Former councillor Tommy Reilly has told the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) that he had "nothing whatsoever" to do with a plot of land that was ultimately owned by his son and which increased eightfold in value after being rezoned by Meath County Council.
The former Fianna Fáil councillor was giving evidence on the second day of an investigation hearing that is being carried out by the public ethics watchdog.
The hearing centres on what Mr Reilly knew and when, regarding a conflict of interest over a plot of land located on the outskirts of Navan that was ultimately owned by one and then two of his sons.
The site was bought for €500,000 in 2016, rezoned by the council the following year and then went on the market for €4.2 million.
Mr Reilly, who was the outgoing cathaoirleach of the council at the time, lost his seat on Meath County Council in the local elections in June of last year.
He had held that council seat in the Navan Local Electoral Area for Fianna Fáil for 27 years.
An internal investigation by Meath County Council previously found that while Mr Reilly had excused himself from the vote which reclassified the land in question, he "inadvertently" broke ethical rules by not "updating his register of interests".
However, Mr Reilly has always maintained that he believed he acted in good faith and that he had met his statutory and ethical obligations by disclosing a conflict of interest and absenting himself from consideration of the particular matter at a special planning meeting of the full council on 19 July 2017.
Today, Mr Reilly told the SIPO investigation that his son, Kieran, had a number of business interests, of which he knew very little about and none of which he was involved in himself.
He said the pair never discussed business and he only became aware that his son had purchased the 35-acre site at Liscarton two weeks before the special planning meeting in June 2017.
He said this came about when his son inquired about the county development plan and how a submission could be made to have the lands rezoned.
Mr Reilly said, at this stage, he told his son that he could have "nothing to do with it [the application] whatsoever".
There were testy exchanges as Mr Reilly faced questioning by the legal counsel for SIPO, Mark Curran BL, about his knowledge of what constituted a conflict of interest under the relevant legislation and when a public representative should make a declaration about one.
When asked by Mr Curran how he could declare a potential conflict of interest if he did not know anything about his son's business interests, Mr Reilly did not reply.
Mr Reilly also disputed the nature of a meeting that he attended with his son and planning officials from the council.
He said this was an "explanatory planning meeting" and not a "pre application consultation" meeting.
Mr Reilly also told the commission that he said nothing at this meeting other than to introduce the parties involved.
Asked about how it came to be that his own name was listed as an applicant on the planning application, Mr Reilly said this was an error.
He said he told his son to correct this and "he wasn’t too happy about it, I can assure you".
Mr Reilly told the commission that he "never set foot" on the land in question, which he said has never been sold and remains a field that cattle and sheep continue to graze on today.
Later in his evidence, the former councillor told the public ethics watchdog that since the September following the 2019 local elections, he has "been tortured by this by a certain group of political people".
He said: "They got what they were looking for, I lost my seat in the election and they lambasted me on Facebook. There was talk I might run in the general election that November and they started at me again and I ended up not running.
"This has devastated me and my community. I have lost my livelihood. In the first time in 63 years, I was asked not to partake in the canvas for the general election [last year] because my name had been dragged through the mud," Mr Reilly said.
Earlier, Mr Reilly’s two sons, Kieran and Tomás, gave evidence before the SIPO investigation hearing.
Kieran told the commission that the land on the outskirts of Navan was purchased as an "investment opportunity".
He also said that a company named Royal Active Building Solutions (RABS) Ltd was set up in August 2016 as a "vehicle to purchase the land".
The commission was told that in December 2017, Kieran and another local businessman Barry Alder were listed as the directors of RABS Ltd.
However, this later changed to both Kieran and his brother, Tomás, being listed as the only two directors of the company.
Asked by Mr Curran why Mr Alder would become involved in the company shortly before the purchase of the land but then would leave the company prior to the planning application being submitted in May 2018 when the company’s asset was set to increase significantly in value, Kieran said that would "be a matter for Mr Alder".
Kieran also said that his father, Mr Reilly has had no previous or current involvement in RABS Ltd or its financing.
Meanwhile, Mr Reilly’s other son, Tomás, told the commission that he had no shared business interests with his father.
Giving evidence, Tomás said he had "no interest" in business and had only become a director of RABS Ltd as his brother had asked him to do so.
He said he never asked Kieran why he wanted him to become a director, and he had no involvement in the planning application for the land at Liscarton.
In his closing remarks, Mr Curran, legal counsel for SIPO, said what this investigation is "all about" was when Mr Reilly knew about his sons’ interests and what he knew about those interests.
He said when the commission is making that decision, he would submit that it is entitled to consider the timing of the purchase of the lands in Liscarton, the structure surrounding that purchase, and the funding and financing of that purchase "all for the purpose of ascertaining when Mr Reilly’s sons’ interests in the lands began".
Mr Curran said these factors were important in "assessing the credibility as to when Tommy Reilly Senior knew about the interest in the land".
Meanwhile, in closing, legal counsel on behalf of Mr Reilly, Seamás Ó Tuathail AS, said the legislation surrounding a conflict of interest in a case of this nature is centred around "actual knowledge".
He said it was their case that Mr Reilly only had actual knowledge of his sons’ interest in the land at Liscarton from early July 2017 and on that basis, he cannot declare an interest of which he does not have such knowledge.
"If you don’t know, you can’t declare it," he added.
Mr Ó Tuathail said Meath County Council had already found that Mr Reilly "inadvertently" broke ethical rules by not disclosing the nature of this conflict of interest and that this had and should be considered a "minor matter".
In relation to the two remaining allegations surrounding the pre-planning meeting, he said he did not see how the Local Government Act had been breached in the way these meetings had been conducted as Mr Reilly "had not opened his mouth".
The chairperson of the commission, retired judge of the Court of Appeal, Garrett Sheehan then said the commission would rise to consider the submissions that had been made, and it would publish its verdict in due course.
The other members of the commission who heard the two days of evidence and will be considering that verdict are: the Comptroller and Auditor General, Seamus McCarthy; the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner for Ireland, Ger Deering; the Clerk of the Dáil, Peter Finnegan; the Clerk of the Seanad, Martin Groves; and "ordinary member" and former member of the Seanad, Geraldine Feeney.
