Former councillor and cathaoirleach of Meath County Council Tommy Reilly has told an inquiry examining four allegations of alleged breaches of local government “declaration of interests” regulations that he had been “tortured for six years” over the allegations and that he had lost his livelihood as a result. The Standards in Public Office commission conducted a two-day hearing into allegations about the rezoning of land at Liscarton in which his two sons had an interest. The former councillor said that he had been lambasted “by a certain group of political figures” on Facebook and that this had devastated him and his community. Mr Reilly, who lost his seat in the Navan electoral area in last year’s local elections when he was the outgoing Cathaoirleach, told the Sipo hearing that for the first time in 63 years he was asked not to canvass because his name had been “dragged through the mud”.
The inquiry has examined how a 35-acre site at Liscarton Navan had a purchase price of €500,000 in August 2016 when it was bought by Mr Reilly’s son Kieran. The land was rezoned and its
value increased to €4.2 million. Mr Reilly’s sons Kieran and Tomás are directors of Royal Active Business Solutions Ltd. (RABS) the company owning the land. The commission has now ended its inquiry and will issue its findings in due course. Mr Reilly said he had no beneficial interest in any shape or form in the Liscarton land. He had absented himself from the meeting of the council because his son had an interest in it. “I was 100 per cent right in what I did and it ends there”.
Asked if he had made any declarations of interest in all the time he was in politics and he said he had. In relation to beneficial interest, Mr Reilly said that the legislation referred to “any person
engaged or employed” and added “I’m not engaged or employed by Kieran Reilly in properties or land”. Asked by the barrister for the inquiry whether the phrase “preferable interest” meant and Mr Reilly replied “This is the first time I saw those particular words”. Mr Curran read out a section of the legislation stating “a connected person having a preferable interest” and asked if Mr Reilly should be cognisant of that, Mr Reilly replied that he had listened to the former chief executive of the county council Jackie Maguire – “one of the best chief executives in the country” – giving her evidence last Friday had said that “after this, after the torture of me for the last six years by this stuff, would instigate a new regime where councillors once a month or once every two months and trained on this”.
The barrister also asked him how often he discussed business with his son Kieran, Mr Reilly replied “I don’t discuss business with Mr Reilly. Some years back he came to me and suggested he was going to buy a certain premises and I told him ‘you’re mad’ and he never asked me anything ever since”. He was asked again if he understood that he had an obligation to declare a conflict of interest and he replied “I explained that already and I’m not going to explain it again”.
The barrister asked “Do you understand that you have an obligation to declare a conflict of interest?” and he replied “I do now. I did know, I always knew I had to declare a conflict of interest”.
Asked about a meeting held as part of a consultation process, attended by, among others, Mr Reilly, the former councillor said that this type of meetings was meant to be exploratory and no minutes were taken. He said his name had been wrongly put down as an “applicant”. “My name was down on this, I had nothing to do with this. I had nothing to do with the planning, I had nothing to do with that land. I never set foot in that field”.
Mr Reilly said there was a lot of talk about €4 million but he said the land was there still and had never been sold, and cattle and sheep were grazing on it. The inquiry barrister said that one of the allegations against Mr Reilly was that it was inappropriate for him to attend a pre-planning consultation meeting and he replied “No way was it inappropriate because I have attended meetings
like this for years”.
Mr Reilly said that since the 2019 election he had been impugned. “From the September following that I have been tortured by a certain group of political figures. I lost my seat in the election and
they lambasted me on Facebook. This has devastated me and my community. I have lost my livelihood and for the first time in 63 years I was not asked to canvass for anybody because my name
was dragged through the public”. Mr Reilly’s evidence and cross-examination lasted 55 minutes.
In earlier evidence Kieran Reilly told the hearing that he had first become interested in buying the Liscarton land in mid-2016. He denied to the inquiry that he had not been originally listed as a
director so that he could keep his family name hidden. His brother Tomás, who also gave evidence, said he was asked by his brother to become a director in the company but did not talk to his brother about business. He also said he had no understanding why the company record showed that it owed him €15,368 since 2018 and had never discussed why he was owed that amount by his brother. He also said that while he was still a director, he had no shareholding in the company.
Summing up, Mr Curran said that what the investigation was all about was that when Mr Reilly declared his interest, what he knew about those interests. He said the commission as entitled to
consider when making its decision the timing of the purchase of the land at Liscarton, the structures around that purchase and, related to that, the funding for that purchase.
The commission chairperson Justice Garrett Sheehan said the commission would issue its findings “in due course.”
