Dr James Reilly and his unpaid debts

djpbarry

Hot on the heals of the Mick Wallace fiasco, we have another TD with apparently dodgy business dealings:

Dr James Reilly will make a statement to the Dáil later today after his appearance on a list of debt defaulters.

It emerged yesterday that the Minister for Health’s name would be appearing in Stubbs Gazette over a €1.9 million unpaid debt.

The debt arises from his purchase with a group of investors of a nursing home in Carrick-on-Suir, Co Tipperary. The Minister and four other investors, including former Fine Gael county councillor Anne Devitt, have failed to comply with a High Court order to repay the money to other investors.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0711/breaking4.html

I'm not one for jumping to conclusions and I want to reserve judgement until all the facts are available, but this doesn't look good. To paraphrase Micheál Martin, it's difficult to accept a person’s financial affairs are completely in order when they are in breach of a High Court order.

Happyman42

It will be interesting to watch this one in light of what was 'read into' the recent expenses row. to say that this is ok because it was at arms lenght is really not good enough for me. The idea that somebody would leave an investment of that scale alone is just a bit hard to swallow.
Once again the system is showing up to be in disarray. Enda isn't playing it too well so far.

JustinDee

The difference between this TD and Mick Wallace is that James Reilly hasn't defrauded the Revenue Commissioners to conceal poor business management & debt, pilfered pension funds of his employees or used taxpayer money in a deal with creditors.

It isn't illegal (or "dodgy") to actually owe money.
I would have reservations about a Minister for Health being actively part of the private nursing care industry though. Surely a conflict of interest?

djpbarry

JustinDee wrote: »

The difference between this TD and Mick Wallace is that James Reilly hasn't defrauded the Revenue Commissioners to conceal poor business management & debt, pilfered pension funds of his employees or used taxpayer money in a deal with creditors.

I wasn't trying to imply that the two situations were the same.

JustinDee wrote: »

It isn't illegal (or "dodgy") to actually owe money.

No, but it is dodgy to apparently defy a High Court order.

mikom

JustinDee wrote: »

It isn't illegal (or "dodgy") to actually owe money.

How are you on high court orders?

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

The difference between this TD and Mick Wallace is that James Reilly hasn't defrauded the Revenue Commissioners to conceal poor business management & debt, pilfered pension funds of his employees or used taxpayer money in a deal with creditors.

It isn't illegal (or "dodgy") to actually owe money.
I would have reservations about a Minister for Health being actively part of the private nursing care industry though. Surely a conflict of interest?

There was no prevarication about Higgins, Collins and Daly's motives in claiming expenses, let's see does Enda hide in the 'grey area' when it comes to his Minister. The conflict of interest is the important thing here. Having disclosed his interest in private nursing homes should surely have led this 'wind of change' government NOT to appoint him as Minister for Health.
There is a difference between having knowledge of the sector and having investments in it.

Gurgle

Happyman42 wrote: »

Having disclosed his interest in private nursing homes should surely have led this 'wind of change' government NOT to appoint him as Minister for Health.

If the disclosure was 'I made an investment, but it went to shìt and I've no chance of making any money out of it', then the conflict doesn't exist.

Dave!

Happyman42 wrote: »

It will be interesting to watch this one in light of what was 'read into' the recent expenses row. to say that this is ok because it was at arms lenght is really not good enough for me. The idea that somebody would leave an investment of that scale alone is just a bit hard to swallow.
Once again the system is showing up to be in disarray. Enda isn't playing it too well so far.

AFAIK this is what he was advised to do by the Standards in Public Office Commission.

galway2007

Gurgle wrote: »

If the disclosure was 'I made an investment, but it went to shìt and I've no chance of making any money out of it', then the conflict doesn't exist.

So is it ok to be investing in a nursing home while you are the minster in charge of shutting down nursing homes???
He has closed public nursing home which in turn creates new business for private nursing homes.
He is also linked to Anne Devitt who had to leave FG after the Mahon report
And rember Enda always said
"Honest and integrity is what it is all about"

mikom

galway2007 wrote: »

So is it ok to be investing in a nursing home while you are the minster in charge of shutting down nursing homes???
He has closed public nursing home which in turn creates new business for private nursing homes.

At the FG farm they use foxes to mind the hens.

Happyman42

Dave! wrote: »

AFAIK this is what he was advised to do by the Standards in Public Office Commission.

I have no doubt he was told this, I just think it's really not good enough from a System point of view. I have no doubt either that it is difficult to legislate for this across the Dail, but when it comes to appointing Ministers it should be a critical gamechanger.

Dave!

galway2007 wrote: »

So is it ok to be investing in a nursing home while you are the minster in charge of shutting down nursing homes???
He has closed public nursing home which in turn creates new business for private nursing homes.
He is also linked to Anne Devitt who had to leave FG after the Mahon report
And rember Enda always said
"Honest and integrity is what it is all about"

It's been pointed out in another thread that really, experts in a field become experts by being involved in the field. It's rare that they'd be insulated from involvement in the industry that they've spent their lives studying and practicing, "Break glass if expert is required".

This same idea is often used to dismiss research or testimony from e.g. researchers who previously had involvement with pharmaceutical companies. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think that as long as a potential conflict is declared up-front, the person shouldn't be automatically precluded. Of course, there should also be monitoring to ensure that the person isn't abusing their power to benefit themselves.

Ultimately I'd rather a Health Minister who has been involved in the medical field for his whole career, rather than another teacher on a career break. Ideally you'd have someone with relevant experience who has no potential conflicts of interest, but I'm not sure Fine Gael have anyone who can match Dr. Reilly in that regard.

djpbarry

Dave! wrote: »

Ultimately I'd rather a Health Minister who has been involved in the medical field for his whole career, rather than another teacher on a career break.

Seems that’s what a lot of posters on boards want – have we not been hearing calls for experts in relevant fields to be appointed to the cabinet? I don’t really see his involvement in a (failed) private nursing home as being an issue.

Dave!

Maybe on Boards, but having listened to Pat Kenny this morning, it seems that the only thing people care about is the potential conflict of interest! That's what his listeners were saying anyway, even if it is a small sample.

Happyman42

Dave! wrote: »

It's been pointed out in another thread that really, experts in a field become experts by being involved in the field. It's rare that they'd be insulated from involvement in the industry that they've spent their lives studying and practicing, "Break glass if expert is required".

This same idea is often used to dismiss research or testimony from e.g. researchers who previously had involvement with pharmaceutical companies. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think that as long as a potential conflict is declared up-front, the person shouldn't be automatically precluded. Of course, there should also be monitoring to ensure that the person isn't abusing their power to benefit themselves.

Ultimately I'd rather a Health Minister who has been involved in the medical field for his whole career, rather than another teacher on a career break. Ideally you'd have someone with relevant experience who has no potential conflicts of interest, but I'm not sure Fine Gael have anyone who can match Dr. Reilly in that regard.

Huge difference between being 'involved' and 'invested'. His aspiration was to benefit financially from a private nursing home while closing competing ones as Minister.

JustinDee

Dave! wrote: »

Maybe on Boards, but having listened to Pat Kenny this morning, it seems that the only thing people care about is the potential conflict of interest! That's what his listeners were saying anyway, even if it is a small sample.

Problem is that his involvement with the nursing home industry was already known. The 'outraged' out there didn't seem to give a stuff about it then.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

Problem is that his involvement with the nursing home industry was already known. The 'outraged' out there didn't seem to give a stuff about it then.

Is that a defence though?

mikom

Dave! wrote: »

Maybe on Boards, but having listened to Pat Kenny this morning, it seems that the only thing people care about is the potential conflict of interest! That's what his listeners were saying anyway, even if it is a small sample. Those were the texts he read out to us anyway

Fixed your post.

JP Liz V1

He should resign but wont and nothing will be done to him :rolleyes:

Dave!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Huge difference between being 'involved' and 'invested'. His aspiration was to benefit financially from a private nursing home while closing competing ones as Minister.

True, but wouldn't any other Minister for Health be closing down nursing homes also? He may hypothetically (see next paragraph) benefit from closing a specific nursing home or several (I'm not sure it can be said that he benefits financially from closing "nursing homes" in general; nobody is going to put someone in a private nursing home in Dublin because a public one was closed in Donegal), but if he gives sound reasoning for the closure and savings figures from the Dept, and if he's acting on recommendations, then isn't it fair enough?

And regardless, given that his investment has ultimately failed, doesn't it now mean that no potential conflicts of interest exist anymore? So the point is moot now.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is that a defence though?

Well I think it stands to the point that he has been up-front about it all along, and so I don't think that anyone can all of sudden claim sinister intent. Given that we're only talking in hypotheticals at this point (since the investment failed), this goes against any notion that he attempted to benefit from his position in an underhanded way. It's been in the public domain all along.

Happyman42

Dave! wrote: »

True, but wouldn't any other Minister for Health be closing down nursing homes also? He may hypothetically (see next paragraph) benefit from closing a specific nursing home or several (I'm not sure it can be said that he benefits financially from closing "nursing homes" in general; nobody is going to put someone in a private nursing home in Dublin because a public one was closed in Donegal), but if he gives sound reasoning for the closure and savings figures from the Dept, and if he's acting on recommendations, then isn't it fair enough?

A Minister investing in the private health sector is a conflict of interests scenario. It is not 'fair enough' to fudge that in any way.

And regardless, given that his investment has ultimately failed, doesn't it now mean that no potential conflicts of interest exist anymore? So the point is moot now.

Immaterial imo, his aspiration was to benefit financially, that may or may not extend into other areas of his brief. The Minister is compromised, the Minister should resign.

Well I think it stands to the point that he has been up-front about it all along, and so I don't think that anyone can all of sudden claim sinister intent. Given that we're only talking in hypotheticals at this point (since the investment failed), this goes against any notion that he attempted to benefit from his position in an underhanded way. It's been in the public domain all along.

Again, failure' is of no consequence, if the fox fails to get the chicken, would you leave the hole in the fence?
Being 'upfront' brought no favours for Doherty or the Expenses Three.

Gurgle

Happyman42 wrote: »

A Minister investing in the private health sector is a conflict of interests scenario.

Did a minister invest in the private health sector or did a medical doctor invest in the private health sector and later go on to become minister for health?

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, failure' is of no consequence, if the fox fails to get the chicken, would you leave the hole in the fence?

Failure is of absolute consequence in this case.

If the investment hadn't failed, he would have been required to sell off his investment before taking up office. That wasn't an option in this case. Hypotheticals are irrelevant.

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

Failure is of absolute consequence in this case.

If the investment hadn't failed, he would have been required to sell off his investment before taking up office. That wasn't an option in this case. Hypotheticals are irrelevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but had the recourse investors paid the non-recourse directors after 10 years, then he would have been a shareholder in a functioning, successfully operating private nursing home?

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is that a defence though?

No but I'd say it illustrates exactly how subjective the apparently 'outraged' out there actually are in their thinking.

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but had the recourse investors paid the non-recourse directors after 10 years, then he would have been a shareholder in a functioning, successfully operating private nursing home?

Yes. A shareholding which would then have been sold when he became Minister, as he would be required to do.

There is no way he could have been a shareholder on a functioning, profit making nursing home while at the same time being Minister for Health.

When this matter is resolved and the debt is cleared, he will then sell on or discard his shareholding in the business, as he is required to do.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

No but I'd say it illustrates exactly how subjective the apparently 'outraged' out there actually are in their thinking.

It has been asked about in the Dail, that Enda saw no problem with it when appointing him is now up for testing.

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

When this matter is resolved and the debt is cleared, he will then sell on or discard his shareholding in the business, as he is required to do.

Trying to source the rules on that, can you post a link?
Would he not also have been able to place this investment in a trust while he was Minister, as he did the debt?

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

Trying to source the rules on that, can you post a link?
Would he not also have been able to place this investment in a trust while he was Minister, as he did the debt?

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/CodesofConduct/OfficeHolders/Name,745,en.htm

Office holders should not take any part in the decision-making or management of the affairs of a company or practice and should dispose of, or otherwise set aside for the time-being, any financial interests which might conflict, or be seen to conflict, with their position as an office holder.

Even placed in trust, he would still be regarded as having a financial interest which would conflict with his position as Minister for Health.

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/CodesofConduct/OfficeHolders/Name,745,en.htm



Even placed in trust, he would still be regarded as having a financial interest which would conflict with his position as Minister for Health.

But he wouldn't necessarily have to get rid?

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

But he wouldn't necessarily have to get rid?

Well I don't know how one would "otherwise set aside" a financial interest of this kind without selling it on. As I say, even placed in trust it would continue to gain/lose value which could be seen to be an influencing factor on his decisions.
I would be wrong to say that he is "required" to sell it on, but I don't see any way that he could have held onto it without finding himself up in front of SIPO for breach of their rules.

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

"otherwise set aside"

I think that refers to the 'trust' arrangement.

Ardent

Gurgle wrote: »

Did a minister invest in the private health sector or did a medical doctor invest in the private health sector and later go on to become minister for health?

+1. Don't know what all the furore is about to be honest. Obviously a slow news week.

He makes a financial investment over 10 years ago, as a part of a syndicate. Nothing dodgy there. Said syndicate are now instructed to honour an agreement to buy out the others. O'Reilly's own obligation probably only amounts to a couple of hundred thousand, which his boss says he will pay in due course. I guess it depends on when other members of the syndicate can be convinced to pay up as well.

Nothing to see here folks.

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

It has been asked about in the Dail, that Enda saw no problem with it when appointing him is now up for testing.

It wouldn't be a problem though. How much does James Reilly actually owe of that amount? Isn't the investment via a consortium?

Happyman42

Ardent wrote: »

+1. Don't know what all the furore is about to be honest. Obviously a slow news week.

He makes a financial investment over 10 years ago, as a part of a syndicate. Nothing dodgy there. Said syndicate are now instructed to honour an agreement to buy out the others. O'Reilly's own obligation probably only amounts to a couple of hundred thousand, which his boss says he will pay in due course. I guess it depends on when other members of the syndicate can be convinced to pay up as well.

Nothing to see here folks.

Hypothethically, if he had been part of a syndicate that owned a piece of land that was in competition with another piece of land for the building of a hospital, (and it was all neatly tucked away in a 'trust' awaiting him to finish his term) would that be a conflict of interest requiring his resignation?
I honestly don't see the difference, it's a conflict of interest. Private nursing homes compete with Public ones. It's the 'system' that allows this to happen that is wrong.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

It wouldn't be a problem though. How much does James Reilly actually owe of that amount? Isn't the investment via a consortium?

All that matters is that he stood to benefit from this investment. And being part of a consortium suggests to me that had this worked out that they would have continued to invest in other homes.

I'm not even sure it is entirely ethical for a practising GP to be involved in investments of this nature.

Gurgle

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm not even sure it is entirely ethical for a practising GP to be involved in investments of this nature.

I'd rather a private nursing home with a GP calling the shots than a hotelier / builder / lawyer / politician.

Happyman42

Gurgle wrote: »

I'd rather a private nursing home with a GP calling the shots than a hotelier / builder / lawyer / politician.

hmmm.....kind of a privileged position though. Referrals, endorsements etc.
Especially if his involvement wasn't immediately apparent.

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think that refers to the 'trust' arrangement.

I'd have to disagree, but I think it's something only SIPO could clarify.

JP Liz V1

So he breaks his silence at 9.55pm tonight - why so late?

Park Royal

We had a "plumber" Chairman of the North Western Health Board at

one stage......

I suspect he was better than the "Farmer" who was elected Chairman...

Perhaps Reilly is really a man of the people......

skint like the rest of us........

Happyman42

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So he breaks his silence at 9.55pm tonight - why so late?

Miss the papers tomorrow?

seamus

He's overseas. Maybe his flight doesn't get in till this afternoon.

galway2007

Dave! wrote: »

It's been pointed out in another thread that really, experts in a field become experts by being involved in the field. It's rare that they'd be insulated from involvement in the industry that they've spent their lives studying and practicing, "Break glass if expert is required".

This same idea is often used to dismiss research or testimony from e.g. researchers who previously had involvement with pharmaceutical companies. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think that as long as a potential conflict is declared up-front, the person shouldn't be automatically precluded. Of course, there should also be monitoring to ensure that the person isn't abusing their power to benefit themselves.

Ultimately I'd rather a Health Minister who has been involved in the medical field for his whole career, rather than another teacher on a career break. Ideally you'd have someone with relevant experience who has no potential conflicts of interest, but I'm not sure Fine Gael have anyone who can match Dr. Reilly in that regard.

I would rather a health minister who is a picture of health
Look at the state of him, he look worse than harney
Why can’t we have a minister who look after his/her health and is a fit example to our young people?
Even Enda is a good example on his bike, but look at what we got

galway2007

JustinDee wrote: »

Problem is that his involvement with the nursing home industry was already known. The 'outraged' out there didn't seem to give a stuff about it then.

Did we know about it here???
You can’t have a minister making a personnel profit form an industry that he controls. It is wrong the fact that the more public nursing homes that he closed the more profit the industry that he was investing in was going to make.
He has to go. Can you imagine the protest that is going to take place when he picks on another public nursing home that he decides to close

Sierra Oscar

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So he breaks his silence at 9.55pm tonight - why so late?

Because the Dáil rises at 10PM - meaning that he cannot be questioned on the matter.

So much for FG's promise to have ministers held more accountable towards Dáil Éireann.

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

All that matters is that he stood to benefit from this investment. And being part of a consortium suggests to me that had this worked out that they would have continued to invest in other homes

"Standing to benefit" has nothing to do with anything but begrudgery. The debt is the issue here. Not return on any investment.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm not even sure it is entirely ethical for a practising GP to be involved in investments of this nature.

It is fine. It isn't as if he has a monopoly on the ageing population of North Dublin or on their care, even as a minister for health.

mloc

Gurgle wrote: »

Did a minister invest in the private health sector or did a medical doctor invest in the private health sector and later go on to become minister for health?

QFT.

So he had a private nursing home, and before taking position as Minister asks SIPO for advice on what action he should take regarding this potential conflict of interest. They tell him to give control away to a solicitor, which he does. He tells his solicitor to divest himself of this nursing home at the earliest possible opportunity.

No problems with that so far.

Now there is a delay in payment to some other investors. It's not Minister Reilly alone who is delaying the payment; there are five people involved as they must make the payment as a group. In order to make the payment, the nursing home needed to be remortgaged. The bank would not do this until a new lease was signed on it. This lease is now signed, the remortgage can take place and now the payment can be made.

It's unfortunate that there was a delay in the process of remortgaging and perhaps that may be explained later; I would assume this delay could be attributable to any of the five investors involved, and will be explained this evening.

It's sad that the legacy of previous governments has made it next to impossible for a politician to have business interests without public prejudices. Decades of Fianna Fail corruption have tarnished all politicians and we automatically assume the worst without having much of the facts available to us.

seamus

galway2007 wrote: »

Did we know about it here???

Yep. It's on the (publically available) register of interests, and has been since he was first elected in 2007.

rodento

Question is should a current minister be in breach of a high court order:eek:

Fianna Fail leader Michael Martin said today that Dr Reilly had serious questions to answer as to why he did not honour a High Court order.
“Last February Judge Kelly made an order giving until the end of April to pay that. It is a serious issue when a government minister would not be in compliance with a High Court order,” he said on RTE Radio 1.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/debt-defaulter-reilly-to-face-dail-in-10pm-showdown-3165842.html

bijapos

It was known beforehand that he had interests in this along with a large medical practise in North County Dublin. What he managed to keep quiet is that as former head of the IMO he lead the bargaining for more money for doctors and consultants and shortly after shouted from the opposition benches complaining at the cost of the Health Service. Another politician who manages to speak out of both sides of his mouth at once.