The amazing two minds of Irish officialdom

There’s an excellent example in today’s Irish Examiner of how Irish officials can operate both inside and outside of reality at the same time.

This amazing ability allows Irish politicians and civil servants to break a law or rule and, at the same time in their minds, obey that very same law.

This case involved tendering rules surrounding procurement procedures by Waterford City Council.

An internal auditor’s report looked at €4.9 million worth of spending and found that proper procedures were not followed in €4.3 million of the expenditure.

But Waterford city manager Michael Walsh assured everybody willing to believe him that no companies were given work on the basis of favouritism.

I mean the very thought that the setting aside of rules specifically designed to prevent favouritism could be seen as an abuse of power is an outrage against the unquestionable honesty of all state officials.

No – Mr. Walsh provided a perfectly clear, honest and uniquely Irish explanation.

Bending the rules’ isn’t the language I would like to use. We weren’t fully compliant is the point the auditor is making… and I accept that.

I want to be clear about this, in the circumstances we very deliberately decided that we were not going to be fully compliant but we did ensure, I can assure you, that there was competitive tendering.

In fairness, you have to admire this ability to make two completely contradictory statements while, apparently, believing the substance of both.

Revenue judgement: Only efficient when dealing with the peasants

Revenue chairwoman Josephine Feehily has left citizens in no doubt whatsoever about how her organisation will deal with anybody who is tempted to dodge the upcoming property tax.

Revenue will ruthlessly bring to bear the full arsenal of laws at its disposal to enforce the new tax.

If necessary Revenue will deduct the tax directly from the salary, pension or bank accounts of those who fail to co-operate.

People can only judge for themselves Revenue’s record for pursuing people…We have very extensive data. We will pursue. We’ve done it in the past.

Well I’d like to accept Ms. Feehily’s invitation and judge her organisation’s record of pursuing people.

A report in last Sunday’s Independent reveals that not one person has been prosecuted over the Ansbacher tax criminality.

Ms. Feehily extends three excuses for her organisation’s disgraceful failure in bringing the Ansbacher white-collar criminals to account.

Excuse one: A lack of original documentation.

An essential requirement for a successful criminal prosecution is original documents. There were very few original documents available and there was no legal mechanism to compel Caymen entities to produce such documents.

This excuse is, of course, bullshit. There is a mountain of good quality evidence available to Revenue if it had a mind to prosecute.

The reason this good quality evidence has never been used is simple – it would most likely result in damaging the interests of very influential and powerful people.

Excuse two: Time elapsed has made prosecutions impossible.

Ms. Feehily:

While many cases passed the serious evasion test to be considered for prosecution, the time elapsed – typically in excess of 10 years since the alleged offence occurred – meant it would not be possible to mount a successful prosecution.

Ms. Feehily’s admission that many cases passed the serious evasion test for prosecution directly contradicts her first excuse re original documents.

The ‘time lapsed’ excuse is the most powerful strategy employed by state agencies when it comes to protecting influential and powerful people.

It is no accident, in my opinion, that almost every major white-collar scandal is strung out over many years in order to benefit from the ‘time lapse’ excuse.

Excuse three: Some of the criminals were too old or too dead.

Being too old will not be accepted as an excuse by Revenue for failing to pay the property tax. This excuse is strictly reserved for influential and powerful people.

Neither will death be accepted as an excuse. If an ordinary citizen undervalues his property and the property is sold on after his death the tax due, with interest, will be extracted from the new owners.

Influential and powerful people are exempt from such exacting laws. For example, when the criminal politician Haughey died his wealth was passed on to his family with no response from Revenue.

In functional democracies such ill-gotten wealth is heavily taxed or even seized outright.

Returning to Ms. Feehily’s invitation to people to judge Revenue’s record of pursuing people I think the following sums up what most ordinary people think.

The very fact that so called law enforcement agencies like Revenue and the Financial Regulator are incapable or unwilling to enforce the law when dealing with white-collar crime but are more than efficient in enforcing the law against ordinary citizens suggests that there is indeed one law for the rich and another for the peasants.

Copy to:
Revenue

Housing Minister Jan O'Sullivan is a liar?

I agree with Emmet Stagg’s assessement of the ghost estate situation.

There’s no way the 43,000 estates that were previously deemed to be in such a state that they shouldn’t have to pay a €100 last year have now miraclously been transformed into a state where they’re ok.

Last year 43,000 houses were exempt from the household charge but, ‘miraclously’, that figure has dropped to a mere 5,100 this year.

Even if Ireland was a functional democracy with a world class administrative system that pulled out all the stops in order to rectify the ghost estate debacle it would still be impossible for such progress to be achieved in such a short period of time.

It is reasonable therefore to conclude that Housing Minister Jan O’Sullivan is lying when she claims that the dramatic drop is a result of government action.

Irish citizens know, much to their cost, that a lying politician is a much more likely explanation for such claims rather than an efficient/competent administrative system.

Insolvency legislation and the publication of personal details

I heard somebody say over the weekend that people who enter into an arrangement under the insolvency service will have certain details published by the Insolvency Serivice of Ireland (ISI) on a public register.

I googled the ISI for a contact number in order to clarify the situation and found, curiously, that all queries relating to the ISI must be made through the Citizens Information Board (CIB).

The official I spoke with at the CIB knew absolutely nothing about the ISI and, after trying but failing to transfer me to several different extensions, put me on holding music.

I hung up after eight minutes and rang the Data Protection Commissioner’s office to see if they knew anythng about the publication of such information.

Predictably, they didn’t. This has nothing to do with us an official told me. On further questioning he made the Commissioner’s position clear.

If a government decides to bring in legislation allowing for the publication of any information under any heading then that legislation overrides all our legislation and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Finally, I rang the Department of Justice, the department under which the legislation is being introduced.

Yes, an official confirmed, information will be published on a public register concerning all those who enter into an arrangement under the insolvency service.

He guessed it was something to do with bankruptcy laws but candidly admitted that he didn’t really know why the Government is insisting on publishing such personal information.

Trinidad and Tobago: Ahead of Ireland in challenging corruption?

Thanks to Aidan for this link.

This talk by Afra Raymond of Trinidad and Tobago is an interesting contrast to the situation in Ireland in respect to corruption.

My impression is that Ireland is years behind countries like Trinidad and Tobago in its recognition and acceptance of the massive damage that can be inflicted by the disease of corruption.

PS:

TED Talks: Well worth a visit

What's annoying Hogan?

I see yet another Government minister has threatened the media because of perceived negative coverage.

Environment Minister Phil Hogan has threatened to ‘put manners’ on the media for publishing pictures of himself and his now former press secretary in Doha on Budget day.

I admit I’m at a loss here. What was the problem with the photograph, why is his press secretary now his former press secretary, why is Hogan so annoyed and why is the journalist Daniel Mc Connell expressing regret for what happened to the Minister’s press secretary?

Anyone?

Savita Halappanavar report: A great relief to all, except her family

Oh what a great relief.

It seems that the draft report investigating the death of Savita Halappanavar shows that there was ‘a great systems breakdown’ among the clinicians and medics at University Hospital Galway.

The relief will not, of course, apply to Ms. Halappanavar’s family who will be devastated.

But all those ‘responsible’ will be relieved that the great Irish solution of ‘systems failure’ has been utilised to ensure nobody is to blame.

Next scandal please…

Journalist Gavin Sheridan wins significant victory over Nama secrecy

Well done to journalist Gavin Sheridan for his significant victory against the oppressive secrecy of the National Asset Management Agency (Nama).

Gavin spotted a loophole in Nama’s secrecy defences by way of applying for information through a statutory instrument known as the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations.

Nama responded by claiming that it was not a public authority and so did not come under the remit of the statutory instrument. The judge in the case put paid to that particular argument.

The basis for Nama’s claim that it was not a public authority within the meaning of the European regulation was “absurd”, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said in his judgment.

At the core of Nama’s appeal was the claim that the words ‘and includes’ in the European regulations were to be understood as ‘may include’.

The judge rightly rejected the claim but that such ridiculous arguments can be made by Irish authorities in order to preserve the powerful weapon of secrecy is a demonstration of how warped and dangerous the thinking in such authorities has become.

Gavin, who has been fighting Nama on this issue since 2010, said that the outcome was a good day for the public’s right to access information.