Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is accountable

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who is accountable

    The Attorney General is one of the most powerful and influential people in the State. She is also one of the least accountable. If she screws up, she does not have to answer to anybody except the Taoiseach and then only in private. Máire Whelan is widely respected, liked and admired. But she came very badly out of the Fennelly report into the resignation of the former Garda commissioner, Martin Callinan. And she comes badly out of the debacle over the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the Siteserv controversy that did not have the legal powers to do the job.

    This happens – people get things wrong. But in a democracy it is crucial that when it happens, the person responsible has to explain how and why things went so badly awry. Yet a combination of colonial overhang, legal pomposity and political convenience gives us a powerful public servant who does not answer to the public.
    The Fennelly report raised very serious questions about the AG’s judgment. She gave seriously inconsistent evidence to the inquiry. She first told the judge that “decades of recording phone calls in and out of Garda stations [was] in complete violation of the law, with total disregard for the requirements of ministerial authorisation and of the rights of the citizen”. She said “this was criminal activity being engaged in by An Garda Síochána” and a “most grievous matter”.
    Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin.
    Brendan Howlin says he understands Alan Dukes’ concerns
    The Department of Finance argued that although the information is confidential, but that the Commission could overrule this. Photograph: Frank MillerCliff Taylor: 200,000 pages of IBRC evidence that cannot be used
    Attorney General Maire Whelan’s role came under scrutiny following the publication of the Fennelly report. Photograph: Aidan CrawleyAG Whelan may face attack over IBRC legal problems
    The Commission of Inquiry into IBRC is investigating disposals by the bank - which was the former Anglo Irish Bank - involving write-downs of €10 million or more - including the sale of Siteserv. IBRC inquiry: Challenges ‘would succeed’ if confidential data used
    The Commission of Inquiry into IBRC is investigating disposals by the bank - which was the former Anglo Irish Bank - involving write-downs of €10 million or more - including the sale of Siteserv. Image: The Irish Times Cabinet to consider legislation over inquiry into IBRC
    Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said on Monday the legal advice given to the Department of Finance in submitting documents to the Siteserv inquiry was that the judge’s powers could overrule confidentiality concerns. Photograph: EPA Noonan found out about IBRC inquiry issues on Thursday
    Startlingly, she later made a written submission to the inquiry that presented what the report termed a “substantially modified” view in which she said her previous “trenchant language” had left the commission with an “erroneous impression” as she meant only that there was a “potential illegality”.
    The gulf between these two positions is disturbingly wide.
    In a functioning democracy, citizens would be able to hear from the holder of such a pivotal office how she came to so substantially modify her evidence to an inquiry established by the Oireachtas.
    A Dáil committee would take her through the events and her reaction to them and give her the opportunity to explain herself. She might, after all, have had very good reasons for her different views, and changing one’s mind is not inherently ignoble. But the very suggestion that this might happen was treated like a proposal for an orgy in a cathedral.
    Pomposity
    A fug of pomposity surrounds the office of Attorney General . The courts call the AG a “great officer of State” and an “independent constitutional officer”. But in practice, the system does nothing to make the AG really and truly independent of politics. We end up with the worst of both worlds – a highly political office sealed off by a fiction of complete political independence. The AG can’t answer questions because that would threaten an independence the role does not in fact have.
    The odour of sanctity that hangs over the office like a protective veil is really a cheap perfume. The role is utterly political. Bizarrely, the AG can be a sitting TD – John Kelly fulfilled both roles in 1977 – and thus subject to a party whip. The AG is appointed technically by the President but in reality by the Taoiseach personally. Is it mere coincidence that the Taoiseach habitually finds the best person for this “independent” office among the ranks of supporters of one of the parties in power?
    Once appointed, the AG serves at the whim of the Taoiseach, who can sack the AG for any “reasons which to him seem sufficient”. Her tenure is entirely subject to the arbitrary whims of the Taoiseach.
    If this seems like a throwback to a colonial monarchy, it’s because it is. The office of AG was recognised in the Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924, but it was not created: it assumed all the “business, powers, authorities, duties and functions” of the colonial-era office of Attorney General for Ireland. The 1937 Constitution further recognised the office, but it didn’t create any mechanisms to make it accountable. Essentially, the Constitution incorporates an old colonial institution into the governance of a republic without making it fit for democratic purpose.
    And yet this office exercises vast political power. How often do we hear that something that is urgently needed can’t be done because of the advice of the AG? In effect, the AG has become a one-person Supreme Court, deciding in advance that legislation can’t be proposed because, in the view of that single individual, it might be unconstitutional. Politicians, in turn, hide behind the AG: Eamon Gilmore’s new book, for example, justifies the grotesque 14-year prison term for any woman using abortion pills because the AG decreed it to be necessary.


    Unaccountable
    We know from repeated experience that unaccountable power makes for bad governance. We see bad governance at work in the Fennelly report and we see it again in the fiasco of the Siteserv inquiry. A common thread is the pompous pretence that the AG is a special creature, above politics and above accountability. This new debacle must be a catalyst for legislation to make the AG answerable for her actions. Or would that have trouble getting past the AG as well?


  • #2
    Siteserv deal must get priority as Government attempts to address concerns spelt out by inquiry judge
    Considerable delays now inevitable


    Individual rights under the Constitution are not absolute. Nor are those of property. They can be limited or restricted by the Oireachtas on the basis of the common good. The same holds true for the disclosure of privileged or confidential documents. In the case of Judge Brian Cregan’s inquiry into the sale of State-owned assets by IBRC, the public good requires that citizens should be satisfied that no preferential or “sweetheart” deals cost them money or, if they did, that disclosure and retribution will follow.
    Public confidence in the law and in its ability to protect the interests of ordinary citizens against the actions of the rich and the well-connected is a vital element in a functioning democracy. That is why the Government should take immediate action to address concerns expressed by Judge Cregan by amending the terms of the 2004 Commission of Investigation Act that he believes prevent him producing a report of substance.
    Just why that legislation should allow for the withholding of privileged or confidential documents is unclear, when the courts may order their disclosure, but it represents a fundamental obstacle to this and future Oireachtas-inspired inquiries. So do limitations placed on the circulation of such documents. Questions have been asked about the legal advice given by Attorney General Máire Whelan and why these flaws were not anticipated.
    The issues to be addressed by Judge Cregan were controversial from the outset. Regarding the sale of Siteserv to a company owned by Denis O’Brien and the banking arrangements he enjoyed with Anglo-Irish Bank/IBRC, the media mogul objected to intrusions into his business life and has since initiated legal actions against public representatives and the Dáil’s Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Siteserv says it is willing to co-operate with the commission but has yet to hear from it.
    A lack of ambition by Ms Whelan to break new ground was replicated within Government where, over a number of months, the Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Minister for Finance Michael Noonan were reluctant to address the sale of Siteserv. Finally, last June, it was agreed that the commission would investigate disposals by IBRC involving writedowns of €10 million or more. The sale of Siteserv and Mr O’Brien’s loans with the nationalised bank would be included. In addition, the relationship between IBRC and the Department of Finance and the role of Mr Noonan would be scrutinised.
    A requirement that the Commission of Inquiry should complete its report by December appeared to be fanciful at the time, because of the amount of work involved. In view of current difficulties, priority should be accorded to reporting on the Siteserv module, which gave rise to public concerns in the first place.

    Comment


    • #3
      The very idea of corruption is to corrupt that which is corruptible.....The basis of law must come from what is intended within the Constitution.....
      Here Rex!!!...Here Rex!!!.....Wuff!!!....... Wuff!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        The Attorney General has to go, its not like this is her first mess either.

        Comment


        • #5
          It's understandible big Bigby of how the state first worked borrowing laws from before independence as you have to have something to go on but as the state progressed they should have been looking for better systems to rule .No government should have any secrecy except for security and everything else should be above board.To say that an official is not answerable to anyone is just opening the door for all sorts of dirty deals.
          The constitution can and should be changed to reflect this.
          We are the same way here as out constitution is based on the British system,first past post nonsense in elections and all sorts of other things.
          Bottom line is that there should be consequences for people who screw up in the service just like there are in private and public jobs.
          Members of parliament we just get to vote them out if we want and there needs to be a vehicle to examine these people you talk about and fire them if necessary.

          Comment

          Working...
          X