Annual Report 2007

Complaints against designated directors

The Standards Commission received a complaint about the actions of two members of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), Mr Lar Bradshaw and Mr Sean Fitzpatrick, in view of their interests in Anglo Irish Bank which is providing funding for a number of schemes in the docklands area. The complainant alleged that the two members each failed to make a statement of a material interest as required by section 17 of the 1995 Act on a number of occasions arising from decisions taken by the Authority relating to a series of developments for which Anglo Irish Bank provided funding. Each such decision took place after 1 January 2005, on which date regulations prescribing membership of the Authority as a designated directorship for the purposes of the Ethics Acts came into effect.

The complaint also concerned similar decisions taken prior to 1 January 2005 whereby participating in the decision, Mr Bradshaw and Mr Fitzpatrick were alleged to have done a "specified act", i.e., an act which is inconsistent with the proper performance of the functions of the directorship or with the maintenance of public confidence in such performance and the matter is one of significant public importance. The complaint in that regard referred to the provisions of the DDDA's code of conduct.

A designated director is required to furnish a statement of a material interest under section 17 of the 1995 Act.

The Standards Commission decided that there was no basis on which to find that Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Bradshaw were, as between themselves, connected persons. In addition, there was no basis on which to find that Anglo Irish Bank was, in relation to either Mr Fitzpatrick or Mr Bradshaw, a connected person. While it may be that both held substantial shareholdings in the bank, there was no evidence that either held 'control' of the bank. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the consequence or effect of any of the decisions complained of had the consequence or effect of conferring on either Mr Fitzpatrick or Mr Bradshaw personally a significant benefit without such a benefit also being conferred on a class of persons which is of significant size having regard to all the circumstances and of which both persons were members. Accordingly, the Standards Commission decided that there were no grounds on which to initiate an investigation into a contravention by either Mr Fitzpatrick or Mr Bradshaw of section 17 of the 1995 Act.

The Standards Commission also considered the allegation in the complaint that Mr Bradshaw and Mr Fitzpatrick had done a 'specified act' or acts by failing to abide by the Authority's code of conduct. It decided that there was no basis on which to find that a 'specified act' or acts had been done by either person. In view of its consideration of the complaint as set out above, the Standards Commission decided that the initiation of an investigation under the Ethics Acts into the matters raised in the complaint was not warranted.

Back to contents