Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Puzzlement was expressed on Liveline today (Wednesday) when a caller related how Dublin City Council is running an advertisement campaign encouraging citizens to preserve water.
Could it be that the council has a standing contract with a company that is triggered automatically every summer forcing citizens to listen to advice on the best methods of saving water as they sit marooned in their cars on the M50?
I rang the Passport Office this morning with a number of questions regarding the report on the special passport facility for Oireachtas members.
The person I’ve dealt with over the last number of months was on holiday so I was put onto Nora who knows absolutely nothing about the case or the review report.
I asked to speak to the civil servant who emailed me the report on Friday and was told she’s ‘somewhere in Dublin’ but they would get her to ring me back.
It’s always an experience talking to Irish civil servants.
At last the review of the special passport facility for politicians has been completed. The Passport Office was good enough to email me the report last Friday. It comes as no great shock to read that the committee has recommended that the facility be retained.
“The Committee recommends that the special facility for passport applications forwarded by Members of the Oireachtas should be retained.”
Every member of the Oireachtas was asked for their views on the matter; sixty two written replies were received. Again, it comes as no great shock that all those who replied were in favour of retaining the facility – Turkey’s do not vote for Christmas.
Now that the politicians have decided to retain their Tammany Hall scheme Public Inquiry will be working to have the facility fully publicised, including a mention on the Passport Office website, so that all members of the public can equally avail of this service provided by their public representatives.
The report is short so I have reproduced it in full below.
Report on the Review of the Special Passport Facility for Oireachtas Members
Background
1. In response to a series of Parliamentary Questions earlier this year, regarding the existing provision of a special passport facility for Members of the Oireachtas, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dermot Ahern, TD, indicated that he had asked the Secretary General of his Department, Mr. Dermot Gallagher, to review all aspects of the arrangement, including whether it should be continued.
2. The Minister also indicated that the views of Members of the Oireachtas should be sought on the issue during the course of the review.
The Present System
3. The Department of Foreign Affairs has always over the years sought to be of assistance to Members of the Oireachtas, given their role as elected representatives, in relation to facilitating passport applications. This assistance was put on a more structured basis in the mid 1990s, with the introduction of a special facility in Leinster House allowing for applications to be forwarded through TDs’ and Senators’ offices.
4. Under this system, passport applications are collected in Leinster House by a Service Officer from the Department. The applications are then processed by a small unit of the Passport Office in Molesworth Street. Completed passports are returned to Leinster House by the Departmental Service Officer, or on occasion they may be posted directly to the applicant, if so requested.
5. The applications are examined for entitlement in precisely the same manner as all other applications. They are also subject to exactly the same fees, including the payment of an additional fee where a passport is required within 48 hours. Likewise, proof of travel is required for applications routed through the special facility where the passport is requested for issue in less than 5 days.
6. Precise levels of usage of the passport facility prior to 2008 are difficult to provide. The primary focus of the unit processing these applications was, understandably, on ensuring the entitlement of applicants to passports. Details of submitting Members and/or their Offices were at the time a secondary consideration. The unit retained manual records of applications received, primarily to permit follow-up in the event of any queries. However, the content of these records is rather poor, with the applications often recorded under the names of contact points in Members’ offices.
7. Under a revised system introduced on 18 February 2008, details of all applications received through the facility are recorded electronically. This permits a more precise monitoring of usage of the facility. An analysis of our records show that in a four month period from February to June 2008, applications routed though the facility accounted for less than one per cent of all applications.
8. In addition to the applications which are forwarded by TDs and Senators, the unit processes applications forwarded by some offices of the Health Service Executive. The majority of these applications concern children in care. Included at times over the years also have been applications from the Health Boards, An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces, and NGOs working in developing countries.
Review Process
9. In pursuit of the mandate given to him, Secretary General Gallagher established a Departmental Committee consisting of officials with particular knowledge and experience in the passport area and good administrative practice. A list of the Committee members is at Appendix 1.
10. At the beginning of the process, Minister Ahern had written to all Members of the Oireachtas seeking their views on the issue and inviting them to respond directly to the Committee. Sixty two written replies were received, all of which were in favour of retaining the facility.
11. In addition, the former Minister had written to the Leaders of political parties in the Oireachtas inviting them to nominate a contact person or persons to discuss the issue with a sub-group of the Committee. The Leaders of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party responded and nominated representatives. At subsequent (separate) discussions, the representatives of the three Leaders conveyed a clear desire for the continuation of the facility.
12. The Committee also sought to ascertain if analogous facilities were provided for Parliamentarians in some other countries. As a result, the Committee ascertained that, in Britain for example, the Passport Service provides a dedicated MP hotline number, which MPs can use to contact the passport office on behalf of constituents with immediate passport problems, or to request priority appointments if they themselves are travelling on parliamentary business. In Washington, the Committee ascertained that there is a Special Issuance Agency, which is a separate office within the passport system, whose mandate is to serve the travel needs of officials, including expediting the issuing of passports.
Overview and Recommendation
13. In the experience of the Department, requests to elected representatives usually arise because a passport is required at short notice or because an applicant has encountered some difficulty with the application process. The Department, as said, has always sought to be of assistance to Members in this regard.
14. From an operational perspective, the Department believes that it is more efficient for such applications and queries to be routed through a special facility and a specific unit. This ensures a prompt response and avoids any disruption to the processing of applications by other sections of the Passport Office. It ensures also that the need for formal political representations, including parliamentary questions, on individual applications is all but eliminated, thereby saving on the time of staff.
15. From the Department, the Passport Office and Oireachtas Members’ viewpoints, the system is clearly working efficiently and satisfactorily, and the Committee attaches particular importance to this.
16. Inevitably, cases arise where a citizen requires a passport urgently or needs assistance with his or her application. The Passport Office staff is very pleased to assist such applicants. Some applicants will however, as is their right, seek assistance from their elected representatives and it is appropriate that, within agreed parameters, there is provision for dealing with such requests. Channelling requests and applications through a specific unit ensures that they can be processed quickly and efficiently and avoids any disruption to the passport service generally. As stated above, all applications are also subject to the same rigorous process of assessment for entitlement and accuracy.
17. While accepting that the present system was working satisfactory, the Committee were of the view that an additional requirement should be introduced which would see the Oireachtas Member, or a designated member of his/her staff, certifying the need for an application to be routed through the special facility. The Committee would envisage this being implemented through the completion of a short form which would accompany each application. The envisaged form is attached at Appendix 2. This process would also facilitate the keeping of records by the Passport Office, both in terms of follow-up to queries and in compiling and tracking levels of usage.
18. The Committee would wish to note that both the Oireachtas Members who responded to it, and also the representatives of those Party Leaders who met the Sub-Committee, were supportive of this additional measure. On this basis, and in the light of the Department’s respect for the role of Oireachtas Members, and the fact that the system to date has been operating efficiently and to the satisfaction of all involved, the Committee recommends that the special facility for passport applications forwarded by Members of the Oireachtas should be retained, with the introduction of the certificate mentioned in paragraph 17.
16 July 2008
I spoke again with my contact in the Passports Office regarding the Tammany Hall passport scheme operated by politicians for the benefit of favoured constituents.
The review has been going on now since last February and should have been published earlier this month. Alas, something always seems to crop up just when publication is near.
On this occasion the Dept. Secretary General is out of the country and the other seven committee members are powerless to act until he returns tomorrow. If the committee, in their wisdom, decide that the review is ready they will sign off on the document and forward it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his consideration.
We will then be into the next phase of the farce – Trying to get an answer from the Minister.
Last February the Department of Foreign Affairs began a review of the special passport scheme operated by TDs.
All TDs, Senators and political parties were to be asked their opinion on the usefulness of the scheme. The minister would then consider these views and make a decision. Five months later and we’re still waiting for a decision.
Throughout the review I have been in regular contact with staff from DFA but that all ended a few days ago, the curtain has come down. My regular contact hasn’t been available and the Press Office says they have no information on the review and cannot say when or if it will be published.
Perhaps the politicians have forgotten about the review as they excitedly pack up for their very long summer holidays, perhaps it will be published in late September when they come back, perhaps not.
In any case, We’ll keep on enquiring.
Yet another Government agency has had the lid lifted on its activities and the stench is overwhelming.
FAS, the national training and employment authority is under investigation by the Gardai. As usual in Ireland the alleged corruption wasn’t uncovered by any state regularity agency but came about when Mary Harney received an anonymous letter way back in 2004.
Fine Gael TD, Leo Varadkar, one of the very few effective politicians in Ireland, has been asking questions about what’s been going on in FAS (Morning Ireland, 6th report).
When he questioned Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mary Coughlan, he was dismissed with the comment that everything had been sorted out and that FAS had changed its procedures.
The Gardai are conducting a criminal investigation into allegations that a company hired by FAS defrauded the agency of significant amounts of money but the amazing aspect of the scandal is the activities that are not being investigated by the police. According to Varadkar these include.
Huge amounts of money spent without obtaining the necessary authority from the board of FAS. (Echoes of the Bord na gCon scandal here).
An advertisement contract given to a local newspaper, possibly in a pub, where it is alleged match tickets were exchanged for the contract.
€1.7 million spent on duplicating a website that already existed.
An exhibition contract of €250,000 given to somebody at double the going rate.
A general disregard for normal procurement procedures within the organisation.
Let me repeat – These are the activities not being investigated by the police.
Varadkar wants to know what’s being done about this situation, who has been sanctioned and what’s going to change.
May Zeus bless his innocent head if he thinks he’s going to actually get answers never mind action.
A special investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General into the activities of the Greyhound Board (Bord No gCon) has found evidence of mis-management and financial irregularities over a ten year period up to 2006.
Despite these findings the C&AG also found that in general the funds of Bord na gCon were properly applied.
It should be noted at this point that the C&AG was appointed auditor of Bord na gCon in 2001. In his report the C&AG states; “In my annual audits of Bord na gCon I have satisfied myself that the broad framework of financial administration and internal control was appropriate.”
So the state agency responsible for both auditing and investigating Bord na gCon was satisfied that the broad framework of financial administration and internal controls were appropriate during a period when very serious irregularities occurred.
The core work of the C&AGs office should also be kept in mind as we analyse this very questionable report.
The core work of the Office is the conduct of financial audits which culminates in an annual opinion on all accounts of State and State-sponsored bodies falling within the audit remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG). This work entails examining the accounts and underlying records and transactions of those entities in order to ensure that
• the accounts properly reflect the transactions
• the transactions recorded in the accounts are regular – have been applied for the purposes intended and in accordance with rules governing them.
For each account an examination is also made of the internal financial control arrangements.
We at Public Inquiry would ask – Why was a state agency that has responsibility for signing off on the finances of a semi state body also investigating that same body? At a minimum there is a serious conflict of interest.
We would also call into question the C&AGs conclusion that “in general the funds of Bord na gCon were properly applied.” A look at just some of the more serious irregularities clearly contradicts that conclusion.
A building overseer was given authority over a €12 million redevelopment of Shelbourne Greyhound Park between 2000 and 2002 in the absence of the managing director due to illness.
When this overseer was in charge, control over the project was not being exercised by either Bord na gCon or its subsidiary, Shelbourne Greyhound Stadium Limited.
The same overseer was given a contract to manage security at Shelbourne Park without advertising or a recruitment process.
The same overseer organised a fraud (See Paschal Taggart’s comments at Appendix D) involving the purchase of a ‘new’ generator that cost €124,704 but which was subsequently found to be 20 years old.
The overseer had instructed the services consultant retained to manage the tender process to add to the list of those tendering for the contract a company of which he, the overseer, was a director. Not surprisingly, that company got the contract.
After discovering this fraud, Bord na gCon sought legal advice and were told that it would be futile to take the matter any further as there was insufficient evidence.
Despite the central part played by the overseer in this scandal the contractual relationship he had with Bord na gCon remains unclear.
Obviously, the overseer is the central character in all these activities but when I questioned a spokesperson at the C&AGs office I received a somewhat muddled response.
Why weren’t names named, the overseer, for example?
It’s our policy not to include names in our reports.
Who makes that policy?
It’s an office decision, an internal decision.
If I ask for names can I get them?
There are names at Appendix C.
But it doesn’t give the name of the overseer.
The overseer wasn’t examined, the overseer can’t be found.
He can’t be found? You must be joking?
We had no one to correspond with.
But this man played a major part in the fraud.
We were examining Bord na gCon; the overseer is not and never was an employee of Bord na gCon. As auditor of Bord na gCon, we’re not the police; we don’t go chasing people around.
But surely somebody in Bord na gCon must know who he is?
No, we went and enquired and, we know who he is, just can’t contact him.
Could you give me his name; I might be able to track him down?
I’d have to come back to you on that one.
Fortunately, through an impeccable source, Public Inquiry has learned that the infamous overseer is a Mr. Dan Lannon. The report says Mr. Lannon has “extensive experience in the construction industry”, which could mean a number of things, including possible conflicts of interest.
It is crystal clear that the C&AG has failed in his duty to ensure that transactions of public bodies are in accordance with legal authorities governing them. It is also clear that there are still many unanswered questions surrounding this scandal and that the report submitted by the C&AG is nothing more than a cleverly written whitewash.
Copy to:
Comptroller and Auditor General
Bord na gCon
Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism
Myself and Anthony did a podcast on the publication of the report last week. You can listen to it here.
Anthony will be blogging about the report later this week.
Suffice to say, the report being published so close to the referendum, and to the deadline by which it was due to be published, was at the very least a cynical move.
Sometimes I despair when I hear so called experts expound on the numerous cases of dodgy dealing and corruption in Ireland. I have no idea how educated these people are or what secret agenda they may hold but I do know that, for the most part, they talk drivel.
Take the issue of law enforcement for instance. When a law is enacted in most healthy and democratic jurisdictions it becomes instantly enforceable. The police/regulatory agencies do not require a lead in of years before they feel confident enough to actually enforce the law. In Ireland, according to these so called experts, things are different.
Case one:
Solicitor Barry Lyons in a discussion about the fallout from the Michael Lynn scandal cited a recent case taken by the ODCE as an example of how things were changing with regard to law enforcement (Sunday Supplement).
“I think this week that a prosecution was brought against the director of a company who borrowed in excess of what he should have from the company. It’s unfortunate that the act was introduced in 2001 but prosecutions are beginning at this stage. But, you know, it’s part of the process for the development of the economy.”
So, seven years later somebody has actually decided to enforce the law.
And what’s this thing about ‘part of a process for the development of the economy’? What has this comment to do with law enforcement? Nothing, it’s just part of the brainless waffle we are constantly subjected to from these so called experts.
Lyons may just as well have said – ‘But, you know, it’s part of the process for the development of efficient toilets on the International Space Station’ or ‘But, you know, it’s part of the process for the development of winter heaters for cows teats’.
Case two:
Economist Muir McDowell in a discussion about the fallout from Flavin/DCC insider dealing case (Marian Finucane Show, Sunday).
“Things are changing, under the Competition Act people can now get jail sentences and suspended sentences have been handed down.”
The problem with this ‘expert’ view is that the Competition Act has nothing to do with the Flavin case. The relevant legislation is the Companies Act, 1990.
Eighteen year old legislation and this is the first case of insider trading in Ireland. This can only mean that Irish businessmen are the most honest in history or the law is not being effectively enforced.
In any case, when McDowell talks about jail sentences, even under the Competition Act, he surely can’t mean jail for white collar criminals.
Allow me to enlighten any chronic optimists out there who may be under the illusion that Flavin may be charged or even end up in jail.
I can say with absolute certainty, he won’t. He will never be charged, he will never answer to a jury of his peers; he will never see the inside of a jail.
The Companies Act, 1990 is nothing more than window dressing, a sham piece of legislation designed to give the impression that Ireland actually takes white collar seriously.
Case three:
Niall Brady, Money Editor Sunday Times discussing the mis-selling of products by financial institutions to the elderly (Primetime).
It was put to Brady that perhaps the financial institutions didn’t have enough fear of the Financial Regulator.
“I think that attitude is changing because we tend to forget the regulator has only had a mandate and the powers to enforce consumer protection for about two years. So in a lot of cases the regulator is still feeling its way, but I think with the powers the regulator has now things are changing.”
The Financial Regulator was set up five years ago and was hailed as the great protector of the consumer, the organisation that was going to kick ‘ass big time. The vermin that had infested the Irish financial sector were going to be exterminated; the bad old days were over. Alas, it was not to be.
Initially, somebody ‘forget’ to give the regulator any enforcement powers at all. This is like designing a car but not bothering with a fuel tank. In any case, the Financial Regulator has been up and running with enforcement powers for at least four years.
So, how long does Mr. Brady think the regulator should be given to ‘feel it’s way’? How many more millions have to be robbed from consumers before the regulator feels it has a grasp of its powers? How long before the vermin infested financial sector is finally purged of its filth?
Consumers are advised not to hold their breath or listen to ‘experts’.
Good to see that the Irish Medical Organisation agrees with the opinion of this website that the Health Service Executive (HSE) is “an administrative monster that is unaccountable to the taxpayer.” (Six One News, 10th item).
The use of facts and statistics to make a point usually causes the eyes to glaze over but these figures, I think, will astonish and shock.
This Week (4th item) – 23rd March.
Since the HSE took over from the old health boards administration and management costs have risen from €492 million in 2005 to €587 million in 2007.
The number of administration and management staff in the HSE at the end of September 2007 was 18,421 compared to just over 16,000 in a similar category at the end of 2004.
In 2000 there were six grade 8 people in the Department of Health – Today, there are 714. (Grade 8 is a high level, high pay position).
In 2002, (An election year) 26,000 new public positions were created, many of them in the HSE.
There are now administrative and management staff for every 2.5 doctor and nurse in the HSE.
News at One (7th item) – 26th March.
150 extra grade ‘A’ jobs were created last year when only 50 were sanctioned. Meanwhile, cutbacks have seen 400 people on trolleys, a 10% increase in waiting time for a wide range of surgery, withdrawal of home help for children and the elderly.
The HSE has only managed to stay within overall budget by diverting development and capital monies away from key government priorities intended to address the needs of an ageing and expanding population.