'I did yeah, absolutely': Here's (exactly) what Niall Collins said today in response to reporters

MINISTER OF STATE Niall Collins has finally taken public questions on controversies surrounding planning applications he submitted and the sale of council land to his wife. 

Controversy has surrounded Collins over allegations surrounding the sale of land in the town of Patrickswell in 2008, when he was a member of the Dáil.

Before he was elected to the Dáil in May 2007, at a monthly Bruff local committee meeting in January 2007 that he attended, councillors opted to recommend that the sale of the land be put to a full council vote.

Collins’ wife Eimear O’Connor, a GP, had previously written to the council through her solicitor to express interest in purchasing the land.

In a recent Dáil statement, he said Collins said “in hindsight” he should not have participated in the 2007 local area meeting.

Previously, another issue around a planning application he submitted 23 years ago raised concerns, however, in another Dáil statement, he said he “met the correct planning criteria and was correctly adjudicated on”.

The opposition has continually criticised Collins and the Government for not facilitating a questions and answers session on the issues. 

Today, in what some are saying was a ‘soft relaunch’ of Collins back into the public sphere, he took part in a press conference at Government Buildings with Justice Minister Simon Harris on a new OECD report. 

Not surprisingly, much of the focus of the media event was on questioning Collins.

Here’s the transcript of the questions posed to the minister and his responses:  

Question: On your planning applications there are a couple of outstanding questions, did you know your wife had expressed interest in the site at Patrickswell for the 2007 area committee meeting and secondly, why did your planning application contain the name Niall O’Connor? 

Niall Collins: “Yeah, so there’s two two separate issues here. You’re speaking in relation to a planning application for my private house. And when that article was published, a central piece of that article had an inference or a reference to a Niall O’Connor.

“I don’t know where that came from. I outlined quite clearly in my Dáil statement in relation to that, that the planning application was made in my name, that the newspaper advertisement was in my name that the site notice was in my name that the planning permission was issued to my name.

“So where this Niall O’Connor came out of, I am at a loss, but it certainly became a big part of the story, if I can describe it at that at the time, I am completely at a loss. I just don’t know – I mean how a planning application works is when a planning application is submitted, it has to be validated and part of the validation would obviously pick up anything like that. So where it came from are how it became part of the story, I’m completely at a loss.”

Questions: And did you know your wife had expressed an interest? 

Niall Collins: “Oh I did yeah, absolutely I did yeah.”

Question: If that was the case, Minister Collins, should you not have removed yourself from that meeting? Because the Act clearly says if there is anything material to that meeting you should recuse yourself. Do you accept that that piece of information was material. And as you said in the Dáil, you shouldn’t have been there at that meeting?

Niall Collins: “Yeah, well, I was very clear. I made a detailed Dáil statement, as you know, in relation to it, and I was happy to do that. I laid out all the facts in in relation to it. I didn’t break the law. It was my judgment back then. And it’s still my judgment today that there was an allegation… “. 

Question: You didn’t think it was material to that meeting that your wife had an interest?

Niall Collins: “Well, what the documents show was that there was a number of expressions.”

Question: You didn’t think it was material to the meeting, that your wife had an interest in the land?

Niall Collins: “That was my judgement. That was my judgment at the time. But I accept…”.

Question: The law says, that’s where it comes from, that if there is anything material…

Niall Collins: “The law says in relation to pecuniary or a beneficial interest [Reporter interjection: Or material to that meeting] So it was my judgment back then that I didn’t break the law. It’s my judgment now that I didn’t break the law. I’ve been very clear in relation to that. And I laid it out inside in the Dáil.”

Question: Do you think it was material to that meeting at this point in time? 

Niall Collins: “Well, what I said was in the Dáil, and my position is, that you know, with the benefit of hindsight and given the perception that has now arisen with some that it would have been better had I had I recuse myself from the meeting. That’s what I said in the Dáil quite clearly.”

DAMIEN STORAN DAMIEN STORAN

Read Next

Related Reads

Answer Qs, survive the punches: that's how political scandals were handled. Until now it seems.

Paul Murphy makes complaint to Sipo over Niall Collins land sale controversy

Niall Collins: 'No law broken' insists junior minister in address to Dáil

Question: You’re saying that now you accept in hindsight, you should have recused yourself. Is that only because the controversy that has arisen since or do you accept now that perhaps it was the best code of practice? And then secondly, on some of the documents, it looked like another buyer had expressed interest in the site and then the name was blacked out? Were you at any stage involved? Was that your name? 

Niall Collins: “No, no, I want to be very, very clear in relation to because I’ve heard that going on and I’ve seen it going on online. I was absolutely, it was never part of, I was never purchasing the property. My wife was purchasing it with another person who subsequently decided to change their mind that they didn’t want to proceed so she proceeded on her own.”

Christina Finn, The Journal: Can I just ask about the questioning that Claire Brock was involved in with you on the Virgin Media show. She tweeted at the time that you refused to answer if the planning application submitted for your Limerick home in 2001 contained the incorrect information about where you lived at the time. Can you maybe clarify that now? I know there’s been another controversy since, but just on that issue.

And secondly, you’re taking questions here from the media. Obviously, the opposition have been pretty critical about why there wasn’t a question and answer session about all this. You’ve given two, as you say, comprehensive statements, in your view. But do you not feel that the opposition have the right to perhaps ask the questions that have been posed to you here today?

Niall Collins: “Well, I think we have to be very clear and both the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste have said this, and I personally very strongly agree with it. As ministers, we’re accountable to the Dail for our work as ministers. And I don’t think any member of Dáil Éireann has to be accountable for their personal life or certainly events that happened before they became members of the Dáil. That’s not what the Dail is about. The Dail is a legislative forum. It’s a parliament, and it’s about holding government to account.

“So in relation to my planning application, I made a very detailed statement in relation to a planning application Christina, I outlined quite clearly what the planning criteria in relation to all of that was. There was four planning criteria you had to satisfy one, I clearly satisfied two planning criteria. [TheJournal interjection: In fairness, you have dealt with that in your statement] And what I’ve said is and its the truth I’m not prepared to get into a discussion either privately or publicly in relation to my personal living circumstances at that point in time, and I think you have to respect that. And it’s up to people to make their own judgement in relation to that.”

Christina Finn, The Journal: In fairness, I think the public looks at public representatives be it in the past or present at the moment and the offices that they hold, and they expect the planning applications to be filled out in the same way that they are expected to fill them out. So do not think it’s perhaps damaging that you’re not giving accountability about why there was an incorrect address on that planning permission from 2001?

Niall Collins: “What I’ve said is and it’s up to people to make up their own minds and I have no issue with you asking it, I’ve been asked by others, but my position is that I’m not going to get into a discussion or a conversation in relation to my personal living circumstances. I think I’m entitled to that. And it’s up to people after that to make up their own minds in relation to it.”

Question: Do you not want to put the matter to bed, if you  answer this now, there will probably be far fewer questions about this going forward. By not answering your elongating the controversy.

Niall Collins: “I am not at all attempting to elongate it, I am not attempting to evade anything I’ve put put my statement out there and it’s up to people to make their own judgement in relation to it after that.”

Question: Previously on such matters questions were answered in the Dail, it does seem curious?

Niall Collins: “I made a personal statement to the Dail, a very detailed personal statement, that was my own decision. I wasn’t pushed or asked to do that. I was very, very happy to do it. But I just don’t believe that any member of the Dail should be dragged in or forced in, or that it should be a place to answer questions in relation to matters which are not pertinent. And in my instance, I’m a minister, I’m happy to be accountable as a minister to Dail Eireann and that’s a core function of our job as ministers is to be accountable for our work as ministers and for the work of government.”

Question: Even before you were a TD you were a public representative, and their obligations on public representatives in relation to disclosure in relation to, you know, if something is coming up in which they have an interest, beneficial, pecuniary or material, whatever interest, there’s an obligation on them as public representatives to declare their hand and the legislation is very clear in relation to that. So there’s no distinction between when you were a TD or before you were a TD ,as a public representative, there was an obligation on you. And the contention that’s being made by the opposition and others is that you failed in that obligation back at that meeting of the Bruff LEA in January 2007.

Niall Collins: “And again, it is not for the opposition to interrogate that that’s for another forum and that’s in train as you all well know.”