Category: Government

Planning corruption magic: Now you see it, now you don't

So here’s how things are done in a banana republic.

Some very serious allegations of corrupt planning come to the attention of a government minister.

This minister does something very, very unusual, he instigates an internal investigation to see if there’s any substance to the allegations.

The investigation finds that there are indeed some very serious questions that need answering

But just as the minister is about to launch an independent, external inquiry he loses office and is replaced by a minister who thinks the allegations are spurious.

But this new minister can’t just ignore everything, even in a banana republic that wouldn’t look good, so he orders (another) internal review and lo and behold, this new review finds no evidence whatsoever of any planning corruption.

This ‘magical’ conclusion means there’s no need for an independent, external investigation.

And so, with a great sigh of relief, the politicians who got such an dreadful fright when the allegations were first made, can now return to their usual day to day work of collecting expenses, cheating the taxman and screwing ordinary citizens into the ground.

Happy days.

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

Irish perjury law: Strictly reserved for the peasants

David Cameron’s former communications chief, Andy Coulson, has been arrested and charged with perjury.

Coulson is suspected of lying under oath at the trial of former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan

Sheridan, who was on trial for perjury, was found guilty and jailed for three years.

The arrest, trial and jailing of similarly influential people in Ireland is an absolute impossibility.

There is, of course, a law against perjury in Ireland but its enforcement is strictly reserved for ordinary citizens

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.

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.

A country with consequences and a country of no consequence

A Commons committee, after investigating for less than a year, have found that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run a major international business.

Meanwhile, back in the banana republic of Ireland a tribunal, after 14 years and costing countless millions, found that businessman Denis O’Brien had been involved in some very dodgy dealings with Michael Lowry.

No action has ever been taken (or will be) against Mr. O’Brien.

He remains a man of high standing (although that’s not difficult in a country of such low standards) and a great buddy of the present government.

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

Civil Servants: Protecting politicians rather than serving the State

The Irish Mail on Sunday (MoS) is, rightly, focusing on the disgraceful behaviour of civil servants who dealt with the Ned O’Keeffe allegations of fraud.

Reading the report in today’s paper I could immediately identify with the deep frustration of dealing with a secretive, arrogant bureaucracy determined to protect the interests of their political overlords at all costs.

The overall feeling when dealing with these people is one of powerlessness, that no matter what the alleged wrongdoing, the system is always going to protect the politician.

More disturbingly, there is a rapidly developing culture of invincibility among civil servants that no matter how badly they get things wrong, no matter how damaging their behaviour is to the public good, there will be no consequences.

Back in 2007, for example, I rang Dublin City Council with a very simple question.

Was Fianna Fail TD, and then minister, Pat the Cope Gallagher fined for illegally erecting election posters?

Nine months later, after numerous phone calls, emails, letters and formal complaints I finally succeeded in getting an answer.

Here are some of the bizarre/arrogant responses I got from so-called civil servants.

Bernie Lillis of Dublin City Council told me that it was her personal office policy not to reveal such information. It was, she claimed, a personal matter between her office and the politician.

The Standards in Public Office Commission rejected my complaint on the grounds that the matter (breaking of the law by a government minister on two separate occasions) was not of sufficient gravity to warrant an investigation.

Donegal County Council replied to my formal complaint (sent by post) that they could not investigate the matter, as they had received no formal complaint.