Ethics watchdog member feared ‘credibility’ issues over rejection of Varadkar leak complaint

A key member of the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) has warned of the risk of “credibility” issues emerging for the ethics watchdog when it rejected a complaint against Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. The concerns raised by Comptroller and Auditor General Seamus McCarthy are revealed in a note dissenting from a vote by three Sipo members against holding a preliminary inquiry into Mr Varadkar’s leak of a draft medical contract.

His observations were released after The Irish Times appealed a Freedom of Information (FOI) ruling on the case to the Information Commissioner, who decides on such appeals.

“Would our arguments be enough to satisfy a judge in a judicial review proceeding (whichever way we go)?” Mr McCarthy asked in previously unreported remarks. “A court order to reconsider rejection of a complaint would be appalling, and would compromise the credibility of any subsequent decision we made. A court order to stop an inquiry would at least explain why we had no power to pursue a complaint in this matter.”

[ Analysis: Sipo disclosures about split decision not to conduct inquiry cast shadow over Taoiseach ]

A December release of FOI records showed Ombudsman Ger Deering also dissented from the vote against an inquiry. Mr Deering is a Sipo commissioner as Ombudsman but also holds the office of Information Commissioner.

Years after the Varadkar leak, there is still no end to this affair

---

Ethics watchdog member feared ‘credibility’ issues over rejection of Varadkar leak complaint

---

TD asked to clarify legal points in challenge against Sipo decision on Varadkar leak inquiry

---

Conflicting evidence and the Sipo schism opened up by Leo Varadkar’s leak defence

---

Sipo had redacted parts of the McCarthy and Deering observations. However, a binding ruling of the Information Commissioner’s office has overturned the decision on the McCarthy file. The office rejected an appeal for the Deering redactions.

The senior investigator in the Information Commissioner’s office said FOI law makes no provisions for reviews where the commissioner is potentially affected. “I have conducted the review and made a decision on it with no involvement by, or consultation with, the commissioner or the office’s internal legal services unit.”