Given that @VillageMagIRE magazine is now online, a summary of the central allegation and the law and codes of conduct that Leo Varadkar is alleged to have broken. #LeoTheLeak
Varadkar is accused of leaking the GP contract that was being negotiated between govt and IMO.
Allegedly, he sent it to the President of the National Association of GPs (a rival organisation to the IMO) on 2 April, before it being finally concluded and published.
This would have given the NAGP a potential advantage relative to the IMO.
They could have used information contained in that confidential document to undermine the agreement before it was concluded and to undermine the IMO for their own benefit.
If this is accurate, and we haven't heard from Leo Varadkar yet, it would seem to be a breach of the law.
S. 7(2) of the Criminal Offences (Corruption Offences) Act 2018: “(2) An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for...
... himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence.”
It would also be a breach of the Code of Conduct for Office Holders, which states they must "observe the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties. "
And the Code of Conduct for Members of the Dáil which : "Members must not use official information which is not in the public domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of their official duties, for personal gain or the personal gain of others."
This is why we need a statement from Leo Varadkar in the Dáil on Tuesday about this matter, with opportunity for questioning from opposition TDs.
If it's accurate, it's a serious criminal offence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Leo Varadkar's statement effectively confirms the core factual allegation of @VillageMagIRE story - that he sent the document to the President of the NAGP.
Behind bluster about defamatory is an assertion that there was nothing wrong about it because info was in public domain.
But the document was not in the public domain. A press release about it was in the public domain. That's a very different thing.
Consider the messages between inner sanctum of NAGP. If they thought it was in the public domain, why did they refer to it as "very confidential"?
His suggestion that he can't be in breach of Section 7 the Corruption Offences Act 2018 because he didn't receive any benefit is inaccurate.
It expressly provides that it's an offence if you use confidential information for the advantage of "any other person."