEDIA INSINUATING DISHONEST DEALINGS ON MY PART.
It was implied that I set up the deal, that my connections with both parties suggested corruption, that I publicly lied, that I stood to gain financially from the deal etc.
Many of my supporters have been defending my position on this, others have been misled and in fairness to all interested constituents, now that the sale is complete I believe I should put on the public record my knowledge and involvement.
To begin, I wish to state unequivocally that I have done nothing illegal or unethical and have nothing to hide and nothing to fear in this matter.
I have welcomed the publication of the minutes of meetings, I have welcomed the Dáil debate and am delighted that all that has been disclosed has served to validate my position and to confirm what I have already said.
So here is the story.
THE PURCHASE BY THE STATE OF THORNTON HALL FROM MY BROTHER IN LAW - THIS IS THE SEQUENCE AND TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
Richard Lynam, the vendor of the lands for the proposed prison, is my wife’s brother and my brother-in-law.
Richard Lynam and his wife Una had received approaches regarding the purchase of their property of more than 150 acres. I am not aware of exactly when these approaches began but I understand from them that it was during the week before Christmas 2004. Suffice it to say that I was completely unaware of them and they were not brought to my attention at that time.
Apart from the innuendo the only specific allegation made against me was that I knew that a deal had been agreed for a period longer than I had publicly stated. Kevin Myers, in his Irish Times column, stated that I had “lied”. Here are the facts –
Thursday 6 January 2005
20 days before the deal was announced.
While on a family holiday in France, I received a telephone call from Richard Lynam. An auctioneer whom he vaguely knew had called into the farmyard, said that the Government were seeking a site for a prison and asked him would he be interested in selling. He was also told that he could get a good price.
I now know but did not know then, that the auctioneer had first called to Richard on Christmas week and that Richard had told him that he would not give any consideration to any proposal until after Christmas. These were the first and only contacts made, up until that time, regarding Thornton Hall as a proposed prison site.
Richard said to me that he had heard that a farm had in fact already been bought by the Government and asked had I heard anything about that. He wondered was the auctioneer “chancing his arm a bit” but he had told the auctioneer to make him an offer. The auctioneer told Richard he would be back to him. It would be fair to say that Richard was interested but not too excited and did not really expect it to develop. I told Richard that I knew nothing specific about the prison site except the local rumours which had been circulating for months. A number of rumours were circulating of farms having been bought for the proposed prison. Obviously, as we now know, all were untrue but it was a talking point among farmers in the area and I undertook to check it out when I got back from France.
THAT WAS THE FIRST I KNEW OF THE APPROACHES TO RICHARD OR THAT HIS LAND WAS BEING CONSIDERED AS A POSSIBLE SITE.
Sunday 9 January 2005
17 days before the deal was announced.
While still in France, on the evening of 9 January I received a telephone call from Richard. He told me he was ringing me in absolute confidence. He told me that he had had a number of informal discussions with the auctioneer, since he had spoken with me, and that he and Una had decided that if they got €30 million for the property they would sell. They had told this to the auctioneer and he apparently was going to discuss it with the Government reps.
(Since then there has been discovery of various meeting minutes and it is now clear that the local auctioneer was not there at the behest of the Government in the first place, but that he was one of any number of auctioneers around the area who, of their own volition, were searching out likely properties to propose to Government as suitable in the hope of earning a “selling” or “finder’s” fee.
I now know from the discovered minutes, but did not know then, that the auctioneer had had a number of discussions with Mr. Ronan Webster, the Government agent, sometime in December.)
The only question that might arise regarding my long telephone conversation with Richard from France is “Why would he ring me about such a matter?”
The fact is that, as his brother-in-law and near neighbour and friend for over thirty years, he, like a number of other people, was in the habit of chatting to me or seeking my advice on any matters to do with responding to officialdom.
As he would be dealing with the Government on this matter, he obviously felt he should get a view from me about how Government did business. He was also concerned about what the auctioneer’s fees should be, who else would be paid and what general costs and charges would arise etc.
Of course I was stunned at the now real possibility of him being made an offer. I pressed him on how sure he was of what they had decided. Had he considered the impact it would have on family, community and everything around him? Etc etc.
Richard pointed out that he was aware that a number of other farms were also under consideration and that he had heard that an offer had been made to someone in Ballymun and that there were negotiations taking place with another landowner approximately one mile distant from Richard’s own farm. He felt it probable that the Government side were keeping a number of options open in order to play one off against the other.
Richard also told me that his next step would be to meet with the representatives of the Government. That would happen he said the following week. The main rep he said would be a Ronan Webster. That day, 9 January, was the first time that I became aware of Mr. Webster’s involvement. The name is quite uncommon and I immediately recognized that name as being the same as that of a second cousin of mine.
I WOULD STRESS HERE THAT I HAD NOT MET WITH OR SPOKEN TO RONAN WEBSTER FOR MANY YEARS AND WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE RECOGNISED HIM.
I do meet his father, my first cousin, regularly at family occasions.
I told Richard of the possibility that the fact of me being an in-law of a possible vendor and possibly a cousin of the Government agent was something which could easily be misinterpreted. I told Richard that I would try and contact my cousin Ronan Webster immediately and establish whether or not he was the same person as was acting for the Government. As I was unaware of where Mr. Webster either lived or worked, I rang his father, from France, seeking his telephone number. He told me that Ronan was abroad on holiday but would be back on Monday and he gave me Ronan’s office number. I made no mention of the issue to him.
On Monday (10 January), from France, I rang Ronan Webster’s office. He was not expected in but they would get him a message and ask him to ring me.
On the Tuesday (11 January) morning while at the airport waiting for a flight home, Ronan Webster rang me. We quickly established; -
THAT
(i) RONAN WEBSTER WAS IN FACT MY DISTANT COUSIN DEALING WITH THE PRISON SITE PURCHASE FOR GOVERNMENT AND,
(ii) HE WAS FULLY AWARE OF THORNTON AS ONE OF THE SITES BEING CONSIDERED BUT HAD NO IDEA THAT I WAS A BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE OWNER.
Both of us agreed that this could be seen as some kind of conflict and that it should be brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities immediately.
He would inform the Department of Justice, the Office of Public Works and the Prison authorities and I would inform the Minister for Justice. Whereas there was no imperative on me to do this, nonetheless, in the context of the Ethics in Public Office Acts, I believe that as a public representative, it was important to do so.
During the conversation when I asked Ronan how committed they were to making an offer to Richard he did confirm that at least one other local site was under consideration.
The day following my return I met with Michael McDowell, Minister for Justice, to tell him of my connection to a possible vendor. I was relieved to find that Ronan Webster had already made him aware of this.
At this stage I believe, even though I had been told of developments by Richard in strictest confidence, that I had taken the appropriate and proper action in bringing my connection with the parties to the attention of the responsible authorities.
During this period Richard had further talks with the auctioneer and had made it clear that he would agree to sell for €29.9 million.
Ronan Webster and others would be meeting with him in his house on Wednesday January 12th and if they confirmed to him that amount, he and Una would agree to sell. He asked me to come to his home and attend the meeting.
Wednesday January 12 2005
15 days before announcement of deal
Meeting took place. Richard and Una confirmed that they would accept €29.9 million. Officials confirmed that they would pay that amount if the property were finally selected and if it met all the conditions for selection. They signed the heads of agreement but were told that doing a deal would depend on a number of conditions and that there would be no deal unless all of the following conditions were met; -
1. Agreement on Boundaries, Conclusion of Surveys, Tax clearance, Sound Title;
2. Endorsement by the Mountjoy Complex Prison Site Committee as meeting their criteria;
3. Recommendation by the Minister for Justice and finally;
4. The Taoiseach and the full Cabinet would have to approve money and the site.
Only after all of those steps, could a deal be made and a contract signed.
On the other hand; -
1. Finalizing the deal would not be subject to receiving planning permission and;
2. Either party, Richard and Una on the one hand, or the Official Side on the other, could back out before the signing of the final contract.
POINTS TO NOTE; -
Contrary to media comment THIS WAS THE ONE AND ONLY MEETING WHICH I ATTENDED PRIOR TO THE SIGNING.
I DID NOT INTRODUCE RICHARD TO RONAN WEBSTER NOR DID I INTRODUCE THE PARTIES TO EACH OTHER.
THE AUCTIONEER CAME WITHOUT INVITATION AND UNINVITED TO RICHARD. THAT WAS THE INITIATION OF THE PROCESS AND RICHARD HAD AGREED THE PRICE BEFORE I MET THE PARTIES.
After the January 12 meeting Richard was told that they would be pressing ahead with these things and that if all went well they would be in a position to make a deal within a few weeks. Richard was also made aware that there were at least one other and maybe two possible sites being considered.
Tuesday January 18 2005
8 Days before the Announcement of Deal
We now know from the minutes of the Mountjoy Site Committee released under Freedom of Information request that on January 18 the Committee met to consider their options.
In the context of Kevin Myer’s statement in the Irish Times that I “knew of this deal since last year” it is of crucial importance to note that here, a mere 8 days before any deal and before the contracts were signed and the deal announced, THERE WERE STILL THREE SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION.
The publicly available minutes of the meeting confirm this and in fact name the three sites -
o One at the Ward somewhere near The White House
o Another at Coolquay near May’s Stores and,
o Richard’s property at Thornton Hall.
All of these sites are within two miles of each other.
IT IS MOST IMPORTANT ALSO TO NOTE THAT, except for being aware that at least one other local site was being considered, NEITHER RICHARD NOR I KNEW ANY DETAILS OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS NOR WHAT THE CRITERIA WERE.
The discovered minutes record the fact that Mr. Webster had brought his distant relationship with me to the attention of the members of the committee and had offered to withdraw from all further negotiation if they felt he was conflicted. The minutes noted the view of the committee that the relationship was too remote to be relevant.
The discovered minutes further confirm that it was at this meeting of 18 January when the Committee ruled out the other two sites and decided to propose Thornton Hall to the Minister.
Friday January 21 2005
5 days before announcement of deal
Richard confirmed that he had still not been offered a deal but he was of the view that the Minister would be proposing Thornton Hall to the Cabinet the following week and that if the Cabinet approved then a deal would be done immediately on the terms agreed on January 12.
SO HERE WE ARE JUST 5 DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT AND THERE IS STILL NO DEAL.
How can the Irish Times have a leg to stand on when they claim I knew “since last year”?
The article refers to me as “intentionally telling an untruth” and that “thus (I) lied to the media”.
It continues about me, “he had only just heard of the deal ‘obviously, in the last few days’”.
And then the conclusion..
“A lie. In fact not merely had he heard about the deal last year but he had actually accompanied Richard Lynam to the Department of Justice for the signing of the documents…”
I could not possibly have known of the deal last year, nor, indeed, could anybody else as there was no deal at that time.
As for the reference to the Department of Justice, the implication here is that this was sometime in the distant past. There was such a meeting; I did accompany Richard and when was that? In fact it took place not last year or indeed the previous month but 23 HOURS before the interview with the media.
It could be said that I knew of approaches which did lead to a deal.
This is true but they then have to recognize that having insisted that the Department of Justice, the OPW, the Prison Service and the Minister for Justice be informed of me knowing and having had that fact minuted and having attended a meeting in Thornton Hall with a number of people including a local auctioneer that I would hardly go on national radio and tell a lie that at least 30 people and maybe a lot more could expose immediately and which later on would certainly be exposed by access to the minutes.
So when I told the media that I just knew about it for a few days I was telling the precise truth.
Some days later it became clear to me that people were misinterpreting this to mean that I was saying I knew nothing at all about Richard being approached until a few days before the public announcement.
As soon as I became aware of that I immediately contacted the two journalists with whom I had spoken. I rang Liam Reid of the Irish Times to tell him that he had got it wrong. He did not pick up the phone but I did leave a message on his mobile voice mail. He does not recollect receiving that message. I also clarified it to Sean O’Rourke (RTÉ) who did the original interview. He remembers my clarification quite clearly and is prepared to confirm that.
There was no cover up and neither was it a difficult question to deal with and I answered it absolutely truthfully. I should state for the record that if Sean O’Rourke had asked me directly “When was I first made aware by Richard of approaches to him” I would not have given that information. I would simply have said that I would not discuss in public any matters disclosed to me in confidence by Richard. There was no reason to lie. There was nothing to be gained by lying.
I should also put on the record again, as I have repeatedly since the deal was announced, that neither I, nor my wife, had any commercial interest in the deal. In point of fact, as we are one of fewer than ten houses in the locality whose site and house will be backing directly onto the Prison grounds we could without fear of contradiction claim to be more discommoded than others.
So in summary, I do not like the idea of a major prison being situated literally in my backyard but I think it cynical of public representatives like myself to object to a development on the sole grounds that it is “in my back yard”.
Yes, I was informed by my brother-in-law of developments as outlined above and I did offer him my views. It is fair to say that even though Richard approached me in absolute confidence, I broke that confidence by disclosing my connections to the appropriate authorities but I believe that that was necessary.
My involvement is on the public record. I did not set up the deal and I can state with absolute authority that my position as a Senator in no way influenced any of the decisions. I acted absolutely properly in bringing my connections to the attention of the authorities immediately. I had no commercial interest in the deal.
Finally, I fully understand why my brother-in-law and his wife accepted the almost €30million offer. They acted honestly and above board at all times. Despite this they too have been publicly vilified.
Joe O’Toole.
21st November 2005
Back to top of the page