Reilly says he acted with propriety

Minister for Health James Reilly has contended he acted with “full propriety” in all his dealings with a nursing home investment despite being named as a debt defaulter in Stubbs Gazette this week.

In a personal statement to the Dáil late last night, Dr Reilly gave a detailed explanation of how “complex litigation” and protracted negotiations, which remain unresolved, had resulted in him and four other investors missing the deadline last April in relation to paying a €1.9 million debt. It led to the debt being registered against the consortium with the subsequent publication.

“I regret that it did not prove possible to reach agreement in advance of being named in Stubbs Gazette,” he said.

Dr Reilly outlined in a 10-minute statement to the House his attempts to divest himself of his share in the nursing home over a period of 16 months since early last year. He said that he had offered to sell his shares twice, once at a reduced price, but there were no takers.

He also disclosed he had extensive engagement with the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) in relation to the investment to comply with the code of conduct that applied to Ministers.

He said an arrangement had finally been agreed whereby an independent solicitor was given power of attorney over the investment. He said two earlier solutions – giving power of attorney to his own solicitor and setting up a blind trust – had not proved possible. He said Sipo had suggested the blind trust but his bank had not consented to it because it believed it was inappropriate because of the ongoing litigation.

Since the publication of Dr Reilly’s name on Tuesday, the Minister has faced criticism for the outstanding debt, as well as the perceived conflict of interest in relation to a serving Minister for Health retaining an interest in a private nursing home.

On the claim that there was a conflict of interest, Dr Reilly rejected the assertion. “I can state very clearly on the record of the House that nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.

He cited his efforts to divest his interest, his policy of moving nursing home residents back to their own homes, as well as him having no involvement in running the home.

“My single interest is the wellbeing of older persons. Too many are in long-term care and should be in their own homes,” he said.

Dr Reilly’s explanation detailed the history of the investment since 2000 and the more recent dispute between two classes of investors over a requirement to buy out the other’s interests. He said efforts were underway to pay the other group of investors the €1.9 million that was owed. He suggested the failure to reach agreement was partly due to a number of adjournments in proceedings in the run-up to the deadline.

“Our intention is to meet the financial obligations and they will be met,” he said.

Government sources said last night that it hoped that the Minister’s very detailed explanation would draw a line under a controversy that has rumbled on since the publication on Tuesday morning.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s spokesman said he was satisfied that Dr Reilly had given a very comprehensive account of all the issues surrounding the matter.

The Opposition has accused Dr Reilly of muddying the water with a confusing account that did not fully answer key questions – how the deadline was not met, and why he found out so late his name would appear in Stubbs Gazette.

Speaking this morning, Sinn Féin health spokesman Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin said the methodology adopted by Dr Reilly to deal with the issue was "wholly inappropriate" and said he had not dispelled concerns surrounding a health minister having a for-profit interest in private nursing care.

"We should have had a statement from the minister. We should have had the opportunity to question him and perhaps that actual style of address might have served the overall outstanding questions much better."

Mr Ó Caoláin questioned Mr Reilly's assertion that his "single interest" is the wellbeing of older persons.

"I don't think that will wear very well with people who are campaigning in different locations up and down the country for the retention of nursing home capacities."

"He clearly hasn't dispelled the concerns of those who believe there is a conflict of interest in a Minister for Health presiding over bed reductions in public nursing homes while being an acknowledged stakeholder in a private for-profit residential care home. And, be that James Reilly or anybody else, that's the bottom line here," Mr Ó Caoláin told Morning Ireland.

Fine Gael TD for Meath West Damien English said Dr Reilly had attempted to sell his interest and defended his independence as minister.

"He did not say last night that he's not paying this [debt] or that he's walking away. And yes, an ordinary person would be very disappointed if a minister didn't pay a debt [but] he is paying the debt and will be in a position to pay it.

"There's no rule that says he has to sell this. He has decided that he wants to sell this and wants to divest because it's best practice."

"In the meantime, he has tried to put the day-to-day business associated with this as far away from him as he possibly could and the rules say that he does that through the power of attorney. That has been done – a long time ago."

"He does not run a nursing home and if he did run a nursing home there probably would be a conflict of interests but he doesn't. He owns a building in which somebody else runs a nursing home and he's trying to get out of that."

"Trying to add up one and one and come up with four is not good enough and not fair," Mr English said.

"Minister Reilly has always campaigned for preventative health care and to keep people as close to their homes as possible. He is not out there pursuing a policy to build loads of nursing homes and to fill them."

Fianna Fáil health spokesman Billy Kelleher said Dr Reilly had made a disappointing speech in which he failed to address how he would comply with a High Court order requiring him and other investors to honour a €1.9 million judgement.

“I’m very disappointed – there’s no clarity in the statement. Quite clearly tonight after the minister’s speech, he hasn’t outlined how he is going to come into compliance with a High Court order to discharge a debt of €1.9 million."

"Quite clearly, when you look through the statement, it means that he’s putting commercial interest ahead of protecting the integrity of a high office and that simply is unacceptable for a Cabinet minister to be against a High Court judgement and trying to extract commercial gain.