A little over six months ago, the Social Democrats came badly unstuck at a press conference they had called to discuss their potential participation in government. It was derailed over questions about its newly elected TD for Dublin Bay South, Eoin Hayes, and his shareholding in a former employer that had close ties to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
A few hours later, Hayes was suspended from the parliamentary party. He remains in political purgatory, with no indication of whether or when he will be readmitted to the party – which itself seems uncertain about how to bring this unusual situation to an end.
It was, by any measure, a catastrophically bad outing. Hayes, surrounded by party colleagues, stuck to his lines on the disposal of shares in the company Palantir but refused to answer questions on when he sold them or how much he had earned.
The excruciating exchange went on for just over 22 minutes, focusing initially on whether Hayes had acted hypocritically in holding the shares and being a member of the Social Democrats, which called on the Government to divest its shareholding companies with IDF links.
Mixed messages on State pension entitlement from two offices in same Government department
Conor McManus: Dublin in Croke Park used to be a death sentence. Times have changed
Is a side-hustle worth it in Ireland? The type of jobs available and how much you can really make
Fending off coastal erosion: one Co Kerry community’s story
It became truly problematic when Hayes said: “Before I entered politics, I divested from those shares entirely.” This was not true. He sold them in July, having been elected as a councillor in June.
Events unravelled rapidly for Hayes and the Social Democrats, who jointly divulged that he sold 7,000 shares for €199,000. He later said his statements were inaccurate but not intentionally so. Clearly this was a serious matter – hypocrisy is bad, but putting inaccurate information out, while being backed up by his colleagues, brought things to another level.
He was suspended “with immediate effect”, with no time frame attached to the punishment – meaning he would sit as an Independent, with reduced access to speaking time, committee membership and parliamentary party meetings. Before the Dáil even sat, the Social Democrats were down a TD. A review was commissioned from the party’s national executive, which took two months to decide to extend the suspension indefinitely.
More than four months later, questions remain unanswered. These include for Hayes, who has maintained a near total public silence on the matter. What, for example, did he mean when he said he sold the shares before entering politics; was it national or local politics? If, in the moment, he meant his Dáil election, why did he allow the impression to form at the press conference that this related to his council election five months earlier? Has he sought to be readmitted to the party? How does he explain the disastrous outing? What happened afterwards? What does he think of his suspension, or the review?
After six months the party doesn’t seem to have a clear explanation for how it arrived here, or what’s next
As for the party, it has a code of conduct for members, within which there are sections covering openness and honesty in public, and earning and maintaining the trust and confidence of the public. Regarding the sanction, a spokeswoman said there were “internal disciplinary processes which can lead to a variety of different sanctions”, but declined to share its disciplinary procedures, so we don’t know if they envisage an indefinite suspension. The party’s constitution allows the leader to suspend the whip until the matter is investigated, for a specified period of time or until a specified event has occurred or an action has been taken.
While a review has happened, the party did not specifically address whether it was waiting for an event or action to take place. Obviously no specified period of time has been imposed. We don’t know if the Social Democrats review identified any further information relevant to the matter; a spokeswoman for the party said he was suspended in line with the party’s constitution for providing incorrect information to the media about the timing of the share sale. “The Social Democrats national executive subsequently endorsed that decision. That remains the case, the reason for the suspension has not changed and there is no further update.”
There have been reports of a split within the party over whether to readmit Hayes. If that is the case, are internal party dynamics preventing the issue from being brought to a close? If so, is that sustainable – can a suspension that is imposed for one thing (the plinth incident) continue because the party is unable to agree on the best way forward?
It is possible, of course, that some within the party membership object not just to the plinth incident but to the holding and disposal of shares at all – but this is not what he was suspended for. Also, there is the question of whether it’s in keeping with natural justice to impose a sanction without end.
There have been examples of suspensions before that had no time frame attached when handed down – after Golfgate, for example. But those politicians were back in the party after six months. Mattie McGrath lost the Fianna Fáil whip in 2010 and left the party about seven months later. More recent suspensions, for example for Green Party TDs who voted against the last government, were explicitly time bound when they were imposed.
Meanwhile, the party has continued to act as though Hayes is one of their TDs for the purposes of committee chair allocations. Public funds are allocated on the basis of TDs elected for a party – with Hayes potentially meaning another €56,574 to party coffers if he is counted as one of their TDs. A party spokeswoman did not directly address whether it would claim this – saying like all parties it is in receipt of State money allocated on the basis of electoral performance.
After six months the party doesn’t seem to have a clear explanation for how it arrived here, or what’s next. Exactly the sort of thing the Opposition tends to excoriate Government over.
