Details of inquiry into Irish banking collapse published

The Government has published an amended Private Members’ Motion by Labour on a banking inquiry. Essentially, it outlines how such an enquiry would function.

Labour Private Members’ Motion on banking inquiry and Government amendents

The main reading is from “To delete all the words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:…” on page two, onwards.

My brief summary upon one reading, updated as I re-read and read elsewhere: the Government proposes to establish a commission of investigation (similar in structure to the Commission into child sex abuse) after two reports are submitted by the Central Bank upon which the Commission’s investigation will be based. Therefore the quality and depth (or lack thereof) of the reports from the Central Bank will be hugely important to the quality, depth and findings of the Commission.

The reports will be submitted no later than May 31 2010. Pretty early if one wants in-depth reports.

The commission will be established no later than June 30.

It will only cover the period up to September 2008. Why?

Commissions of Investigation sit in private, bar in especially exceptional circumstances. It is therefore extremely likely the banking inquiry will sit in private due to the sensitive nature of its operations politically. They do have the power to compell witnesses.

It will be chaired by an ‘internationally respected independent expert’. Interesting, who? Respected by who? With a background in which sides of the banking industry? And from where, and what is their background?

It will lay its findings before the Houses of the Oireachtas no more than six months after it is established. This won’t happen.

Moriarty Tribunal transcripts

Update: I was contacted by the Tribunal, who said they had contacted DCR, who have said “a disc is being prepared”. I await with bated breath.

Last month I put an FOI request in with the Department of the Taoiseach for the following:

(1) All transcripts of public sittings of the Moriarty Tribunal from its inception to the date on which this request is received.
(2) The contract for transcription services and a breakdown of fees charged for transcription services.
(3) The breakdown of fees for the maintenance and building of the Moriarty Tribunal website, and the contract for this.

Today I received the reply. I had to read it twice to let it sink in.

Moriarty reply

I can, in some way, live with the fact that the taxpayer spent the bones of €1 million on transcription fees since the inception of the Tribunal in 1998. But I cannot fathom how a) the transcripts are not available online and b) that I have to pay (again) to see the transcripts of the Tribunal and c) that Doyle Court Reports retains copyright on transcripts of public sittings of a Tribunal of Inquiry setup by the Department and paid for by the Irish people.

I called Doyle Court Reporters this morning and they were very courteous and helpful. I asked for a quote as to how much I would have to pay for digital (.doc) copies of all 370 days of public sittings of the Moriarty Tribunal. They called me back a short time later, stating that for all days the cost would be €16,600 @ €45 per day. But if I was bulk buying they would be prepared to offer a discount of 25%.

I did suggest to DCR that since the public had already paid nearly €1 million for the transcripts, it seems a little odd that I would, as a citizen, have to fork out another €16,600 to get copies of the transcripts. DCR were again courteous and helpful, and suggested I speak with the Moriarty Tribunal.

I then called the Moriarty Tribunal, where I spoke with the registrar, Siobhan Hayes. First I asked if the Tribunal had copies of all transcripts, to which the answer was yes. Are these subject to FOI I then asked… to which she eventually replied no, and that copyright was with DCR. I then asked why other Tribunals, such as Mahon and Morris, had published transcripts on their websites, and Moriarty ones were unavailable. I was told that the original agreement was that copyright would stay with DCR, and that was the way it was. I then asked for a copy of the contract or agreement between the Tribunal and DCR in relation to stenography services. Siobhan said she would get back to me on this issue.

Of course a couple of questions arise. First is whether the Department of the Taoiseach does hold the transcripts, but simply pointed me in the direction of Doyle Court Reporters for copies of them. Second is how, exactly, copyright on transcripts of a public sitting of a Tribunal applies.

Third, and most importantly, is why the transcripts are unavailable for public consumption as a matter of public record. These are historically important transcripts containing the sworn evidence of former Taoisigh including Charles Haughey and Bertie Ahern, as well as other former senior ministers, civil servants and businessmen, all in relation to extremely serious issues of public concern. Indeed when a Tribunal is established it is invariably included in the Terms of Reference that it concerns “definite matters of urgent public importance”.

Yet in relation to a matter of urgent public importance, for a Tribunal that is shortly to issue its second and final report, I can’t see who said what in relation to anything on any given day, whatsoever.

Mad, isn’t it?

Related post:
Morris transcript FOI

Got 16 and a half minutes? Worth watching…

If you’re at your desk for lunch this fine Monday you may consider taking 16 minutes and 30 seconds of your time to watch the presentation below by Dan Areily, author of Predictably Irrational.

Of course, there are innumerable contexts in which the topics the speaker covers applies. However, it may be worth considering thinking of the relationships and familiarity between people in the upper echelons of Irish banking and their political peers whilst viewing.

Areily is a professor of behavioural economics.

Digest – Jan 17 2010

Roll up roll up and that jazz.

– HOME

Anthony – typically pulling no punches – on Revenue.

The observations of the Puckstown Lane blogger on banking inquiries, post-bust. Also, Veronica on IrishElection.com.

Simon McGarr fillets this bizarre opinion piece by Breda O’Brien.

Shane Coleman makes a lot of sense in The Sunday Tribune today, highlighting the need for nuanced commentary and analysis. Batt O’Keeffe is a minister I have some time for, he has put his head above the parapet on third level fees and actually made some decisions while in Education. Whatever you think of his decisions – closing schools due to weather in this case – at least he made some, something our Taoiseach could consider doing more often.

Also in the Tribune today, ‘What next for Anglo?‘, ‘The Price of NAMA for taxpayer keeps rising‘ and ‘Glass bottle site valuation ‘ignores emissions’. Their Business section really is top-notch today, the revamp looks like it’ll be a success (I’m not a big fan of the opinion section most weeks however).

I thoroughly enjoy the writing on Booming Back. This post is worth reading in full but the (quite funny) description of the Green Party (written by a former member) is particularly quotable:

The more astute of you will no doubt be pointing out that I used to be a card carrying member of the Green Party. This is true, but I viewed the Greens as a loose collection of activists banded together in an attempt to use collective strength to drive forward their own disparate environmental and social justice agendas, like the Shell to Sea campaign, the Tara bypass, opposition to Shannon Rendition flights and the Poolbeg incinerator. I was wrong. The Greens are in fact a loose collection of folks banded together for the sake of banding together. Social justice and activism seem nowhere on the agenda, the party’s sole drive is to stay in existence, an apolitical Oroborus endlessly devouring itself in an orgy of self-preservation through self-consumption. My mistake, I’ve moved on, and to reference Žižek quoting Beckett, I must fail better next time.

One of the many reasons I nominated Bryan Mukandi in the best blog from a journalist category – if you’re reading, Madam, I reckon his face would look well on the opinion pages.

– WORLD Continue reading “Digest – Jan 17 2010”

Galway stories of interest: council, Gardaí and GAA

There are two very interesting pieces on the front of the Galway City Tribune this week. The lede (main headline item) is “Planning probe into ‘Garda’ signature on GAA document”, with the sub-headline ‘Validity of controversial Pearse Stadium application questioned’.

The second item (not online) is again on questionable planning practices, it’s headed “Council sold residents’ car park in error”. This story appears extremely complicated and is quite difficult to understand on first reading, but it is worth a read. For non-Galwegians: you can view an electronic version of the print edition by clicking the masthead below if you wish to inform yourself further.



The main story is slightly easier to get your head around. Enda Cunningham reports a senior garda has ordered the GAA and Galway City Council to establish who signed a document submitted as part of a contentious planning application for floodlights on Pearse Stadium. The signature, purported to be that of a member of An Garda Siochana, is attached to an official letter from An Garda and was submitted as part of a the traffic management part of the application.  The superintendent at Salthill station, Noel Kelly, does not know who signed this letter.

He is quoted a saying:

On the morning of January 6 2010 I went to the planning section of Galway City Council to view the alleged document. […] I have a concern with the document entitled Pearse Stadium/Transort Traffic Arrangements which is attached to Sergeant Moloney’s letter. The [document] purports to be signed by a member of An Garda Siochana. The signature is not mine. It is not my inspector’s or Sergeant Maloney’s signature. No other persons have permissions to sign documents on behalf of An Garda Siochana.”

The GC Tribune also reports that the Council has accused the GAA of misleading them as the the number of games which would be played under the proposed floodlights. Over 100 objections have been lodged against the application by local residents and resident’s associations.

My understanding of the second story is as followings: Galway City Council had granted planning permission for two “badly-needed” schools to the Vocational Education Committee (VEC) on a site near a large housing estate in Doughiska, on the outskirts of the city. It has now emerged that planning permission was then granted for a car park to be built for residents of the housing estate on the same site, this car park has since been built. The planning permission for the car parks was granted to and, it appears, the work carried out by, McInerneys, the company who built the estate. The result is the building of the two schools,which would cater for more than 1000 pupils, may be delayed by up to four years.

It’s an odd story, councillors are even pointing out the lack of transparency surrounding it. A report was submitted about the site to Galway City Council on Friday just after The GC Tribune went to print, I’m going to look for a copy of it tomorrow, if I do get my hands on one I’ll post it here.

Two stories worth keeping an eye on, we’d be interested in hearing about any further developments, of course.

Thanks to Allan for letting us know about them.

The Galway City Tribune is part of the Connacht Tribune Group, you can pick it up around Galway for something like €2.

Transparency Ireland event on Tuesday

Some readers may be interested in attending the Transparency Ireland event taking place next Tuesday in Buswells at 1pm.

The topic will be ‘An alternative to silence – protecting whistle-blowers in Ireland’.

See this link for more information.

Speakers include Eugene McErlean, former internal auditor at AIB, Bernadette Sullivan, former nurse at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Tom Clonan, former officer in the Irish Army and now Irish Times defence correspondent; and John Devitt, Chief Executive of TI Ireland.

Do say hello if you spot me (though I will be off back to work afterwards). Gav will probably be there too.

Kildare kerfuffle: reflected nationally?

This blog post by a former county councillor, Donal Corcoran, has caused quite a kerfuffle over the last few days in Kildare. It details what conferences Kildare County Council was charged for by councillors for tickets to over the last year. Yes, that last sentence appears terribly structured but it’s that way for good reason; it appears county councillors didn’t attend all the conferences for which the claimed the cost of tickets.

To get this straight; councillors didn’t attend conferences for which they requested the council pay for tickets. It doesn’t seem to be them over-claiming on their own expenses, instead they seem to be wasting money by not turning up at conferences which the council paid for them to attend. Complicated sentence structures all ’round but I hope you get my drift.

The Leinster Leader and Kildare FM have followed up the story – Leinster Leader without attributing it to the original source unfortunately (“as seen by this paper” tut tut, what’s wrong with crediting blogs, lads?) – you can get their coverage here and here. (Kildare FM credited the story to Leinster Leader). Jim at Primal Sneeze gave me a heads-up on it earlier in the week, you can read his feelings on the matter at this link.

Strangely, some of Kildare’s reps claimed for attending days like “Maximising Your Vote” and “Get Elected: You the Media”. These seminars appear to be geared towards improving an individual’s personal political potential, not their abilities or understanding of the issues they’re elected by the people of Kildare to cover. They really should be paying for these events out of their own pockets, not yours and mine, right?

Maybe a few of the regional and local journalists and bloggers who read this website will consider contacting their own local authority and ask for similar information. It may available on request without submitting an FOI. We could do with a better picture of what type of seminars councillors are attending in the name of improving the standard of local governance. At the moment I suspect widespread junketeering.

I’d also be interested in hearing from conference organisers, surely councillors don’t turn up at conferences that might be on a Friday, sign-in, stay until lunch and disappear? They’d never do that, especially not conferences held far enough away from their area that they’d have to claim an overnight allowance, surely not?

Incidentally, John Gormley has announced new restrictions on the amounts councillors can spend annually in attending conferences today.

—

If you get similar information from another local authority please do email me at coughlanmp AT gmail DOT com.

Update: Tweet came in from Dermot Looney, councillor in Tallaght, he says, “Those of us who refuse to claim any Conf expenses & divert that money to homeless accomm instead never seem to get a mention!”. I’m further informed that 15 of the 26 South Dublin councillors have pledged to do the same, all party reps bar the Fine Gaelers. Note: I haven’t checked that and am taking Cllr Looney on his word.

If you know of councillors who do other such things get in touch and I’ll be happy to list them here.

Michael Lowry's statement prior to Moriarty report

Michael Lowry just released a statement giving his side of the issues the Moriarty Tribunal has covered. The Tribunal is expected to publish its final report within three weeks. I’m publishing his statement in full here for those interested who may not have received it via email. Any comments will be strictly moderated on this post.

Media lawyers will be pouring over this at the moment. I’ll make no other comment than to note that the Tribunal cannot respond at the moment, obviously. You may remember Denis O’Brien also hit the media a few months ago.

13th January 2010

Statement by Michael Lowry TD:

Regarding the impending publication of the final report of the Moriarty Tribunal of Inquiry

I recently made a request, through my solicitor, to the Moriarty Tribunal to allow me the opportunity at the Tribunal to publicly address all of the evidence given to the Tribunal about the licence process since I last gave my evidence in 2005.   It has always been my belief and understanding that I, as the subject person of the Tribunal’s inquiry, would be the last person to give evidence and to address all of the allegations that were made against me.  It was my understanding that this was accepted by the Tribunal.  However, the Tribunal is now refusing me this right.  After eleven years of being investigated by the Moriarty Tribunal, they refuse to allow me time to defend myself in public on the licence process.  I am both surprised and disappointed by this response given that I have been forced to endure this highly expensive and personally corrosive examination over this period.  You could form the impression that the Moriarty Tribunal is intent on destroying my character, shredding the reputation of the Irish civil servants and damaging the international image of the Irish State.  They are attempting to do this in the absence of any real evidence in support of their outlandish theories.  There are numerous issues which I have not had the opportunity to address including the evidence of Richard Nesbitt SC, which is material to the awarding of the GSM licence.

Grievances with the Licence Process: Continue reading “Michael Lowry's statement prior to Moriarty report”