DUBLIN CITY councillor Oisín Quinn is to hear in January whether the Standards in Public Office Commission has found him guilty of 14 breaches of ethics legislation.
The alleged breaches relate to Mr Quinn’s actions in proposing a new maximum height for buildings in Dublin inner city while potentially benefiting from the change through his part ownership of an office block at 84-93 Lower Mount Street.
The property, said to be worth up to €15 million, is mainly let to the Revenue Commissioners under a 35-year lease that expires in 2016.
Mr Quinn, who has rejected all allegations against him, told a Standards in Public Office Commission hearing yesterday he had declared his interest in the building in December 2010 and in July 2011 as building heights were being debated.
Mr Quinn said he recognised that under ethics legislation, where a “site-specific” beneficial interest was held, the correct course of action was that an office holder should declare their beneficial interest and withdraw from any debates or votes on the issue.
However, he told the hearing his personal interest, which amounted to a one-sixth share of the four-storey office block on Mount Street, was “remote and insignificant” in relation to what he and the council’s Labour group wanted to achieve for the wider city through its motion.
Counsel for Mr Quinn, Eoin McCullough SC, told the hearing the standards in public office legislation specifically allowed office holders to take part in debates and vote where their interest was “remote and insignificant” and could not “reasonably” be held to have influenced them.
Mr Quinn also told the hearing he had sought advice from Dublin city manager John Tierney and the council’s law agent Terence O’Keeffe, who had both taken the view that he would not have to withdraw from debates and votes on height restrictions on the basis of his part ownership of the Mount Street building. He said a subsequent inquiry by the council’s ethics registrar had concluded there had been no breach of regulations.
Counsel for the Standards in Public Office Commission Diarmaid McGuinness SC said Mr Quinn “was erroneous to suppose his interest was remote”. There was potential for Mr Quinn’s holding to be “bettered” by the proposed changes and this held whether Mr Quinn owned one building “50, 100 or 100,000”.
