Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Finally, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has acknowledged the reality for countless numbers of citizens suffering under his ruthless and uncaring regime.
We are remembering those who died slow starving deaths in the fields around here.
Oh wait, no, he’s just acknowledging the consequences of a previous ruthless and uncaring regime.
When the suggestion was put to Labour senator Susan O’Keeffe (Late Debate) that Shatter and the Government may have been involved in a cover-up, she responded:
If you’re trying to cover up you don’t generally try to organise and appoint senior counsel to….
Oh dear, O’Keeffe seems to have forgotten that a cover-up was the principal aim of setting up the Beef Tribunal by the criminal Haughey.
And, in fact, that cover-up worked very well as O’Keeffe, as a journalist, apart from some minor players, was the only person brought before the courts as a result of its findings.
In those days she was on the other side of the fence, the side that spoke with clarity and honesty, the side that challenged the state when it was clearly involved in shady activities, the side that did not indulge in political waffle.
If the criminal Haughey was around today he would be proud of her skills of political waffle.
Letter in today’s Irish Times
EU and financial transactions tax
Sir,
A total of 11 EU member states have announced plans to introduce a financial transactions tax.
The Government has failed to opt into this process.
Some 25 leading civil society organisations have joined Claiming Our Future to call for the introduction of a financial transactions tax in Ireland.
These include the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Mandate, Impact and Siptu; Trócaire, Christian Aid and Oxfam; Feasta and Cultivate; and the European Anti Poverty Network, the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, Social Justice Ireland, and the National Women’s Council of Ireland.
The 11 member states involved in bringing forward this financial transactions tax include Germany, France, Greece and Spain. The tax would raise 0.1 per cent on trading in bonds and 0.01 per cent on trading in derivatives.
The proposal has been advanced through an “enhanced cooperation procedure”.
The Government chose not to opt into this procedure and has played no role in the development of this initiative. It could have raised between €300 million and €500 million for the Irish exchequer.
We are disappointed the Government did not take the opportunity to make the financial services sector contribute to the recovery of Irish society and economy.
It is extraordinary that the financial services lobby has been able to persuade the Government to opt out of this tax.
A financial transactions tax would raise much-needed revenue for the exchequer, reduce harmful economic activity by short-term speculators and high-frequency financial traders, and make resources available to invest in public services, address climate change, eliminate poverty and support development aid.
Yours, etc,
Niall Crowley
Nina Sachau
Claiming Our Future,
2/3 Parnell Square East,
Dublin 1.
I was delighted that the Sunday Times reported on my continuing efforts to bring Labour senator Denis Landy to account over his refusal to act on bribery allegations he made in July of last year.
Here’s the article in full. I’ll be coming back later with more comment.
By Mark Tighe
A Labour senator who claimed he was offered a bribe to miss a vote has refused to co-operate with a Seanad inquiry into the matter.
Last July, Denis Landy, a Tipperary based senator, told the Sunday Independent he had been offered flights and three night’s accommodation in New York if he missed a vote, and that the offer was made “in seriousness rather than jest.”
The senator said he turned down the offer, which he believed was an effort to defeat the Government on the abolition of the Seanad.
Landy has refused to elaborate on the identity of the ‘shadowy political figure’ who made the offer.
Anthony Sheridan, who runs the publicinquiry.eu blog, subsequently made a comlaint to the Gardai and the Seanad Committee on Members’ Interests about the bribe claim.
He complained Landy had failed to report the incident to the authorites or reveal who allegedly offered the bribe.
The Seanad Committee sent Mr. Sheridan the results of the investigation last month.
Deirdre Clune, the Fine Gael chair of the Committtee, said it had written to Landy last November and he responded on January 15 through a firm of solicitors asking for documentation about the complaint.
The Committee then asked Landy to attend but his solicitor replied that he did not wish to. After taking legal advice the Comittee decided to discontinue its investigation. It noted a complaint had also been filed with the Gardai.
Clune’s letter to Sheridan asked him to be aware of Section 35 of the Ethics in Public Office Act, which says disclosing information obtained under the Act is an offence.
“I interpret this as a not very subtle warning to me to make sure the Committee’s findings are not passed on to the media.” Sheridan said.
“Senator Landy’s refusal to co-operate with the Committee is contemptible. In a functional democracy he would be answering questions in a court of law.”
He said it was “risible” that the Committee could conclude “without any apparent embarrassment, that it does not have the power to investigate an alleged breach of its code by one of its members.
He said the Labour Party’s response to the incident was astonishing.
The party has previously said the incident is a matter for the senator himself. Last week its spokesman did not return calls. Landy said he had “no comment.”
After he made the bribe claim, four senators called on Landy to explain himself.
David Norris told the Seanad he wanted the truth.
“The corruption must be exposed and if it was the last thing the House did, it would be a service to the people of Ireland,” the independent senator said.
Maurice Cummins, the Fine Gael leader in the Seanad, also called for Landy to report the matter to the Gardai.
“ I hope this matter, if not already reported, will be reported immediately by senator Landy.”
My complaint to the Information Ombudsman regarding the refusal of the Department of Justice to answer a question becomes ever more bizarre.
I wrote recently about correspondence I received from the Ombudsman which effectively stated that the office had no power to investigate the Dept. of Justice.
Here’s the relevant and bizarre comment.
This Office is precluded from examining the issues you have raised in your online complaint. This exclusion includes complaints about the failure of the Department to reply to your correspondence.
This, of course, is ridiculous. If the Ombudsman cannot investigate a refusal by a Government department to answer a simple question then it has no power to do anything.
My reply:
Dear…
I would be greateful if you could answer the following questions.
What precise piece of legislation precludes your office from examining my complaint?
What precise piece of legislation precludes your office from investigating the refusal of the Department to reply to my correspondence?
Your sincerely
Anthony Sheridan
I received no reply to this correspondence so I phoned the Ombudsman’s office yesterday and spoke with the official dealing with my complaint.
The official claimed that she thought I was asking the Ombudsman to deal with the content of my question to the Dept. of Justice rather than the refusal of the Dept. to answer the question.
I pointed out to her that this explanation was contrary to her previous correspondence in which she clearly stated that the Ombudsman does not have the power to examine the Dept’s refusal to answer my question.
She promised to get back to me soonest.
And so, on it goes.
Letter in today’s Irish Times.
Sir,
There is now no doubt that in the past we got the kind of regulation that our governments and increasingly powerful business lobbyists wanted.
The Government appointed the regulator and, no doubt, outlined the job specifications, which seem to have been roughly: “A regulator is just a civil servant, he never gets high-falutin’ notions and doesn’t get in the way of big business. ”
Despite the appalling consequences of our lack of effective regulation and legislation in the past, John Bruton, the former taoiseach of a Fine Gael-led coalition, in his capacity as chairman of the IFSC, told the European Insurance Forum Conference in May 2013 that we needed to put a rein on financial regulation.
Some banks, he claimed, had handed back their licences because of oppressive regulation, regulation which was risk-averse. ome weeks later an American businessman, interviewed on an RTÉ radio news programme, candidly stated that one of the factors that attracted US investors to Ireland was our “low regulatory hurdles”.
Matthew Elderfield, while acknowledging the greatly improved staffing levels in the regulator’s office, has severely criticised the present government’s failure to implement recommendations he made before his departure from his position as financial regulator.
No doubt, as soon as the Dáil committee of inquiry has completed its work we will be promised effective legislation and a robust regulatory regime. However, powerful forces will be working openly and behind the scenes to dilute or hinder these measures.
Yours, etc,
Denis O’Donoghue,
Co Kerry
Letter in Sunday Independent 27 April.
The article referred to by the letter writer is excellent and well worth a read.
Democracy will suffer
Madam,
Credit is due in full measure to the Sunday Independent for publishing Gavin Sheridan’s critique of Minister Howlin’s FOI Bill, (Sunday Independent, April 20, 2014).
One would think that a riposte from the minister or one of his many permanent or hired advisers will be forthcoming to deal with Mr Sheridan’s damning points, as the bill is scheduled to be voted into law by our elected legislators in both Houses of the Oireachtas over the coming weeks. One however, may not want to hold one’s breath.
When the issue of escalating charges for eliciting pertinent public information is fused with the proposed abolition of Section 16 of the current law, FOI Act 1997, we are looking at the effective closing down of freedom of information in Ireland.
The minister who introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 1997, Eithne FitzGerald, levelled pointed criticism at the proposed removal of Section 16 at an FOI conference on February 27.
The new provision replacing Section 16, places the power of decision as to what information public bodies shall make public, with the institutions themselves and with the minister, who is also empowered to “revise” such information as he “thinks fit” to do so (Section 8, FOI Bill 2013).
It is hardly a coincidence that the countries with the lowest levels of corruption and malpractice are the Nordic states. These countries also have entrenched transparency laws many of which are copper-fastened by constitutional protections.
Rather than moving in that direction, thus ensuring a permanent spotlight on our publicly funded institutions, which has never been so badly needed, Minister Howlin’s two pronged attack via costs and Section 16 abolition, is radically pulling us in the opposite direction of enhanced secrecy.
His appalling reply to Mr Sheridan, that the projected multiplier costs will be of value to the “Post Office”, perhaps illuminates a mindset drunk on power and a detachment from reality via a six figure salary and a similarly inflated and publicly funded pension.
Whatever the reasons, this Bill is a grim piece of work for democracy in Ireland.
John Sullivan
PRO Democracy Protection Campaign
Dublin 7
What do corruption expert Elaine Byrne and the Anglo trial judge have in common?
Both of them are utterly clueless about the reality of how things are done in our corrupt state.
Byrne tells us that our poor white-collar crime laws must be overhauled.
Despite writing an enormous tome on the subject of corruption she remains blissfully unaware that it is the State itself that is corrupt.
It is the State that ensures that those who inhabit the Golden Circle are protected from the laws that are rigorously enforced against ordinary citizens.
She seems blissfully unaware that the State will never, ever act against white-collar crime because the State and the white-collar fraternity are joined at the hip; they are both members of the same corrupt club.
The evidence for this fact is overwhelming and is outlined in great detail in her book.
Judge Martin Nolan seems to be similarly clueless of the connection between white-collar crime and the corrupt political/administrative system that (mis) governs the country.
We can see this from his comments.
I am totally surprised that the regulator did not give some warning to Anglo Irish Bank.
It seems to me incredible that the regulator did not take advice from other state agencies. I find it incredible that red lights didn’t go off in the office.
Like Ms. Byrne he seems to be totally unaware that the so-called Financial Regulator/Central Bank does not regulate at all when it comes to white-collar crime – ever.
I don’t mean light touch regulation; I mean zilch, zero, Nada regulation when it comes to crime within the Golden Circle.
To be genuinely surprised by the behaviour of the so-called Financial Regulator judge Nolan would have to be completely unaware of the decades long failure of the various so-called Financial Regulators to act against white-collar criminals.
And perhaps that is the case, perhaps he is so unaware.
Copy to:
Elaine Byrne
Financial Regulator
On 4 March last I phoned the office of the Minister for Justice to find out the names of the Gardai who, we are told, were disciplined for their part in the penalty points scandal.
The Department refused to answer what is a very simple, very straightforward question.
On 15 April last I submitted a formal complaint to the Information Ombudsman on the matter.
Yesterday, April 25, I received the following disturbing reply from the Information Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Sheridan,
I refer to your recent complaint to this Office in connection with the Department of Justice and Equality.
The Ombudsman may investigate complaints against Government Departments and Offices, Local Authorities, the Health Service Executive, bodies within the remit of the Disability Act, 2005 and a number of additional bodies since 01 May 2013.
However, this Office is precluded from examining the issues you have raised in your online complaint. This exclusion includes complaints about the failure of the Department to reply to your correspondence.
If however, you give me your consent to do so, I can refer your correspondence directly to the Department for consideration, following which your case will be closed in this Office and no further action will be taken.
If you are happy for this Office to forward your complaint directly to the Department, please reply to this correspondence by no later than 2 May 2014.
Yours sincerely…
I have reproduced below the full text of an article in today’s Irish Times by Vincent Browne regarding the evidence given by former Financial Regulator, Patrick Neary, during the recent Anglo trial.
The article is very important because it clearly illustrates just how rotten our political/administrative system has become over recent decades.
Neary makes no attempt whatsoever to give rational replies to questions. He is supremely confident that he can say whatever he likes, no matter how ridiculous.
He knows with an arrogance bred over a long and disgraceful career that nobody, no individual, no regulatory authority, no legal authority; no State authority can touch him.
His attitude of supreme immunity from accountability sees him treat the court system and by extension the State with total contempt.
His warped attitude towards his own self-respect and the good of his country is by no means unique.
A significant percentage of those wielding power and influence in our corrupt state operate with the very same warped mindset.
The meetings not noted, the questions unasked
Vincent Browne
On Thursday, March 13th, last, Patrick Neary, the former financial regulator, gave evidence at the Anglo trial about a meeting he had with David Drumm, then chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank on September 12th, 2007.
The meeting occurred on the day after Drumm and Seán FitzPatrick (then chairman of Anglo Irish Bank) had heard from the businessman Seán Quinn that Quinn had amassed, indirectly through contracts for difference (CFDs), a 24 per cent shareholding in the bank, a situation that imperilled the viability of the bank and the Irish financial system as a whole.
Arising from that revelation, the Anglo board, according to a number of its members, directed Drumm to meet and inform the regulator of the precarious situation that had transpired. There were two meetings with Neary – on September 12th and September 27th.
No recollection
Neary had no recollection of a second meeting with Drumm. He was asked by a defence counsel, Michael O’Higgins, if he had kept a note of the meeting on September 12th, 2007, with Drumm, the meeting that he did recall. Neary said he had not kept a note of the meeting.
Asked if he kept notes of meetings in the normal course of his business, he said he did but in this case Drumm had asked could he drop in to see him as there was something he wanted to discuss privately.
It was “a special meeting of a personal nature that was [what was] conveyed to me before [Drumm] came in”.
Q: “Well I would regard personal nature like I’m having problems at home or where I’m going on holiday. I take it we’re not talking about that?”
A: “Well it allowed for that possibility.”
Q: “It did, did it?”
A: “Yes it did because I had no idea what kind of an issue a chief executive of a financial institution might come and raise with me .”
Q: “Well, could it have something to do with finance – rather than trouble at home ?”
A: “Oh, it could be to do with anything, but I got the impression that – from Mr Drumm – that this was very much an informal chat he wanted to have with me .”
Also in his evidence on Thursday, March 13th, last, he said Drumm expressed concern at that meeting about rumours “about possible holding of CFD positions against shares in the bank . . . That Mr Quinn may have held up to 10 per cent of the shares in the bank by way of CFDs”.
Worried
He said Drumm was “worried that perhaps the CFD holdings by Mr Quinn was even bigger than that but he had no way of finding out and he wanted to see what information, if any, that the authority had or was there any way we could find out”. He insisted Drumm did not inform him that Quinn’s CFDs position amounted to 24 per cent.
Neary had a meeting with Quinn subsequently, in January 2008. He was asked:
Q: “Did you ask him [about his CFD position in Anglo] ?”
A: “Well I didn’t – I didn’t ask him straight up.”
Q: “Yes?”
A: “I came about it in a way that there’s talk you may have some CFD positions, and he responded that he had CFD positions in Ryanair and in Anglo but they weren’t very large and he didn’t intend to hold them . . .
Mr Quinn is entitled to, as a private citizen, to have all the investments he wanted to have and I respect that and I didn’t feel that it would be fair or appropriate for me to tackle a person about his own personal investment portfolio.”
Neary also gave evidence about his office’s supervision of how Anglo was dealing with the crisis caused by Quinn’s CFDs, a crisis that he acknowledged in his evidence was a threat to the entire financial system.
No records
He was asked by defence senior counsel Brendan Grehan if he had kept any records of information he was receiving from the second-in-command in his office, Con Horan ( then prudential director at the regulator’s office.
He replied: “No, I did not”.
Q: “Not even as much as a diary note?”
A: “No, I did not .”
Q: “A memo?”
A: “No memo, no record whatsoever.”
Q: “Something for the file?”
A: “No record whatsoever. I believed Mr Horan would give details of what was going on for the file and would maintain the records .”
Q: “Well the strange thing , maybe just a coincidence, is that Mr Horan, it would appear, didn’t make any record or doesn’t have any record, save for a note he prepared . . . in advance of the [regulatory ] authority meeting of 23rd of July . He thinks he prepared it perhaps a day or so before that.”
A: “Okay.”
Q: “So he doesn’t have any records and you don’t have any records either?”
A: “No, I don’t have.”
© 2014 irishtimes.com