The Players
The current owner of the site: Seamus Murphy Properties and Developments Limited, controlled by Balbriggan businessman Seamus Murphy
The proposed developer of the site: Rhonellen Developments Limited “Rhonellen” a company 100% owned by Aeneas Joseph Noonan (aka AJ Noonan, aged 46), it will buy the land from the current owner if planning permission is granted for the development
Client for development: Health Service Executive (HSE)
Lender to owner of site: NAMA
Ultimate funder for the site: Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly
The Site
Numbers 66, 68 and 70 Dublin Street, Balbriggan, North County Dublin
The Timeline
March 2011 – Fine Gael’s Dr James Reilly is appointed Minister for Health in the coalition government
August 2011 – Rhonellen expresses interest to the HSE in developing the site
September 2011 HSE “selects” Rhonellen to develop primary care centre at the site
November 2011 HSE “signs an agreement to enter into a lease for the provision of the [primary care] centre in Balbriggan”
Early 2012 – we don’t know when
“The documentation shows that initially some 200 locations were earmarked in order of priority for primary care centres by the HSE. Swords ranked 130th in this list while Balbriggan ranked 44th. The list was later narrowed down to 20 priority locations on the instructions of Ms Shortall.After the file left her office, a new list of 30 priority locations was sent by the HSE to the secretary general of the Department of Health and a special adviser to Dr Reilly.”
May 2012 Minister Reilly’s parliamentary assistant Councillor Tom O’Leary tells local newspaper, the Fingal Independent “The HSE are positively supportive of the plan. I have made representations to the appropriate authorities to move the plan forward. I understand the local doctors and the developer are anxious to submit their planning application as soon as possible”
June 2012 Minister Reilly knew that “negotiations for the purchase of the site [by whom?] were ongoing
17th July 2012 Minister Reilly announces list of 35 sites to be considered for development of primary care centres, Government announces €2.25bn stimulus plan
September 2012 Minister Shortall resigns amid accusations of strokes and innuendos of shenanigans – all denied by the any protagonist who has commented.
“[1] The selection of this site has absolutely nothing to do with me. Aaah, I believe and I understand in fact that the proceeds from any sale to Mr Noonan who is the man who is developing it, will go to NAMA. So I mean, I don’t see any benefit accruing there to Mr Murphy one way or the other. But having said all that, Mr Noonan isn’t known to me at all…[2]We believe this is now going ahead because NAMA has accepted the bid, right, so this can now go ahead subject to planning permission” Minister for Health, James Reilly speaking on the RTE Radio Pat Kenny show 3rd October, 2012 – the podcast is here and the extract above [1] starts from 1 min 40 seconds, [2] comes later in the interview
The whole James Reilly affair has only been of tangential interest on here up to now – he doesn’t appear to be doing a great job at his Department evidenced by budget overruns and criticism of the failure to deal with drug costs and consultants’ fees, his falling-out with his junior minister Roisin Shortall has rocked the Coalition and the business with the unilateral inclusion of two sites in his constituency on a 35-site list for potential care centres has a bad bouquet about it (still). However the matter has taken on a NAMA dimension with one of the sites added to the list unilaterally by Minister Reilly being said to be subject to a loan from NAMA.
The Minister for Health James Reilly was speaking yesterday on the RTE daily radio show with Pat Kenny, defending his actions with respect to the inclusion of two sites in his Dublin North constituency for the potential development of medical centres or “primary care centres”. At this juncture, it still appears uncertain why the Minister chose to unilaterally include the two sites on a list – “unilaterally” in the sense that his erstwhile junior minister Roisin Shortall had responsibility for both the list and the development of primary care centres but she objected to the late inclusion of the two sites in the Minister’s constituency. What is unclear on here is that in the timeline drafted above, the HSE had – between September and November 2011 – agreed for the site in Balbriggan to be developed, so it remains confused why Minister Shortall had overseen a 20-site shortlist in “early 2012” which excluded the Balbriggan site.
Minister Reilly has been accused of “stroke politics” by his former junior minister and even senior party colleagues have suggested the Minister’s actions might be questionable – “stroke” for the non-Irish audience is synonymous with “fast one” as in “pulling a fast one” with the objective of deriving a direct or indirect personal benefit. In this present context “stroke” might approximate to what the American audience know as “pork barrelling” – political decisions aimed at bringing money into a representative’s constituency which strengthens the prospects of that representative keeping their job. Minister Reilly denies that his decision to include the site was taken so as to benefit him.
Seamus Murphy (67) is a well-known businessman from Balbriggan and is the managing director of Murphy Concrete (Manufacturing) Limited and it is he who presently owns the site at 66,68 and 70 Dublin Street, Balbriggan. He has a property company called Seamus Murphy Properties and Developments Limited. Apparently the site was used as an election base for James Reilly in 2007 and possibly in 2011. It is stated by Minister Reilly that NAMA controls the site and that if the site is sold for use by the Department of Health or the HSE, then it is NAMA which will receive all the proceeds and not Seamus Murphy.
Reading the transcript of Minister Reilly’s defence in the Dail yesterday, there are still questions outstanding, namely
(1) If the HSE had selected the site for development in 2011, and entered into an agreement with Rhonellen to develop the site in November 2011, then how is Minister Shortall’s famous 20-site list created in early 2012 even relevant ? It is arse-backways to enter into an agreement to develop a site and then subsequently to draw up a list of prioritised sites that excludes that same site!
(2) How does Minister Reilly know that all the proceeds from any sale by Seamus Murphy will go to NAMA. For the sake of argument, say Seamus Murphy has a loan of €100,000 secured by the building and he sells it to Rhonellen for €500,000. It would in this entirely illustrative example be the case that Seamus Murphy would personally benefit, he has a loan! In order for Minister Reilly to state otherwise, he would presumably need to have knowledge of the deal, not just what the HSE was paying Rhonellen but what Rhonellen was paying Seamus Murphy. Minister Reilly would also need know the amount outstanding on the NAMA loan.
(3) Was there any contact between NAMA and Minister Reilly or people working for him or at his behest, and if there was any contact, what was the nature of it. Remember NAMA is supposed to have strict anti-lobbying rules which involve severe criminal sanction. Obviously NAMA is involved in the sale transaction as the lender, but what is the precise nature of that or any other involvement.
If there is “nothing to see here” as Minister Reilly claims, then the following are ineluctable conclusions (1) Minister Reilly is a dreadful communicator, his defence is sparse on tangible detail and abundant with assertions of innocence. The Minister says “I had no discussions with him [Seamus Murphy] about the primary care centre and I have absolutely no role in the selection of a site” but it was Minister Reilly who chose the inclusion of the site on his list of sites to be developed! And surely it is Jesuitical to insist that it is in fact the HSE which selects potential sites when it was Minister Reilly who chose to include the site on a list to be developed when it was formerly at position 44 and seemingly not on the list to be developed (2) His communication failings extend to close-quarter communication with his erstwhile junior minister.
This is the Minister with overall spending responsibility for a €13bn annual budget who needs to make and deliver tough decisions which will require more than just average communication skills which the Minister just doesn’t have.
This episode clearly shows our cute hoor political culture for what it is – corrupt and discriminatory. I can see no difference between this carry on and the naked discrimination that was practiced in Northern Ireland fought by the Civil Rights movement. People in the skipped over priority areas identified by reference to need must feel as if they are in Missippi pre-1960s! If this happened in a developing country we would be tut-tutting over the violation of the basic rights of those who are being discriminated against. Yet a senior political correspondent in the paper of record todaysuggests that this is almost commendable behaviour and what is expected of a good local politician! Is this where the moral compas of our society is pointing? Jesus wept.
Knowing first-hand the culture in the HSE, I can tell you that EVERY relevant official/manager/administrator will seek desperately to find evidence to back up whatever Minister Reilly says. The culture of whistle-blowing is completely foreign and staff see it as a form of self protection and are very deferential to authority.
@Grumpy, typo fixed, thanks!
@Bunbury, this whole matter really lies outside the scope of this blog though the fact it is a NAMA site makes it more relevant. Having said that, and because our mainstream media seems to be running around like headless chickens more concerned with catastrophising about “stroke politics” and the conniptions in the Labour party, might you look at the questions below and see if you might be able to provide responses. The questions hardly touch on state secrets, but more on the way business is conducted at the Dept of Health and the HSE. “site” below means the 66,68,70 Dublin Street Balbriggan property currently owned by Seamus Murphy and which is the subject of the all the furore.
(1) If the HSE signed the agreement to develop the site in November 2011, then why is it a surprise that it is now on a list to be developed? Both Minister for Health Reilly and Minister of State for Primary Care Shortall were appointed to their posts in March 2011, so presumably Minister Shortall was aware of the signing of this agreement in November 2011 and therefore shouldn’t have been surprised that it was being developed.
(2) But why would the HSE sign an agreement to develop a site that was at Number 44 in the priority list, when presumably it hasn’t signed agreements for Numbers 1-43?
(3) If the site was at position 44 before 17th July 2012 but was bumped up to be in top-35 on 17th July 2012, then which sites were bumped down the list? How can these sites be identified?
(4) Why is there not uproar from representatives of constituencies where the sites bumped down the list are located?
(5) When the Govt announced the €2.25bn stimulus programme on 17th Jul 2012, surely it made sense to increase from 20 to 35, the number of sites for development with the extra cash available.
(6) Is the real reason Roisin Shortall resigned, that Min Reilly bumped Balbriggan from position 44 on the priority list to top-35 without giving her an explanation? So Minister Reilly’s crime is not *selecting* sites for the 200-site priority list which is indeed the HSE’s job, but his “crime” is *bumping up* sites?
(7) Who gave the HSE the go-ahead to sign agreement to develop the site in November 2011? Presumably it was the Department of Health which has overall control for the HSE’s budget?
(8) On what basis was the go-ahead given by the Department of Health to the HSE to sign the agreement in November 2011 to develop the site, Number 44 on the priority list, when there were 43 sites higher up on that list.
Reblogged this on Machholz's Blog and commented:
We have a clear conflict of interest in others words a Minister looking after his buddies! >But this is so blatant that the minister hasn’t even bothered to hide it .Looking after the insider elite is the name of the game and if you are on the outside like the rest of us you shrub and scrape all your life and still end up getting screwed by the same Bas****s. Stroke politics and corrupt practices and insiders been looked after it’s all here!
Wake up Ireland and kick out these public servant leeches!
It is pretty certain that, if the current pressure continues, Bottler will produce the criteria he used to select the sites. He just hasn’t written it yet.
Given what Bunbury said above, it’s probably safe to assume the lackies are working furiously on suitable criteria as we speak.
I guess that’s how the distraction works – i forgot to say above …
Meanwhile, any mention of State-owned AIB handing over €1bn to shady bondholders disappears from the national media.
If, as he claims, the Minister expanded the criteria for selecting centres, were these new criteria also applied to the original top twenty centres? If so, what impact did this have on the top 20 list and were the resultant changes documented? If the list of top 20 centres was not updated then it is obvious that the sole purpose of the extended criteria was to “cook the List”.
@ Bunbury
Might as well sit back and enjoy the panto ….oh yes he did….oh no he didn’t..
The whole thing stinks to high heaven. What I find worse though is the attempt to shut the issue down. It’s the classic bully boy tactics with dashes of sexism, arrogance, group think, straw men and general bluster. The problem for all concerned though is that the electrote has moved on from the guy/gal with 15 minutes of RTE news a day on there way out to eat at a nice restaurant. Politics is no longer a bit of a laugh, not now that the waves of crisis having engulfed the young, boom buyers and less educated begin to break near the state classes.
@NWL
suspect typo:
“when it was Minister Reilly whose [close] ? to include the site on a list to be developed when it was formerly at position 44 and seemingly not on the list to be developed (2) His communication failings extend to close-quarter communication with his erstwhile junior minister.”
@grumpy
suspect typo:
“[close]?” chose?
It is well past time that Bottler fell on his Swords.
[...] [...]
@NWL
To our knowledge was the Balbriggan site the only one in the country to be given agreement to develop in 2011?
Was Shortall aware of this?
Is this the first time that it has come to light that the site was a constituency office of the Health Minister. If thats true, its a smoking gun.
Was the old constituency office of the minister the only site in the country to get a go ahead for development before the list was drawn up?
How much did James Reilly pay in rent to to the owner of the site while it was used as his office?
‘For the sake of argument, say Seamus Murphy has a loan of €100,000 secured by the building and he sells it to Rhonellen for €500,000. It would in this entirely illustrative example be the case that Seamus Murphy would personally benefit, he has a loan! In order for Minister Reilly to state otherwise, he would presumably need to have knowledge of the deal, not just what the HSE was paying Rhonellen but what Rhonellen was paying Seamus Murphy. Minister Reilly would also need know the amount outstanding on the NAMA loan.’
And Seamus Murphy was paying NAMA…
is Seamus Murphy being sued by NAMA, or is NAMA paying him a wage?
is the original loan bank state owned?
@JR, not sure where you are coming from, but to be clear, there is no record of any application by NAMA in the High Court where Seamus Murphy or any company associated with him is named as a respondent, so in answer to your question, NAMA is NOT suing Seamus Murphy.
Is NAMA paying Seamus Murphy a wage? Who knows – NAMA is paying nearly 200 developers a wage, or more accurately is allowing developers take a set wage out their company’s overheads which may be funded by NAMA or from income generated by the developer company.
Is the original loan bank, state-owned? Well all of the loans acquired from NAMA were from state-owned banks – Anglo, INBS, EBS, AIB which are 99-100% state-owned and Bank of Ireland which is nominally 15% state-owned but with the preference shares stakes, it is practically state-controlled.
Just a little addition to your timeline which may be relevant. On April 30th 2012
Minister Reilly (along with Tom O’Leary and others) met with the chairs of the regional health fora in the HSE where, amongst other items:
“The roll out of new primary care centres (buildings) was also
discussed at the meeting and the Minister gave a brief outline of his
determination to deliver on the programme for government in relation
to Primary Care Centres in the community.”
http://www.billtormey.ie/2012/05/09/hse-forums-meet-minister-dr-reilly/
@ NWL
“He has a property company called Seamus Murphy Properties and Developments Limited. Apparently the site was used as an election base for James Reilly in 2007 and possibly in 2011″
I think you might be wrong on this. It looks to me (when I checked street view on Google maps) like the property is a Texaco Garage. I doubt they used a texaco garage as a constituancy office
@Eamonn,
“The minister’s spokesman confirmed number 70 was used as a base during the 2007 General Election, but could not say if it was used after that”
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/reilly-backer-owns-controversial-primarycare-site-3248674.html
I don’t suppose any kind member of the audience on here has a current photograph of the buildings in question….
@ eamonn
If you have another look at google street view, the properties are across the road from the Texaco garage. One has a sign on it saying “Acquired by Seamus Murphy for future development”.
@nwl, I think the accusation of ‘stroke’ politics by R.Shortall was because of the addition of the additional PCC’s in the ministers constituency; different lists with different priorities &c &c.
If NAMA aren’t suing S.Murphy, there may be cooperation and even perhaps an agreed salary between NAMA & Murphy. The Minister bumping this particular ‘Site’ up the PCC list assists his FG site owner colleague (Murphy) in his dealings with NAMA, regardless of who the intermediary is.
Puzzle me this, regardless of the two extra PCC’s for any given constituency, is the connected ‘site’ the only site available in the given constituency for a PCC? No other PCC proposals in the given constituency or the adjoining ones?? What else, (besides a mate owning it) is so special about this site?
[...] [...]
@ NWL
Just reading the queries above now. I obviously wouldn’t post from work; I don’t want an ‘Enda Farrell and NAMA’ event.
I think I’ll have to write to you at the private email address when I get a chance to think about this.
Just a few initial comments:
(a) The Department of Health has no role whatsoever in property purchase or disposal in the HSE. A HSE property committee decides on purchases/disposals under €2m and anything over that goes to the HSE Board only. Actually, no one really knows what the role of the Department of Health is at the moment or what all those Civil Servants actually do on a day-to-day basis.
(b) HSE staff I’ve spoken to just think Roisin Shortall was very stupid and her real reason for resigning is probably a personality clash with Minister Reilly or a more widespread dissatisfaction with the Labour Party/Government. Sad to say but everyone recognises that what Reilly did was just standard stroke politics and she should have found something stronger on which to make a stand.
(c) It is difficult to convey just how unprofessionally the HSE operates at all levels. Any list that ever existed of Primary Care Centres could have been amended by two managers meeting in the corridor. Costings for projects or ‘business cases’ are a joke and are generally prepared by Service staff (e.g. a Nurse Manager, or a manager/administrator) who would have no training in accounting or finance. They are produced after the fact to justify what has been decided.
(d) Individual HSE managers have enormous scope to make decisions off their own bat and, at the top, the organisation operates very much like a club. I can imagine that Minister Reilly simply spoke to the then relevant National Director and urged him to buy this site in his constituency. We do not know how many such sites have been bought all over the country on the basis that they might be developed as Primary Care Centres. Some of these may never see media light shed on them. Because Primary Care is seen as a necessary and important policy it can be used to justify all sorts of decisions. All the HSE need is a valuation from a ‘friendly’ valuer to justify buying a particular building. You’ll always be able to find positives to justify the purchase of any property.
And they know the fuss will all die down -in time .Distract Pat Kenny & Co. with something else(like R.Quinns proposal for reforming the junior cert) Remember the huge money payed for a field to build a new prison?. It was bought from a relation of Senator O Toole. We never did get to the bottom of that one either!!!!!!
As long as there are empty pockets and brown bags there will be “stroke” politics. This “looking after one’s own” is therefore not unusual and compared to the scandal of the HSE’s purchase of high priced brand name drugs is small potatoes.
In the UK generic drugs account for 80% of all drugs purchase by the National Health system. In the USA (the home of entrepreneurial incentives) it is 63%.
In Ireland we have doctors, consultants and the HSE insisting of brand name drugs rather than prescribing them on a generic basis. Why? Because the drug companies concerned take them (and their wives) on round-the-world trips to the best hotels in exotic locations for 7 days as a “thank you” for doing so.
These trips are explained away as seminars or conferences – but are in reality simply bribes. When they arrive at Las Vegas, Bali or wherever, the wives and sometimes the family too, are presented with credit cards to which purchases at local hotels and nominated shops can be booked free of charge.
Now, why would the recipients of this largesse prescribe those cheap and nasty generic drugs? Better to let the taxpayer lift the extra cost and look forward to next year’s trip to Hawaii.
[...] [...]
Hi namawinelake,
I’ve only just come upon this feature page following today’s Journal.ie story. However I think I can answer some of the questions posed and correct some incorrect statements due to a little knowledge of how the PCC process has developed since 2006.
Firstly the process is not new and didn’t start with the minister’s list of 35 locations. Already nearly 40 centres have been developed across the country under a PPP process whereby the centres are developed and funded privately and whereby the HSE and other interested parties will rent. Significantly there has been no state capital investment. Also in response to Eamonn I suspect that agreement was reached on other sites around the country in 2011 for PCCS to be built and not just Balbriggan. However these would of course not have been be located in the minister’s constituency and therefore have caught no attention!
However the overall PCC process has been very slow in bearing fruit due to difficulties relating to the emergence of the recession, survival of developers, acquisition of finance, acquisition of sites, willingness of GPs to become involved, ability to agree lease with HSE etc. – Indeed it would seem that is was for these reasons that the Government/DOH/Minister/Minister of State decided to introduce a ‘Stimulus Package’ whereby there would state funding and direct state capital expenditure in certain chosen locations in order to progress the roll-out of PCCs around the country (after all 200 of these were originally envisaged in 2006!). From this original list of 200 the new list of 35 locations was born as the first locations which could possibly benefit from the stimulus package with the aim of building a further 20 PCCs (in 2 tranches of 10).
Now this is the important point and answers and negates some of the questions raised above. It is simply that the PCC currently being proposed in Balbriggan has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dr. Reilly’s list of 35 locations. The developer has agreed to purchase the site from the owner and this has been subsequently approved by NAMA (as the site is under their administration). The developer has also agreed a lease with the HSE for the HSE to take up space within the PCC and also with GPs (presumably) to move their practice(s) to the PCC. This has all been agreed in principal subject to PP prior to the current list of 35 being drawn up and released. As it stands now the list of 35 has no bearing on whether this PCC will be built. If for some reason Balbriggan was removed from the list of 35 tomorrow this PCC would still proceed!
By the same token it is not because of the list of 35 locations that this centre will be built but rather because of the PCC process that was started and is ongoing for the roll-out of PCCs since 2006. All of this seems to have been lost/misunderstood/ignored in the media furore that has evolved since Roisin Shorthall raised her concerns and then later resigned. This explanation goes some way to answering your 3 questions below as (a) the list of 35 and (b) the HSE signing a lease for the site in Balbriggan are 2 completely different processes:
(1) If the HSE signed the agreement to develop the site in November 2011, then why is it a surprise that it is now on a list to be developed? Both Minister for Health Reilly and Minister of State for Primary Care Shortall were appointed to their posts in March 2011, so presumably Minister Shortall was aware of the signing of this agreement in November 2011 and therefore shouldn’t have been surprised that it was being developed.
(2) But why would the HSE sign an agreement to develop a site that was at Number 44 in the priority list, when presumably it hasn’t signed agreements for Numbers 1-43?
(3) If the site was at position 44 before 17th July 2012 but was bumped up to be in top-35 on 17th July 2012, then which sites were bumped down the list? How can these sites be identified?
I do admit that the media coverage of all of this has been very confusing as the issue is indeed confusing! Dr. Reilly may well have ‘bumped up’ Balbriggan on the list but it’s effect on the PCC being built is negligible and it confuses as to what end it was done.
Finally, again you ask as follows:
(8) On what basis was the go-ahead given by the Department of Health to the HSE to sign the agreement in November 2011 to develop the site, Number 44 on the priority list, when there were 43 sites higher up on that list.
Where it was on that list – whether 1, 44,144 or 244 doesn’t matter as Balbriggan was original chosen in 2006 along with 200 or so other locations around the country where PCCs could be developed. That was the original list of 200 priority locations and it was the only list the HSE would have been working from when the lease was signed in November 2011. In that list none of the locations were rated above one another as the original priority list of 200 was not ranked – centres were picked on the basis of having a suitable site, a willing developer with finance in place, willing GPs and of course the HSE were able to agree a lease with the developer. (I don’t know when the original list of 200 became ranked however!)
While this does not answer the broader issues including NAMA’s role I hope it will help clarify some of your questions.
@Fabre, thank you for your message and I am still studying it, but given your apparent authority in this area, have you any view on the following response to a parliamentary question from the Sinn Fein finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty last week
Deputy Pearse Doherty: To ask the Minister for Health if he will provide in tabular form a list of public private partnership arrangements entered into, in 2010, 2011 and to date in 2012, for the provision of premises and related facilities; the name of the partner/developer; the address of the site or premises; the duration of the agreement and the estimate of the total payments to be made by the State for the duration of the agreement..
Minister for Health, James Reilly: No public private partnership arrangements have been entered into in 2010, 2011 or to date in 2012.
Yes it is confusing isn’t is. I believe it’s got to do with what exactly a PPP is? I’ve seen coverage (SBP I think) where 3 processes were described – (1) leasing, (2) PPP (list of 35?) and (3) direct state purchase (for areas of most deprivation)
it would seem from Dr. Reilly’s reply above and from other comments he has made in the last 3 weeks that he doesn’t term the original process dating from 2006 as a PPP arrangement but rather a lease arrangement. 2 or 3 times he has said that a PCC will be built in Balbriggan by lease arrangement (not widely focused on or picked up by the media).
Technically this is true as no public spend will be put into the project just an agreement from the HSE to rent the space and so it’s not a partnership arrangement. Pearse Doherty’s question was a very good one but asked incorrectly imho. Also my use of ‘PPP’ above is most likely wrong too but rather ‘leasing process’ should have been used
[...] commercial relationship. Namawinelake has an interesting take on the Rhonellen/HSE relationship The health minister, the owner, the developer, the development, the HSE and NAMA | NAMA Wine Lake Sign in or Register Now to [...]