The role of the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, in defending his former Minister of State for Food, Mr Ned O'Keeffe, against a charge of failing to declare a conflict of interest to the Dail reflects badly on his Office. So too does his subsequent role in arranging for Mr O'Keeffe to be pressurised into resigning. It is such a spectacular "volte face" that it deserved a full explanation. Instead, the public has been treated to a Dail procedure under which the O'Keeffe issue was regarded as too important to be dealt with under one heading and not important enough to be dealt with under another. It was only when exchanges between the Labour Party leader, Mr Quinn, and the Taoiseach became heated and personal that Mr Ahern broke his silence. The episode has resulted in a further erosion of confidence in democratic accountability.
The importance of this issue flows, not from the manner in which the Taoiseach orchestrated the publicity surrounding the forced resignation of his Minister, but from his initial response to allegations that Mr O'Keeffe had failed to declare a conflict of interest under the Ethics in Public Office Act and that he had breached the terms of the General Guidelines for Ministers. In those matters, the Taoiseach had a responsibility of leadership. In both instances, he appeared to duck his duties. It was a performance on a par with his lackadaisical approach when allegations were made against Mr Ray Burke, Mr John Ellis, Mr Denis Foley and Mr Liam Lawlor.
The facts are straightforward. Last December, in leading Government opposition to a Dail Labour Party motion attempting to ban the use of meat and bone meal, Mr O'Keeffe did not declare his interest in a milling plant that utilised such material under government licence. When the Taoiseach refused to take action against Mr O'Keeffe, the Labour Party referred the matter for adjudication to the Ethics in Public Office Commission. And it challenged Mr Ahern to state whether Mr O'Keeffe had also breached the terms of the General Guidelines for Ministers by retaining an active involvement in his family businesses. The Taoiseach declined to be drawn on those matters for which he had direct responsibility. But, on December 6th, he confirmed Mr O'Keeffe had declared an interest in the milling plant for meat and bone meal to him.
That admission by Mr Ahern casts a different complexion on his support for the Minister of State. If the Taoiseach was aware of a potential conflict of interest on behalf of his junior minister, should he not have intervened? And if Mr O'Keeffe is found to be in breach of his ministerial responsibilities, then surely Mr Ahern will have further questions to answer? It would seem Mr O'Keeffe was assured of the Taoiseach's protection only for so long as a formal investigation was not initiated by the Commission. Even then, he was likely to be transferred to a different Department. So much for the government's insistence on the need for "due process". As for the Taoiseach's suggestion that no pressure had been exerted on Mr O'Keeffe to secure his resignation, the claim would be laughable, if it were not so serious. In this instance, as in so many others, Mr Ahern took action only when it was unavoidable and when his own judgment in the matter was falling under public scrutiny.