Category: Regulatory Agencies

Senator Landy complaint rejected by Clerk of the Seanad

I received a letter today from the Clerk of the Seanad rejecting my complaint regarding an alleged attempt to bribe Senator Denis Landy (See letter below).

As I wrote previously, it’s a catch 22 situation. If a complaint is not specifically made against a member of the Dail or Senate the State will not act.

In other words, corruption and all other kinds of skullduggery can take place within the confines of our parliament without any response from the State, unless a ‘member’ can be indentified as being involved.

Oh wait, that actually has been the reality for many decades now.

I will now submit a complaint against Senator Denis Landy.

Copy to:
Clerk of the Seanad
Senator Landy
All political parties

Letter from Clerk of the Seanad.

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I refer to your our previous correspondence and your letter of 8 August 2013.

As you are aware there is a statutory complaints procedure available to members of the public under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001 (“the Ethics Acts”).

Section 8 (2) states “a person…who considers that a member…may have contravened sections 5 or 7 or done a specified act may make a complaint…to the Clerk…” (emphasis added)(by the Clerk of the Seanad).

Thus, as can be seen from s.8 (2) it is a fundamental requirement of the Act that a complaint is made against a member (which is defined in the Acts as a member of Dail or Seanad Eireann).

The member, who should be named or otherwise identified, must be alleged to have contravened s.5 or s.7 or have done a specified act. While you name Senator Landy in your correspondence, it is still not clear that you seek to make a complaint in line with the Ethics Acts. about him or indeed any other Senator.

In the absence of a complaint which meets the requirements of the legislation, including that the complaint should be against a member, I cannot deal with your complaint under the Ethics Acts.

Therefore no further action will be taken by my Office unless a complaint which meets the requirements of the Acts is submitted.

If at any point you do wish to make a complaint in accordance with the Ethics Acts about a Senator, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
Clerk of the Seanad

Formal complaint to Gardai and Clerk of the Seanad in response to Senator Landy's allegations of bribery

On 1 August last I submitted a formal complaint in writing to Cobh Gardai in response to allegations of bribery made by Labour Senator Denis Landy (See full complaint below).

I also submitted a formal request to the Select Committee on Members’ Interests Seanad Éireann to investigate the matter.

This submission was made to the Clerk of the Seanad by email.

The Clerk of the Seanad rejected my request on the following grounds.

One: It was made via email. Apparently, all such submissions must be made in hard copy and physically posted to the Clerk of the Seanad.

While endearing, this insistence on using an ancient communications system does not auger well for those who argue that the Senate is a viable institution that should be retained.

Two: I requested an investigation into the matter rather than making a complaint. Apparently, I should have made a formal complaint under Section 8 (2) of the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001.

Crucially, this legislation only allows for a member of the public to make a complaint against a member (of the Houses of the Oireachtas) who may have contravened Sections 5 or 7 or done a specified act.

In plain English, this means that a complaint must be made under Section 8 (2) of the Act and therefore must be made against a member.

The Catch 22 is, of course, that I am not making a complaint against a member. I am making a complaint regarding allegations of a very serious crime that took place within the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The strict adherence to the letter of the law/legislation by bureaucrats and the absence of any mechanism by which a complaint can be made regarding allegations of criminal activity within the confines of the Houses of the Oireachtas means that my complaint is likely to be rejected on the grounds that I am not making a specific complaint against a specific member.

The following exchange between myself and a senior official at the office of the Clerk of the Seanad makes this very clear.

Me: Should I submit it as a complaint?

Official: Yes, a complaint is the word used in the Act. You may make a complaint in respect of a specified act, as in an action. The Act says that a person who considers that a member (emphasised) of the Oireachtas may have contravened Sections 5 or 7 of the Act or done a specified act, something that is not permitted may make a complaint to the Clerk, so your complaint must relate to a member.

Me: In other words, my complaint must be against a member?

Official: Yes.

Me: So what you’re saying is that my complaint is going to be rejected because I will not be making a complaint against a member?

Official: I’m not saying that but I can see how that is a logical conclusion.

Me: I can’t see any other conclusion given what you’ve said to me.

Official: Yes.

Irish citizens who will be voting to abolish or retain the Senate later this year will be wise to consign this archaic, expensive and totally useless institution to the history books.

After all, that’s the bubble in which its members, regulations and procedures actually exist.

Copy to:
Clerk of the Seanad
All political parties
Michael McDowell

See below:
Complaint to Cobh Gardai
Request for investigation to Clerk of the Seanad
Reply (rejection email) from Clerk of Seanad
Second complaint to Clerk of Seanad

Cobh Garda Station
Cobh
Co Cork

1 August 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to formally report allegations of bribery made by Labour Senator Denis Landy as reported in the Irish Independent on 21 July 2013.

Senator Landy claimed that he was offered a plush holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy was reported as saying:

“I was approached by an individual in Leinster House and offered flights and a stay in a top hotel in New York should I go missing during this week.”

I have included below the full Irish Independent report.

Yours Sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Signed:

——————————————————————————————————-

First submission to Clerk of the Seanad

29th July 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

This is a formal request to the Committee on Members Interests (Seanad Éireann) to investigate a claim by Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush foreign holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy expressed the opinion that the offer was made in an attempt to defeat the Government or, that he was effectively offered a bribe.

I include a report on the matter published in the Irish Independent on 21st July last.

Yours Sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

Reply from Clerk of the Seanad

Dear Mr Sheridan,

I refer to your email of 29 July 2013 in which you make a request in the following terms:
“This is a formal request to the Committee on Members Interests (Seanad Éireann) to investigate a claim by Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush foreign holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.”

While members of the public can correspond directly with Committees on any matter, I would note that there is no statutory procedure to request the Committee on Members’ Interests to commence an investigation.

There is however a statutory complaints procedure available to members of the public under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001. Section 8(2) states “a person…who considers that a member… may have contravened sections 5 or 7 or done a specified act may make a complaint …to the Clerk …”.

Under the same section, The Clerk of the Seanad refers complaints to the Members’ Interests Committee of Seanad Éireann unless s/he forms the opinion that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or that there is “not sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case in relation to the complaint”.
If the complaint is rejected, the Clerk is obliged to send the complainant, the member concerned and the Committee a statement of reasons for so doing.

Therefore, please confirm if you wish for me to treat your correspondence as a formal complaint in line with the procedure under the Ethics Acts. If you confirm that you do not want to make such a complaint, your correspondence will then be forwarded to the Committee.

If you choose to follow the complaints procedure outlined it is crucial that you provide to me all evidence available to you which is relevant to your complaint.
This information will assist me in considering whether the complaint must be sent to the Committee. If you do choose to make such a complaint I should be obliged if you would also sign your letter and return the signed copy to me.

You may rest assured that on receipt of this further information, this matter will be dealt with promptly in so far as I and the Clerk are concerned.
Please find attached an appendix with certain relevant sections of the Ethics Acts enclosed.
Yours sincerely,

Second submission to Clerk of Seanad (By post)

8th August 2013

To: The Clerk of the Seanad.

This is a formal complaint made under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001, Section 8 (2) regarding a reported incident that occurred within the Houses of the Oireachtas on a date between the 1st and 19th July 2013.

The complaint concerns a claim by Labour Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy is reported as saying:

“I was approached by an individual in Leinster House and offered flights and a stay in a top hotel in New York should I go missing during this week.”

Senator Landy expressed the opinion that the offer was made in an attempt to defeat the Government.

According to the report Senator Landy has refused to name the person who approached him but he did describe the person as a political figure.

The incident was first reported in the Sunday Independent on 21st July 2013. I have included the complete report below.

The response of some politicians, as reported in the Irish Independent of 24th July, may be helpful in considering the matter.

Labour Seanad chief whip Aideen Hayden is reported as saying:

“It is obviously a very serious matter if someone has attempted to subvert the workings of the house in this way.

Seanad leader Maurice Cummins called on Mr Landy to report the matter to the Gardai. The Fine Gael senator told the Seanad that allegations of bribery and corruption were an extremely serious matter.

Rebel Fine Gael senator Fidelma Healy Eames also called on Mr Landy to give the “truth” about what had happened.

“If someone attempted to bribe him to absent himself from votes in this house last week, then that is very serious.”

Yours Sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

Irish Examiner: Getting it right on corruption

Last Tuesday I posted an article entitled Flaccid editorials and political corruption in which I was critical of editors in general for their tame response to political corruption.

My criticism was too general particularly in respect of Irish Examiner editorials which invariably pull no punches.

The following hard-hitting and accurate editorial in today’s paper makes the point.

Fighting corruption – Inaction is destroying our country

Senior Government figures may not have been heartbroken that the final chapter in our €300m planning report was published just after the lights were turned off in Leinster House for the summer recess.

After a gruelling few months dominated by the economy and abortion, the issues around corruption and maladministration raised by the final chapter of the report, an astounding 16 years in the making, might have provoked some passing embarrassment.

Government ministers or deputies, each elected on a platform of reform and renewal, might have been less than comfortable if questioned about what proposals they have brought forward to try to confront the corruption eating away at the integrity of this increasingly shabby and discredited Republic.

It is natural to recoil, or at least it should be, from that description of our country, but how else can a place where a tribunal, after 16 years of deliberations, concludes that there was widespread, almost institutionalised, corruption in our planning process but only one person — the poisoners’ messenger boy Frank Dunlop — has been jailed over the issue?

How else can you describe a country where some of those found to be corrupt may have the legal bills they incurred at that tribunal paid by the State?

How else can you describe a country and a society seemingly content to be a spectator at its own implosion?

How else can you describe a country where a month short of the fifth anniversary of our banking collapse not one person — banker, regulator, auditor, bondholder, or director — has had to defend their behaviour in a courtroom?

Of course this situation is not new and it is not entirely surprising that the response to the latest outrage is not as strong as it should be.

Stretching all the way back to May 1991, when the Beef Tribunal was established, the absolute lack of consequences for wrongdoing has been recognised as a part of our national life.

Inured by this failure of government — and specifically our justice system — outrage seems a pointless, self-destructive response, so why bother?

It is possible to reach even further into the past and suggest that the property interests who ensured that the report presented to the then local government minister Bobby Molloy on the price of building land, by Judge Kenny in 1974, did no more than gather dust are culpable in today’s crisis.

They certainly are to some degree culpable in the situation described by the CSO yesterday when it said that almost half of households struggle to pay bills.

Equally their fingerprints are all over the mortgage crisis described yesterday in AIB’s annual report. The number of that bank’s loans which are more than 90 days in arrears rose to 22.7% in June compared with 20.7% at the end of December.

When the Dáil resumes well into the autumn, the Government is committed to a campaign to have the Seanad abolished.

In the grand scheme of things this is about as relevant to the crisis, and its causes, facing this country as the whereabouts of Shergar.

This Government is more than halfway through its term in office and it is well past the time we had the kind of legislation and cultural change needed to confront the corruption detailed in outrageously expensive report after report.

Why else were this lot elected?

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved

First complaint in response to draconian broadcasting legislation

On 1 July last legislation came into effect that bans broadcasters from expressing a personal opinion on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.

I have submitted my first complaint as a result of this draconian legislation.

As it is almost impossible to conduct a public discussion on matters that are of public controversy without expressing a personal opinion it is likely that there will be many, many more such complaints.

29 July 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to lodge a formal complaint against Liveline presenter Damien O’Reilly for a breach of sections 21 and 22 of the Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs, which came into effect on 1 July 2013 under Section 42 of the Broadcasting Act 2009.

On 18 July last, while speaking with a caller on such matters as austerity, the IMF bailout and bankers, Mr. O’Reilly expressed a personal opinion contrary to sections 21 and 22 of the Code.

The relevant section of the discussion is as follows:

Caller: We’re in a bailout programme because we were conned by the banks, Allied Irish Bank, Anglo Irish Bank.

Mr. O’Reilly: We know that and hopefully there will be an inquiry.

Caller: Well there won’t be an inquiry because these people are sitting on their big fat pensions.

Mr. O’Reilly: Your anger is palpable and is reflected all over the country and understandable but you can’t turn back the clock, you can’t keep saying the banks, the banks, the banks, that’s done and dusted.

Caller: But it’s not done and dusted, that’s the problem, you people in RTE want to tell it’s done and dusted, it’s not done and dusted.

Mr. O’Reilly: Listen to me Sean, Sean listen to me. There will be court cases but we’re not going to get the money back ok so it doesn’t matter if we have court cases tomorrow.

Caller: We need some of these criminals prosecuted…

Mr. O’Reilly: Yes, well that is the main point and I’m glad you… What we need in this country is indeed some justice to make people feel better.
It might not butter the bread to feed the children for breakfast but at least, as you say, it might make people feel a little less angry.

Clearly Mr. O’Reilly is expressing a strong personal opinion on a matter that is publicly controversial and of current public debate and is therefore in breach of the code.

Yours Sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Sections 21 and 22 of the Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs.

21. A news presenter and/or a reporter in a news programme may not express his or her own view on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.

22. It is an important part of the role of a presenter of a current affairs programme to ensure that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the subject of the programme or item; to facilitate the expression of contributors‘ opinions – sometimes by forceful questioning; and to reflect the views of those who cannot, or choose not to, participate in content.

This being so, a presenter and/or a reporter on a current affairs programme shall not express his or her own views on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate such that a partisan position is advocated.

Michael Noonan: One of our more distinguished gombeens

One of our more distinguished gombeen politicians, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan, was in typical arrogant mood during an interview on The Week in Politics yesterday.

When asked about the possibility of Ireland getting money back by way of European retrospection legislation he replied:

I think if we go there naively and put out our hand and say; give us the money, we won’t succeed.

This comment and the accompanying sneering smile tells us a lot about Noonan’s intelligence and complete lack of diplomatic skills .

My translation: That was good wasn’t it? Did you notice how I cleverly linked my reply to the lads on the Anglo tapes? Aren’t I fierce clever, not many people are as clever you know.

When asked for his response to the Anglo tapes Mr. Clever was very much plain old Mr. Gombeen.

It was appalling but of course it was recordings that were made over four years ago so we’re revisiting the past.

My translation: That’s all in the past and the matter is no longer relevant. People need to move on.

There has been a general distaste of bank culture right across Europe and indeed across the world.

My translation: This sort of thing happens all over the world, Ireland is not unique, it’s time to move on.

When asked what the Government intended to do about the economic crimes of David Drumm Noonan again took refuge in his gombeen mindset.

Well, I wouldn’t like to repeat a difficulty Mary Harney got into when she made remarks that were deemed to prejudge a court case.

My translation: We politicians really want to get these people but unfortunately we can’t say anything in case it would affect any future court case, so come back to me in, say, ten maybe fifteen years time and I’ll answer that question.

It’s very complex, very intricate and the prosecuting authorities are fearful if they move too quickly or imprudently that they’ll blow the case and with the separation of powers we must leave them do that.

My translation: These matters are beyond the understanding of ordinary peasants so they are best left to the ‘experts’ to deal with. And of course, due to the separation of powers, there’s absolutely nothing we politicians can do to force the authorities to complete their investigations any time soon.

Noonan was then asked why the Americans were capable of immediate action against whistleblowers like Edward Snowden while Irish authorities never acted.

The American system is different than the Irish system.

Well why don’t we change our system if that’s what it takes?

Because we have a constitutional mechanism which protects all citizens, it’s called the separation of powers and it’s up to the prosecution authorities and the criminal justice authorities to deal with it.

The Guards make inquiries in this country, we don’t politically interfere with the Guards, they give their books of evidence and their files to the DPP and the DPP decides who to prosecute.

My translation: Ireland is a progressive, civilized state that respects and protects the rights of all citizens no matter what charges are made against them.

America, on the other hand, is a primitive state that hunts down suspects without due process and its enforcement authorities are subject to political pressure.

On the warning by former boss of the Office of Corporate Enforcement, Paul Appleby, (that title always makes me laugh) that his office did not have enough resources.

We’ve heard the resources argument year after year, he got all the resources he needed and he got extra time to do his job.

This dismissal of Mr. Appleby as an effective liar was accompanied by another sneer but this one was not smiling.

It was one of pure contempt for an official who dared to ask for more resources to fight white-collar crime.

Copy to:
Minister Noonan

Shane Ross: It was Europe wot done it

Here’s how Shane Ross responded to a question on the Anglo tapes corruption.

What about the Irish narrative of victimhood, this (the Anglo tapes) suggests that we shafted Europe with the bank guarantee and our bankers took advantage of that?

Shane Ross: It takes two to tango, Europe lent us all this money and if there’s a borrower there’s a lender.

The lender and the borrower are both equally responsible and they lent the money to a bank that was in big, big trouble.

And if they had looked at it properly they would have realised they were in big trouble.

Just because a couple of cowboys behaved extremely badly at the top of one small bank Europe cannot exonerate itself and say it has no responsibility.

They have huge responsibility because they lent to certainly four banks which were behaving irresponsibly so I don’t think we can let Europe off, certainly not.

Phew, that was a close one. I thought for a moment he was going to mention corrupt Irish politicians, corrupt Irish bankers and corrupt/incompetent regulators.

Michael Clifford: The immoral electorate is to blame

As sure as night follows day, when scandal and corruption raise their ugly heads there will always be a journalist ready and willing to write a ‘We’re all to blame’ article.

Irish Examiner columnist Michael Clifford, writing about the Anglo tapes, is the journalist in this case.

According to Clifford a lack of public morality caused by the vacuum created after the ‘moral guidance’ of the Catholic Church disappeared is principally responsible for the corruption within Anglo Irish Bank.

Public morality didn’t, and still doesn’t, appear to have much purchase in this State.

With little pressure to observe proper standards coming from the electorate, how can we expect that public morality is going to be observed in institutions such as banks?

So there you have it folks; the blame does not lie with the corrupt politicians, nor with the corrupt bankers, nor with the corrupt regulators but the immoral (and presumably corrupt) electorate.

Anglo vermin will not be made accountable by our corrupt political/administrative system

The first thing to be said about the ongoing Anglo tapes revelations is that David Drumm, Peter Fitzgerald and John Bowe are nothing more than common vermin.

Vermin with big salaries, big cars, and big ego’s are still vermin and always will be vermin.

What Irish citizens need to keep in mind is that these vermin could not survive, never mind prosper, without the absolute protection afforded to them by our corrupt political/administrative system.

There is a growing consensus that the then government and financial regulator were duped into handing over billions to Anglo, that somehow it wasn’t the fault of the political/administrative system.

This is music to the ears of politicians and civil servants who will be delighted to see the blame shifting from them, the real culprits, to the greedy vermin bankers.

Here’s the truth of the matter:

As we here at Public Inquiry have been saying for years – Ireland is an intrinsically corrupt state.

The crucial difference between an intrinsically corrupt state and a properly functioning state is the response of the respective states when corruption is uncovered.

Functional democracies like the United Kingdom, United States, Germany and so on have lots of corruption but when corruption is uncovered there is a response.

There are independent authorities empowered to act against the corrupt.

There is a level of awareness among the political classes that there are certain lines that they simply cannot cross.

There is a high level of political intelligence/awareness among the electorate that manifests itself in anger if the political/administrative system is suspected of trying to cover up corruption.

There is a clear blue sea of separation between regulatory/law enforcement agencies and the political system.

In Ireland there is no authority independent of the corrupt political system with the power to act against the vermin in the financial sector or any other area where white-collar crime is rampant.

In Ireland politicians have a choice, go along with the corrupt political system or find yourself ejected from it.

Roisin Shortall and Nessa Childers are two recent examples of politicians who stood up to the rotten political system and as a result found themselves out in the cold.

Ms. Childers was right on the button in her comment after resigning:

I felt I was being corrupted by the system.

In Ireland most of the electorate are politically ignorant. That is, they don’t realise that power rests in their hands and not with the politicians.

In other words, most Irish citizens do not understand what real democracy is.

Over the decades Irish citizens have come to believe that they must sell their vote (power) to the local gangster/gombeen in return for petty favours.

If the local gangster/gombeen succeeds in buying enough votes (power) he travels to Dublin where he plunders state funds in order to pay off his constituents thus ensuring his re-election.

In functional democracies like America or France citizens are aware that power flows from them, that it is temporarily given to politicians and when a politician is found to have acted corruptly or otherwise acted against the interests of the state they are made to pay the price.

The opposite is the case in Ireland.

Citizens see power as flowing down to them from politicians. It is the politician who is seen as the power source and it is to that power source that the citizens go, cap in hand, to ask for favours.

It would never occur to most Irish citizens to actually challenge the local gangster/gombeen on a national issue unless the matter had some bearing on that citizen’s personal interests.

Let me finish by coming back to the Anglo tapes and who is effectively responsible for the protection and prosperity of the vermin within the financial sector.

The corrupt political/administrative system has been, effectively, protecting and facilitating major criminal activity within the Irish financial sector for decades.

This is not just my opinion.

For absolute proof we have only to look back at the hundreds of examples of barefaced fraud and criminality that have occurred in that sector without any effective response whatsoever from the so-called regulatory agencies.

It should therefore come as no surprise that when the Anglo vermin walked into the Central Bank and demanded billions of taxpayers’ money they were slavishly accommodated.

After decades of effectively facilitating/ignoring widespread criminality the so-called regulatory agencies had lost all credibility and respect.

After decades of effectively facilitating/ignoring widespread criminality the so-called regulatory agencies could hardly stand up to the vermin and demand that they act ethically/legally.

The bankers knew that, they knew they were dealing with a morally bankrupt political/administrative system and accordingly treated them with the contempt they richly deserved.

That contempt for the politicians and so-called regulators can be clearly heard vomiting from the mouths of the vermin bankers

And let me be clear, the situation has not changed.

The political/administrative system is still corrupt, still effectively protecting the criminals within the financial sector, still betraying Ireland and its people.

That’s why I can state the following with absolute confidence:

No banker will go to jail; there will be no proper inquiry.

There will be no accountability demanded from the corrupt political/administrative system that created and protects the cesspool where the vermin prosper.

There will be no justice/accountability until Irish citizens destroy the corrupt political/administrative system that has destroyed their country and their futures.

Copy to:

Central Bank
All political parities

Banker Michael Somers: A saint in the making

It has been observed by many commentators that public cynicism towards the political and financial communities has increased greatly since the economic collapse in 2008.

But who could blame people for their cynicism when they hear comments like that recently made by deputy chairman of AIB Dr. Michael Somers when speaking about the possibility of debt write-offs.

Quoted in the Sunday Independent the good Dr. said he was not anxious to see AIB writing off loads of debt any time soon.

Why was that, he was asked?

It’s taxpayers’ money said the good Dr., and I want to see as much of that money as possible returned to the taxpayer.

My goodness such concern for the taxpayers’ of Ireland had me in tears.

How times and attitudes have changed. There was a time when bankers were only interested in ruthlessly raking in as much profit as possible no matter how destructive their greed was to customer or country.

Surely I thought, the return of Jesus Christ himself cannot be far off when he will confer sainthood on bankers for their self-sacrifice in saving the common people of Ireland from a fate worse than, well…worse than that of struggling to survive under the yoke of ruthless bankers.

And saint Somers was quick to point out that it’s only current bankers who will be saved, who will avoid the fires of bankers’ hell.

Speaking of those dastardly villain bankers who caused all the trouble in the first place saint Somers said:

Most of the guys who were around at the time deserve to be beaten up.

Beaten up, my goodness and to think there are so many nasty cynics going around claiming that no banker will face justice.