Dept. of Finance: Just as secretive, just as arrogant

The Department of Finance, just days after announcing to the nation that it was a cuddly, open and accountable entity, has been exposed as the hypocritical, dishonest and secretive organisation it has always been.

The Irish Independent put a series of questions to the Dept. regarding the hiring of a questionable consultancy firm to reorganize the state-owned Permanent TSB.

The Independent, and by extension every Irish citizen, were given the usual two fingers by this arrogant department.

Refusing to answer a single question a spokesman said:

Day-to-day operational matters are a matter for the respective board and management of the institution.

Despite the fact that it will cost Irish taxpayers millions the Dept. of Finance has refused to even name the consultancy firm involved.

So much for openness and accountability.

The Dept. is also continuing the cowardly and very expensive tradition within the civil service of hiring consultants to act as a firewall against being made accountable.

It was a (public relations) consultancy firm employed by the State to represent TSB that refused to name the consultancy firm employed by the State to reorganize TSB.

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?

New comedy at the Department of Finance

Recently appointed Secretary General of the Dept of Finance John Moran provided some hilarity on today’s News at One.

He promises his department will provide independent, impartial and well informed advice to the Minister and the Government.

If that happens it will indeed be historic.

He also promises that staff at the department will be allowed to debate how things should be done, that there will be an open culture where everybody can voice their opinion.

This would not just be historic but revolutionary as Ireland is, without doubt, the most conservatively most secretely governed country in the Western world.

The first civil servant to exrpess an opinion is very likely to receive a P45 rather than a pat on the back.

So how do we know that this is all just the usual bullshit talk about reform and change?

Because when it was suggested to Mr. Moran that this represented a big change in how things were done in the past he replied:

Well, I haven’t been around for the last couple of years so I dont know actually what was happening or what discussions were taking place.

So here we have a brand new Secretary General in charge of the most important department in the State admitting on live radio that he has no idea what has gone on in the Department or the country in the last couple of years.

'Socialist' Eamon Gilmore against taxing banks

Elaine Byrne has an excellent piece in last Sunday’s Independent outlining how the financial sector, with full support from the Government, are refusing to pay a measly 0.01 Financial Transaction Tax (FTT).

The tax, which would reduce Ireland’s bailout by €500 million annually, would, according to the ‘socialist’, Eamon Gilmore, put Ireland at a competitive disadvantage because the UK would not implement it.

Sam Smyth responds to Lowryland

Journalist Sam Smyth wrote the following very interesting letter in today’s Irish Times in response to a recent article (Welcome to Lowryland) in that paper.

Sir,

The feature on the cover of the Weekend Review (May 5th), “Welcome to Lowryland”, assumes that a legal action taken against me by Michael Lowry has still to be heard.

The legal action against me was finally dismissed in February this year when the president of the High Court ruled against Mr Lowry’s appeal of a decision in my favour made in the Circuit Court.

There is no legal forum open for him to lodge a further appeal.

Mr Lowry is also liable for my legal costs in both defamation hearings.

Mr Lowry chose to launch his legal action against me personally rather than litigate with the newspaper and television station that published the remarks he claimed were defamatory.

His decision not to sue Independent Newspapers suggests that his priorities were to silence me rather than seek compensation.

Yet in “poor me” pleadings in his interview with journalist Colm Keena, Mr Lowry claims that Independent Newspapers led a campaign against him.

Mr Lowry was a senior government minister, the most successful fundraiser in Fine Gael’s history, a potential leader and perhaps even a potential taoiseach when I wrote a story in 1996 telling how he had taken secret payments worth £395,000 from the country’s biggest retailer.

He had to resign from office in disgrace in November 1996, and in March 2011 the final report of the Moriarty tribunal detailed findings of various clandestine attempts by Denis O’Brien to enrich Michael Lowry by more than £900,000.

I wrote the original story in 1996 and enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the then editor of the Irish Independent, the late Vincent Doyle, because I believed that the facts then known showed Mr Lowry was not a fit person for high office.

Further revelations such as Mr Lowry’s €1.4 million settlement with the Revenue Commissioners and Mr Justice Moriarty’s findings of fact in his tribunal’s final report have confirmed my opinion of the Independent TD for Tipperary North.

In his interview with Colm Keena, where the truth plays hide-and-seek with wishful thinking, Mr Lowry made many curious remarks and none more self-serving than his assertion that Mr Justice Moriarty was wrong in his findings.

In the interview, Mr Lowry said: “The Moriarty report will not withstand a judicial test.” Mr Lowry (and others against whom adverse findings were made in the final report of the Moriarty tribunal) had the option of taking a judicial review to challenge the chairman’s findings.

None chose to challenge in the courts the findings of fact in Mr Justice Moriarty’s final report.

Yours, etc,

Sam Smyth

Irish Independent,
Talbot Street,
Dublin 1.

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

Éamon Ó Cuív: Standing by long established Fianna Fail hypocrisy

Éamon Ó Cuív has decided to remain inside Fianna Fail saying he could make a bigger contribution to politics as a member of the party.

Or, in other words:

Abandon my principles, act in my own interests, do what I’m told and shut my mouth.

Or, in other words:

Remain loyal to the long established Fianna Fail tradition of double speak and hypocrisy.

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