Regulatory Agencies – Page 10

Wallace corruption confirms Ireland as an intrinsically corrupt state

It has always been the core claim of Public Inquiry that Ireland is an intrinsically corrupt state.

This claim is based on the fact that, unlike functional democracies, the Irish political system does not recognise or act against powerful and influential people when they are found to be involved in corruption.

This is not an opinion, it is a verifiable fact that can be confirmed by simply taking a look at how the endless incidences of corruption over the last four decades were or were not dealt with.

The acceptance of corruption as a normal part of Irish political life by the body politic has resulted in the disease spreading into every area of public and private life.

In particular, the spread of the disease into the administrative, regulatory, banking/financial/business sectors has resulted in very serious damage to the best intersts of Ireland and its people.

No action whatsoever has been taken to eradicate the disease for one simple but deadly reason.

The current body politic, that introduced and allowed the disease to fester, is still in power and is still putting its own interests and the interests of its friends and supporters before the interests of the Irish people.

The Wallace corruption scandal is just the latest example of how the corrupt system protects its own and demonstrates how the disease has negatively affected other sectors of socitey like the media and ordinary citizens.

Every incidence of political corruption that has gone unpunished, big and small, over the past four decades or so has chipped away at the credibility, trustworthiness and moral worth of those who inhabit the ruling body politic.

The system has become so corrupt, so dysfunctional that even those independents, elected by the Irish people in a desperate cry for even a semblance of honesty and accountability, have abandoned the people in favour of the corrupt system.

The credibility, honesty and trustworthiness of Irish politicians now stands at zero.

The damage they are causing to Ireland and its people is immense and ongoing.

While the Wallace corruption scandal is just the latest in a long line of such incidences it is worth analysing in detail because it clearly exposes what Public Inquiry has been claiming for many years – Ireland is an intrinsically corrupt state.

Let’s start with Wallace’s admission on live radio that he knowingly broke the law, that is, he knowingly carried out a corrupt act.

I under declared the VAT in the hope that…

What do you mean you under declared the VAT?

When I sent in the VAT returns I didn’t declare all the VAT I owed because I would have been put out of business there and then.

By accident or on purpose?

On purpose.

I made what I thought, even though it was illegal, I thought it was the right thing to do

These are the words that law enforcement agencies, politicians, ordinary people and, indeed, Mick Wallace himself should focus on and nothing else.

Once the ramifications of Wallace’s admission of illegality are dealt with, once the State, on behalf of the people, have brought him to justice, then the nation can indulge in endless analysis on the pros and cons of his behaviour.

Sadly, because Ireland is an intrinsically corrupt state, because there’s hardly a single politician with enough courage or integrity to stand up for Ireland and its people, no action will be taken against this renegade politician.

And because of that the people of Ireland will continue to suffer from the destructive disease of corruption.

Copy to:

Mick Wallace
All political parties
Independent TDs

Included below the Wallace interview of 7th June on Morning Ireland.

How are you going to pay the 2.1 million to owe to the taxman?

At the moment the company would be deemed insolvent and since the ACC moved on us in October and got this €19.4 million judgement agaisnt us we have been unable to get work

Up to that point I had been in an agreement with Revenue. I had made the declaration back in 2010 and I was paying so much a month.

But after ACC moving on us we were no longer able to get work so it’s unlikely that Revenue will get the money.

So you don’t think this money will be paid?

That would be my honest opinion.

Where does that leave you as a TD?

Well, Mick Wallace and Wallace Construction are two separate entities.

Mick Wallace does have a tax clearance cert, Wallace Construction doesn’t.

To the best of my understanding of the law Mick Wallace is allowed to have a tax clearance cert provided his tax affairs are completely in order which they are on a personal level.

Is this not your company?

It is my company, yes.

So how can you separate the two?

Well, if you understand company law. Wallace Construction, a limited company of which I am the managing director of and Mick Wallace the private individual is a separate entity. T

hat’s just the law, I didn’t make it up.

Do you believe that your are in any way personally liable for this €2.1 million tax bill?

I do feel responsible for it, I do not feel good about it.

Owing money to banks who took gambles by giving me the money the same as I took gambles by borrowing it…and I’m far from proud to be owing the Revenue money.

I had a very successful business, I didn’t go mad. A banking crisis arrived and my property value dropped dramatically.

I did my best to try and keep the company afloat. I could have just thrown the keys at the banks and everybody else at the time and walked away from it. It has been very difficult trying to keep it going but I tried but I have failed.

The economic crisis has proved too much for my company.

Just to be clear, the settlement that we’re referring to and when we say settlement that’s an agreement on a figure rather than the bill actually being paid, is this settlement with the company or with you?

With the company. The story behind the money was €1.4 million in VAT. I sold apartments and the money that was coming in all went to the banks because the deposits had originally been used for ongoing business and the money wasn’t there for the VAT because the banks were taking their maximum, we weren’t able to pay it.

I under declared the VAT in the hope that…

What do you mean you under declared the VAT?

When I sent in the VAT returns I didn’t declare all the VAT I owed because I would have been put out of business there and then.

By accident or on purpose?

On purpose. Obviously I was wrong to do so but I did so thinking that I could pay the VAT the following year.

If I had put it down at the time I would have been put out of business there and then. There wouldn’t have been any deals with the Revenue at that time.

I thought I could save the company and pay my VAT the following year but obviously when you’ve reached the point where I felt that that prognosis wasn’t going to work I made my declaration to the Revenue.

The Revenue came in then and examined all our books and they found that the declaration we made was accurate and then we asked to try continue trading and agreed that we would pay so much a month and that we did for over a year up to the point where ACC took the judgement against me in November 2011.

The €19.4 million people just to remind people.

Yes, and that was an end to the company because we were no longer solvent and were finished trading.

How many people apart from you are liable to pay the €2.1 million bill to Revenue, are there other directors involved?

No, just myself.

What would you say to people listening to you saying you owe €2.1 million to the taxman, that you knowingly declared a false VAT declaration, are you a fit person to remain in the Dail?

Well, obviously I believe I am. I acknowledge I was wrong but I did it in good faith.

I really did believe that I would have been able to pay the VAT and I was trying to save the company.

I had 60 people working for me, I was trying to save their jobs, I was dealing with four banks that were putting incredible pressure on me. It was a difficult decision to make at the time.

I made what I thought, even though it was illegal, I thought it was the right thing to do.

In hindsight it would have been better if I had just let the company go at the time.

State secrecy: A powerful and extremely destructive weapon

On 31st January last I rang the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) to inquire whether the Bailey brothers case was still ongoing.

Over the years I have made many such calls to the ODCE to check on the progress of various cases.

My questions were always basic – Was the case still active, how was it progressing, if it was complete what was the outcome and so on. Invariably, my questions were answered and I was happy enough.

On this occasion the shutters were pulled down.

The ODCE refused to answer even the most basic of questions and when I persisted I had secrecy legislation quoted to me as justification for refusing to answer questions.

I submitted my questions in writing to the ODCE and received, by post, a letter from an Assistant Principal Officer informing me that not only would my questions not be answered but that the ODCE did not have tell me, or anyone else, whether a specific company or individual was even under investigation.

It was obvious from the content of this letter and the tone of phone converstations with ODCE staff that the submission of a Freedom of Information request would be a waste of time so, instead, I made a formal complaint to the Ombudsman.

To my surprise the Ombudsman said that she could not examine complaints concerning the ODCE as it was outside the remit of her office.

I was advised to contact the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for assistance.

My request to this state agency was also met with a brick wall. I was informed that the Department did not have the authority to instruct the ODCE to disclose information.

So, in summary:

The ODCE refuses to provide even the most basic information regarding its activities, citing secrecy legislation.

The Ombudsman has no power to compel him to release any information.

The government department/minister under which the ODCE operates is also powerless to act.

This, in effect, makes the ODCE an untouchable State agency. No authority in the land possess the power to question its decisions.

Not even a High Court judge can question its activities.

This was highlighted recently when Mr. Justice Peter Kelly was firmly and publicly rebuked by the DPP for having the temerity to challenge the ODCE’s handling of the ‘investigation’ into Anglo Irish Bank.

This granting of absolute and unquestioning power to a State agency poses serious dangers not just to Ireland and its people but also to the officials working within that agency.

If an official was suffering from some sort of personal crisis, say, for example, an addition to gambling, he would be extremely vulnerable to exploitation from any number of sources intent on perverting the course of justice.

If an official, observing that he is subject to little or no oversight and that his actions/decisions are protected by an impenetrable wall of secrecy laws, could easily exploit the situation to his own advantage.

If an official was beholden to a political party for his position he could find himself coming under pressure not to pursue a case against a friend of that party.

I want to stress that I am not for a moment suggesting that anyone within the ODCE is involved in any such activity.

I am making the point that such activities are a reality in every country in the world and Ireland is no exception.

All humans are vulnerable to such dangers and it is because of such vulnerability that functional democracies ensure that a system of checks and balances are in place which are designed to protect the office holder, the state and its citizens.

Checks and balances such as a proper Freedom of Information Act and a strong, independent oversight authority with the power to demand answers from government agencies that are clearly unable or unwilling to do their jobs properly.

Ireland does not and never has had such checks and balances in place.

If such checks and balances were in place in Ireland no State authority would be allowed to refuse to say if an individual or company was under investigation or not.

Such basic and completely harmless information is immediately and unquestionably available in all functional democracies.

If such checks and balances were in place in Ireland no State authority would be allowed to endlessly prolong investigations into the activities of powerful and influential people.

The key sentence in the letter I received from the ODCE is:

I regret that it is not possible to make public details of any of our cases, nor even to discuss whether a specific company or individual is actually under investigation by the Office (my emphasis). This is because of the statutory duty of confidentiality imposed on the Director of Corporate Enforcement and his officers under Section 17 of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.

I do not accept that the State/ODCE has the right to take upon itself the power of such absolute secrecy and, at the same time, claim Ireland is a functional democracy.

The denial of such basic information by a state agency moves the scandal from one of routine investigation into alleged corruption to that of a serious abuse of power by a State agency.

The assumption by the ODCE of such draconian power, whether legitimate or misguided, places Ireland within that category of undemocratic states where the interests of the state and its friends are deemed to be more important than the interests of ordinary citizens.

The methods used may differ but the results are exactly the same – the complete denial to citizens of any information whatsoever.

Citizens living in such undemocratic state are denied the right to know what their government/state agencies are doing, or perhaps more importantly, not doing in their name.

Such absolute denial of information, has the effect, whether intentional or not, of protecting the corrupt and the interests of those who benefit from protecting the corrupt.

And we can see, by even the most cursory examination of the hundreds of scandals over the past few decades, that in practically every case it is the corrupt who win out and Ireland’s reputation and ordinary citizens who pay the price.

Unwarranted and unexplained delay, in addition to absolute secrecy, is also a feature of the dysfunctionality of Ireland’s administrative system.

Again, whether intentional or not, secrecy and delay have the undeniable effect of protecting the corrupt and, as a consequence, damaging the best interests of Ireland and its people.

Despite claims by politicians and officials, the Bailey brothers case is not particularly complicated. The facts of the case have already been well established.

Briefly; the Bailey brothers:

Made a corrupt payment to a politician and to a civil servant.

Obstructed and hindered an Oireachtas tribunal on several occasions.

Gave false evidence under oath.

Engaged in massive tax evasion.

There is not the slightest doubt that if such activities were engaged in in a functional democracy the case would have been dealt with immediately by the police and courts and would almost certainly have resutled in long jail sentences.

In Ireland the ODCE has been ‘investigating’ for over six years with the absolutely minimal aim of banning the Bailey brothers from acting as company directors for a limited period of time.

Yet here we are, more than six years into the case, and not even a hint of accountability.

In functional democracies similarly long delays would attract strong and persistent questioning from media, opposition politicians, Government ministers and ordinary people.

The enforcement authority in charge of the case would, at the very least, be forced to provide a comprehensive explanation for any serious delay.

It is an undeniable fact that the legal maxim; justice delayed is justice denied, which is accepted in all functional democracies, does not operate in Ireland when it comes to investigating the activities of powerful and influential people.

Of the very many serious cases of corruption over the previous few decades involving powerful people I can think of none that were dealt with in a quick and efficient manner.

In practically all these cases those involved were never brought to justice. The indications are that the current investigations into the activities of certain bankers will result in the same predictable outcome.

But the core point I want to make here is that, unlike all functional democracies, Ireland bestows absolute power on senior individuals within its enforcement agencies.

In Ireland there is no oversight of such individuals, no state authority has the power to effectively question their decisions, motives or agendas.

No politician, even if they had the courage or will, can, it seems, challenge the activities of such individuals.

Just last week we witnessed the latest episode in the Bailey brothers scandal when NAMA, another state agency bestowed with draconian secrecy powers, refused to answer questions regarding the granting of €13 million in funding to a company controlled by the brothers.

Fianna Fail TD and chairman of the Public Acccounts Committee, John McGuinness, said that the taxpayer was entitled to precise and accurate information regarding deals done by NAMA.

This is incorrect.

NAMA, the ODCE, the Financial Regulator and indeed most government agencies operate under an oppressive cloak of draconian secrecy laws which are specifically designed to avoid releasing precise and accurate information.

Whether intentional or not these secrecy laws provide watertight and ongoing protection to the corrupt individuals and organisations that have brought Ireland to the edge of ruin.

State secrecy is a powerful and extremely destructive weapon that causes serious damage to the best interests of Ireland and its people.

Copy to:
ODCE
Ombudsman
Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

I have included below the replies to my queries from the ODCE, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Ombudsman.

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

Your request for information has been passed to me for attention. Your request was in three parts:

• Is the ODCE currently engaged in proceedings or any other action against Michael and Thomas Bailey, directors of Bovale Developments?
• If such proceedings are in place what stage are they currently at?
• If they are complete what was the outcome?
I regret that it is not possible to make public details of any of our cases, nor even to discuss whether a specific company or individual is actually under investigation by the Office. This is because of the statutory duty of confidentiality imposed on the Director of Corporate Enforcement and his officers under Section 17 of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001:

17.-(1) Information obtained by virtue of the performance by the Director of any of his or her functions which has not otherwise come to the notice of the public, (ODCE emphasis) shall not be disclosed, except in accordance with law, by any person…
As certain information is in the public domain, you already have access to that information, as it is available on our website. To facilitate you, I have replicated below the information already published.
• Press Statement dated 31 August 2006 at PART I
• High Court Judgement dated 1 November 2007
• Supreme Court Judgements 14 July 2011
• High Court Judgement of 1 November 2007
This is the sum total of information that can be released, for the reasons outlined above. I hope this is of asistance to you.
Yours sincerely
Assistant Principal Officer

Dear Mr Sheridan,

I refer to your email below the content of which has been noted.
In response to your first question I can confirm that under Section 17 of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001 the Department does not have the authority to instruct the Director of Corporate Enforcement to disclose information. Section 17 of the 2001 Act relates to the disclosure of information and sets out the independence of the Director.
In relation to question two, the Director is a statutory independent officer and as previously stated under Section 17 of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001 the Director is not in a position to make available information relating to any case or indeed to discuss whether a case is under investigation.
I hope that you find this information helpful.
Kind regards

Dear Mr Sheridan,

I refer to your recent correspondence in connection with ODCE.
The Ombudsman may investigate complaints against Government Departments and Offices, Local Authorities, the Health Service Executive, An Post and bodies within the remit of the Disability Act, 2005. The Ombudsman cannot examine complaints concerning the ODCE as it is outside the remit of this Office. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation may be able to assist you with this matter. I regret therefore that we cannot be of assistance to you in this matter.
Yours sincerely

Another reply; another question for the Data Commissioner

When I first asked an official in the Data Commissioner’s office why some companies were named in his Annual Report and some were not I was given the following reasons.

Those not named had cooperated with investigations and therefore there was nothing to be gained by naming them.

And

Because the report enjoys absolute privilege the decision remains with the Commissioner.

Later I was informed that it’s not necessarily true that those who didn’t cooperate would be named. That, in the end, it’s all down to the decision of the Commissioner.

Because the Data Commissioner does not come under the Freedom of Information Act I do not expect to be told the names of the companies whose identity the Commissioner has decided to keep secret.

I do, however, think I am entitled to know the precise legislation under which the Commissioner has the power to, effectively, bestow protection on some companies and expose others to negative publicity.

The first written reply to my question from the Commissioner’s office claimed that his power stemmed from Section 14 of the Data Protection Acts which grants absolute privilege to the Commissioner’s Annual Report.

I was puzzled by this and replied with the following question.

How is it possible to name some companies under the protection of absolute privilege but not name others given that the entire report clearly enjoys the protection of absolute privilege?

The latest reply from the Commissioner’s office makes no mention of absolute privilege but reverts to the first explanation regarding the advantages to wayward companies who cooperate.

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I refer you to my previous reply.

The decision to name or not name particular entities is reserved entirely for the Data Protection Commissioner and takes account of many factors including the level of co-operation received during an investigation, the general approach to data protection matters of the entity etc.

Thank you for your interest.

Regards

My reply is as follows:

Dear…,

I understand and fully accept that the decision to name or not name entities is reserved entirely for the Data Commissioner.

What I am attempting to ascertain, however, is precisely where in the legislation is the Commissioner’s power to make such decisions located?

I would be grateful for your help in this matter.

Yours etc.,
Anthony Sheridan

Social welfare fraud – Jail. Banking fraud? – Still waiting

A Dublin woman, Mary Connors, has been jailed for three years for making fraudulent social welfare claims totalling €229,000 over a 14 year period up to 2010.

Ms. Connors fully cooperated with the police and has paid back all the money.

Gardai had searched her home and a detective from the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) was assigned to her case.

So, no messing there. Gardai dealt with the case directly, special detective from CAB assigned to the case to make sure justice was done.

The judge presiding was clear; this is a serious case, public money, three years.

Meanwhile, it seems that former Senator Ivor Callely is unlikely to be pursued for the return of €6,000 he has been overpaid in expenses.

Apparently, there’s no legal basis to pursue him because the error was made by the Department of Transport.

The law is different for ordinary peasants on social welfare. Every penny can and is pursued whether it’s fraud or an error by a civil servant.

If it’s fraud by a peasant, it’s jail.

If it’s an error by a civil servant, it’s a bonus and promotion.

Ms. Connors was caught in 2010 and is now on her way to jail.

The bankers who destroyed the state were caught in 2008 – We’re still waiting.

Another question for the Data Commissioner

Just couldn’t get that answer I received from the Data Commissioner out of my mind regarding the naming of companies in his annual report so I’ve asked for some clarification.

Dear…,

Thank you for the information regarding the naming of companies/individuals in the Data Commissioner’s Annual Report.

I am, however, still puzzled and would be grateful if you could explain further.

My understanding is that, under the rule of absolute privilege, a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory even if made maliciously.

The most visible example, as you will know, is the absolute privilege extended to politicians speaking in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

My understanding is that this legal facility is given to politicians so that they can bring certain matters to public attention without fear of being sued.

In other words, the facility acts as a protection for politicians and, I presume, the Data Commissioner, so that they can serve the public interest by making pubic, information which could not otherwise be made available outside of absolute privilege.

I would be grateful if you could help clarify the matter for me by answering the following question.

How is it possible to name some companies under the protection of absolute privilege but not to name others given that the entire report clearly enjoys the protection of absolute privilege?

The decision to name some but not others is especially puzzling when it is realised that some of the breaches are practically identical.

For example:

Case 13 deals with a company refusing to divulge information to a customer and the company is named.

Case 10, on the other hand, deals with financial institutions refusing to divulge information to customers but the Commissioner decided that these companies could not be named.

Yours etc.,
Anthony Sheridan

Different types of white-collar crime

Business manager with Bank of Ireland, William Freeland, has been jailed for four and a half years for stealing €3 million from the bank.

Between 2004 and 2009 Freeland set up fake accounts through which he stole the money. He would then open up more accounts to repay the loans taken from the previous accounts.

We can tell from this that Irish authorities do operate some sort of justice system for dealing with white-collar crime, which raises the following questions.

Why are those at Custom House Capital, who defrauded their clients of approximately €66 million in a similar type ponzi scheme, and at around the same time, still walking around as free citizens?

Why is it that the Irish Justice system can make the likes of Mr. Freeland accountable but are, apparently, completely incapable of bringing those bankers who destroyed the economy to justice?

Data Protection Commissioner replies

Last week, I wrote to the Data Commissioner’s office to inquire why some of those found to have breached regulations were named in his annual report while others, like bankers and solicitors, enjoyed the protection of state secrecy.

The reply:

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I refer to your email of 1 May 2012.

The relevant piece of legislation is Section 14 of the Data Protection Acts whereby the Commissioner “for the purposes of the law of defamation a report under subsection (1) shall be absolutely privileged ( this refers to the Annual Report).

This is the legal basis on which the Commissioner publishes his report and it is within this context that decisions are made as to whether to name individual entities.

Regards

Data Protection Commissioner: Naming some but not others

An RTE report (29.20) on the publication of the annual report of the Data Protection Commissioner revealed the names of three companies that were found to have breached regulations.

Film footage of the companies so named accompanied the report.

Oddly, however, the report failed to name financial institutions that were found to have breached regulations.

The report simply referred to ‘some financial institutions’ but gave no names.

Looking at the annual report I noted that four of the thirteen case studies outlined were not named.

These were; a vet, a car dealership, ‘some’ financial institutions and ‘some’ solicitors.

I thought this very odd. I mean why name some of the offenders including film footage of their business premises and keep others secret?

Those named and filmed are likely to suffer to some degree from the negative publicity while the unnamed suffer no consequences.

I rang the Data Protection Commissioner’s office to ask why.

Official: In the cases we haven’t named, they were absolutely cooperative with our investigations so there would be nothing to be gained by naming them.

As for the financial institutions and solicitors, there were a number of those involved and they were entirely co-operative with our investigations so there would be nothing to be gained by naming them.

Me: So the people who have been named have not been co-operative?

Official: Well…at the end of the day the decision comes down to the Commissioner himself whether to name and shame.

In our investigations with some of these companies they would be aware there was a possibility of being named and shamed

Me: But that indicates that all those who were named were not cooperative. Can you confirm that?

Official: I can’t confirm that because I wouldn’t have worked on those investigations but I’ll get someone else to speak to you if you wish.

Same official: (After speaking to some of her colleagues) Because the report enjoys absolute privilege the decision remains with the Commissioner.

As to who he names, and in respect of what I said earlier, it is not necessarily true that those who didn’t cooperate would be named.

It’s all down to the decision of the Commissioner and the report is published under absolute privilege.

Me: What does absolute privilege mean in this case?

Official: He would have the decision of who and who not to name.

Me: Do we know what he bases his decisions on?

Official: I don’t know that but you would be welcome to put your comments in writing.

Me: Does your organisation come under the Freedom of Information Act?

Official: No.

Me: That’s surprising.

Official: Well, we don’t hold personal data.

My email to the Data Protection Commissioner.

To whom it may concern,

Of the thirteen case studies outlined in your annual report four are without the names of the transgressors.

These cases involve the following:

A car dealership; a vet, financial institutions and solicitors.

An official from your office has informed me that this has to do with Absolute Privilege and the power of the Data Commissioner to decide who is named and who is not.

I hereby formally request the names of the people/organisations that are not named.

If this is not possible I would be grateful if you could provide me with the precise legal/legislative/administrative reason/s for refusing the information.

Yours etc.
Anthony Sheridan

Law enforcement? Well, it depends

While it’s difficult to generate any great sympathy for the O’Donnell’s it is interesting to note that a group of solicitors and auctioneers can demand immediate access to a private house with the power to threaten the occupiers with imprisonment if they don’t cooperate?

On the other hand the full force of the State’s law enforcement agencies, despite decades of investigations and revelations, are unable to touch politicians, bankers and many others found to be corrupt by various tribunals.

Standards in Public Office Commission rejects complaint against Minister Quinn

Predictably, the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), has rejected my complaint regarding mileage claims made by Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn, as reported in the Irish Mail on Sunday.

When I submitted the complaint to SIPO I had no expectation whatsoever that the Commission would rule against the Minister.

Over the years I have submitted many similar complaints to a whole range of government agencies for a whole variety of alleged wrongdoing.

Not one of them has ever resulted in sanctions or any other action against those involved.

My principal motive for submitting such complaints is to expose the fact that Ireland is a politically and administratively dysfunctional democracy.

The system is designed, whether intentionally or not, to protect politicians and others on the rare occasions when they are investigated for alleged abuses of public funds and resources

The manner in which Minister Quinn’s case was dealt with makes the point.

The Standards in Public Office Commission considered the case under the following headings.

The content of letters and enclosures submitted by Minister Quinn and his Secretary General

And

Under the provisions of section 4 (1) (a) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. Specifically, whether the Minister’s actions as complained of constituted a ‘specified act’ or acts.

The Commission decided that there was no basis on which to pursue the matter.

So where is the accountability here?

I requested access to the letters and enclosures submitted by Minister Quinn and his Secretary General under which the Commission made its decision.

My request was refused.

So here we have an ‘independent’ watchdog tasked with ensuring that politicians are made accountable basing its conclusions on secret evidence provided by the politician under investigation.

This does not happen in functional democracies.

Under the second heading the Commission seems to have concluded that Minister Quinn had committed no act that was inconsistent with the proper performance of his office.

I say ‘seems’ because the Commission provides no further explanation as to how this verdict was reached.

But the Commission was under no pressure to explain in any case because the legislation allows massive scope for the dismissal of practically any offence committed by officials or politicians.

For example:

An abuse of office allegation can be dismissed as of no significant public importance if the sum of money involved is less than £IR10, 000 (€12,700).

Under legislation the Commission can also dismiss a case if it forms the opinion that the matter under investigation was a result of incompetence or inefficiency.

This type of loophole legislation does not appear out of thin air.

It is very carefully drafted by professional civil servants working with the best legal advice and the full approval of the body politic.

Such loose, weak legislation is only one aspect of an all-embracing culture of secrecy, obfuscation, denial and non-cooperation that has created an environment where political and business corruption thrives.

Judge Alan Mahon’s verdict was as accurate as it was damning.

Corruption was deep-rooted, rampant and permeated every level of Irish politics.

Only a fool would claim that this deep-rooted, rampant corruption has, somehow, magically disappeared from the body politic.

Another consequence of political corruption is the almost impossible expectation that those with power will act to root out the disease.

A corrupt political system is unlikely to take any meaningful action to root out the disease of corruption because to do so could seriously damage the interests of those who depend on the corrupt system to maintain their power and influence.

This failure to act against corruption can lead to bizarre situations such as the incredible events surrounding Michael Lowry following the publication of the Mahon Tribunal Report last month.

Government ministers found themselves under intense pressure to explain why they had dealings with Lowry, a legitimately elected politician.

In a functional democracy this situation could not arise because the wayward politician would have been dealt with immediately by independent, well-resourced law enforcement agencies backed up by strong and effective legislation.

In addition, and parallel to law enforcement, Lowry’s political career would have been brought to a shuddering halt by an outraged body politic and electorate.

Such official and public ostracisation is of crucial importance for the maintenance of a healthy democracy because it prevents the disease of corruption from further infecting the political system and wider society in general.

The catastrophe that Ireland and its people are now suffering can be attributed directly to the failure of the state to act immediately and properly to countless scandals over the last four decades or so.

Every failure to act against an incidence of alleged corruption, no matter how small, hammered another nail into the coffin of accountable and transparent democracy.

The accumulation of such failures has, inevitably, led to the collapse of our economy, the loss of our economic sovereignty and the impoverishment of the state’s citizens.

There may well be a perfectly innocent explanation for Minister Quinn’s large expense claims but, to date, neither he nor his staff has provided any plausible explanation.

This failure, and SIPO’s failure to properly investigate the matter, is further confirmation that Ireland is a politically and administratively dysfunctional democracy.

Copy to:

Minister Quinn
Standards in Public Office Commission