Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
July 2021 9
Ireland secretly messes up
EU grant aid
During the Edinburgh European Council Summit in
1994 the Finance Minister Bertie Ahern secured for
Ireland some €9bn in grant aid for the spending
This is my story.
By Frank Mulcahy
It’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different
person then.
- Alice in Wonderland
By 2012 I had secured enough of those facts to
cause Deputy Micheál Martin, the President of
Fianna Fáil, to confirm that he had lied as the
relevant Minister in 2004, having been misled by his
civil servants. He declared himself to be “livid”. He
immediately undertook to correct his untruths. But
he let me down. Last month he personally confirmed
to the Data Protection Commissioner that he
shredded the minutes where he acknowledged the
scandal.
Nevertheless despite that setback I am set to be
vindicated. One of the reasons is the elevated status
of some of those who did me most wrong. Lies
by, and the truth about, the most influential will
always find a reader.
I
n retrospect I made two huge mistakes. First, I
was naively trusting in the state. It took me many
years to wake to the fact that the state, including
its most eminent politicians, repeatedly looked
me in the eye and lied.
Second, my uneducated expectations of the legal
profession were greatly misplaced. From my
experiences over the last two decades I have now come
to believe that if that profession had been required to
show the Wisdom of Solomon it is probable that the
child would have been sawn in half.
The brazen, orchestrated and repeated untruths,
which ocials had Dáil Eireann and Taoisigh Ahern,
Varadkar and especially Martin validate, were designed
to get me to give up, as other NGO parties similarly
accused had done.
And give up I would have, if the authorities had
left me with any vestige of honour and respectability.
I had been reported to the DPP, deprived of my good
name, my job and any employment prospects. I had
no option but to continue.
Bertie Ahern famously climbed every tree in North
County Dublin in pursuit of the facts. I have been up
every tree, every plant, in every County and across
Europe, for twenty years.
NEWS
Taoiseach lied, while he
and Tánaiste covered-up
How the one-time
CEO of ISME, has been
epically shafted by
senior politicians, Garda,
GSOC and two inquiries
because of a secret feud
between Irish and EU
bureaucrats
10 July 2021
Trying to vindicate
my good name
IIt is now 21 years since I began my fight to have
my good name vindicated. In retrospect that
exercise was akin to constructing a massive
three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle with no end
picture, large chunks missing and key pieces
deliberately removed.
The challenge that I set myself has taken so
long that the goodwill of the many that
supported me at the outset evaporated or I
attempted to exploit their patience too many
times.
Nadir: drink
By 2003 I was at my lowest ebb. I was virtually
bankrupt in every aspect of my life. Worse still,
the Department of Enterprise and the Garda
had closed their files to me so I could not seek
exoneration.
I had nobody left to contact. I saw no future.
Being me, I responded in a way that was
natural. I was good at it. I drank a little and then
a little more.
In September 2003 I was persuaded by the
business editor of a national newspaper to give
the 12 Step Programme a try. That surely was
the bottom. All my life I had dismissed the
followers of that programme with a word that
rhymes with bankers.
Encountering a Whistleblower
Within the week of my first 12 step meeting I
got what should have been my first break.
Bedraggled and somewhat unhinged, I met by
chance on Hatch Street a middle-ranking
Department of Enterprise ocial (Turlough
O’Molloy). He had been involved in the admin-
istration of the grant programme that I was
alleged to have defrauded. He clearly was
shocked at my physical state. He expressed
concern. In the course of our brief conversation
he casually disclosed that the allegation lev-
elled at me had no basis whatsoever.
I immediately wrote to both the political and
administrative heads of the Department of
Enterprise. I asked them to confirm what their
ocial – in eect a ‘whistleblower’ - had
disclosed. Those letters have still to be
answered.
Ruairí Quinn facilitates investigation number
one
When no reply was forthcoming I contacted
Deputy Ruairí Quinn, former leader of the
Labour Party. In January 2004, he spoke to the
Department’s Secretary General, Paul Haran.
In the course of that
Officials had Dáil Eireann and Taoisigh
Ahern, Varadkar and especially Martin
validate brazen and repeated untruths.
period 1994 to 1999. It was hailed as a signifi-
cant negotiation achievement.
However, those funds caused a metaphorical
bomb to explode in the spending departments,
with a proportionate knock-on eect on the
industrial development agencies and in
several Non Governmental Organisations
(NGOs), one of the latter being the primary
focus of this chronicle.
In 1997 the EU Commission introduced
significant penalties to be applied where
member states were found to be in breach of
newly defined audit terms and gave them the
force of law via EU Regulation 2064/97 - a
time bomb waiting to explode.
Article 8 of the Regulation dysfunctionally
legitimised the EU demand that the member
states confirm observance of the audit rules
introduced in 1997 “retroactive to 1994”. That
retroactive element had seemingly gone
unnoticed when it was approved by the
member states. It has generally been
accepted, most notably at the Nuremberg
Trials that retroactive laws are unjust and
unconstitutional.
How it affected me
The genesis of my travails was when I was,
without notice, reported to the Garda by ISME
as having defrauded the EU in the drawing
down of grants from the Department of Enter-
prise, Trade and Employment. I need to explain
that I was not accused of pocketing any
money, which manifestly I hadn’t. The allega-
tion was based solely on the claim I had
infringed the EU’s administrative rules by sub-
mitting invoices before they were paid.
At the time of the allegation I was upset but
unconcerned since the Department had
effectively prepared ISME’s payment
application. The truth, I expected, would out
itself in due course.
Yet, to my utter consternation and disbelief
a file was somehow sent by the Garda to the
DPP, despite the fact that the fraud squad
never interviewed me.
The Department of Enterprise of course
knew the truth. But inexplicably they remained
mute to me since, as I was to slowly establish,
it was they that had most to conceal. As a
consequence of the report to the DPP, I was
dismissed, rendered unemployable and
deprived of my good name for more than two
decades.
My undoing was caused by the fractured
relationship between the Irish and EU
bureaucrats. That breakdown arose because
the EU created a precedent by insisting that
Ireland be the first ever member state to have
to repay £ 100 million of approved grants.
Ireland Inc, represented by its political and
administrative elite, had behaved badly, even
criminally, and been embarrassed in front of
its peers, and I was the fall guy.
conversation Haran denied what I attributed to
his junior colleague. Nevertheless he undertook
to investigate the files.
He added that if what the whistleblower had
disclosed proved to be true, namely that there
was no EU prohibition on the use of unpaid
invoices, he would publish the facts since, he
volunteered, “Frank is entitled to his good
name”. Bureaucratic decency seemed to be in
the ascendant.
His investigation concluded at the end of
February 2004. The Department was
unambiguous. What I had attributed to
Turlough O’ Molloy was unfounded.
His investigation concluded at the end of
February 2004. The Department was
unambiguous. What I had attributed to
Turlough O’ Molloy was unfounded. I had, it
seemed, deceived myself..
I soon learnt that the ocials who had dealt
with the relevant grant section for the previous
ten years had suddenly been required to step
aside. Those officials included the
whistleblower and the official who had
undertaken the two-month investigation
earlier in 2004. They were the ocials best
informed to provide the “definitive” answer as
promised in May 2004 to Pat Rabbitte TD. And
yet those ocials had been suddenly replaced!
Harney denies grant rule
changed
In the end the Minister for Enterprise and
Tánaiste, Mary Harney rearmed what her
Department had concluded on foot of their
investigation. Crucially, she denied that the
grant rules had been changed in 1997. We were
flummoxed.
Department pleads ignorance
In June 2004, when asked to state that the alle-
gation had been null and void, Minister Harney
claimed that she could not say since her Depart-
ment was “unaware of the basis on which the
organisation that made the complaint formed
the view of a possible fraud”.
By falsely claiming not to be aware of the
basis to the allegation, the Department avoided
answering the question.
Garda investigation and lies
In the years 2000 to 2004 in my search for the
facts I met the fraud squad, initially on my own
and later with a witness Diarmaid Breathnach.
The Head of the Fraud Squad insisted that
the report to the DPP had been justified. He
July 2021 11
invent such a story in March 2002 when they
knew it was untrue.
At the time of the allegations in 1999, I had
asked the Department to assist me defend my
good name but officials had declined to
engage.
Five years later, the Department investigated
the files on foot of the whistleblower’s
disclosures but again insisted that I had
committed the fraud alleged.
The FOI Catch 22
When I asked why that report had not been
released on foot of my 50 FOI requests, I was
told that since I hadn’t asked for it by name it
wasn’t disclosed. But how was I to ask for a rel-
evant report that I didn’t know existed? No
wonder my FOI requests had yielded nothing.
Then I made the same request in the name of
friends.
Evidence the Department
covered up its knowledge that
there was no irregularity
In 2007 as I thumbed through reams of files
eventually provided by the Department of
Finance under FOI, a single page jutted out. It
was an interdepartmental memo dated 20
March 2002 in which their ocial Ian Devlin
asked the Department of Enterprise why he was
required to report me to Brussels for an “irregu-
larity”, when there had been no fraud and more
declined to record the whistleblower’s evidence
from October 2003 and other facts. In the end
he threatened to prosecute me for wasting
Garda time if I persisted in seeking to clear my
name.
However, files now available show that in its
statement to the Garda dated 26 April 1999,
several months before the report to the DPP,
the Department of Enterprise had disclosed to
the Garda that there was no basis to the
allegation. The Chief Superintendent Martin
Callinan had behaved crookedly.
Micheál Martin
In November 2004, the new Minister Micheál
Martin rearmed his Department’s fabrica-
tions, in replying to Quinn. He added that he
personally was “satisfied that no documents or
evidence relevant to the allegations made by
(ISME) have been withheld”.
But three months earlier his predecessor as
Minister Mary Harney had claimed in parlia-
mentary reply to be “unaware of the basis for
ISME’s allegation”, while she concealed the rel-
evant facts. The simple question arises if
Harney didn’t know the basis to the allegation
in May 2004, how could Martin, dependent on
the same Departmental sources, claim in
November to be satisfied that all relevant docu-
ments and evidence relevant to the allegation
had been disclosed. One party was being
untruthful.
Presumably, he must have known from
Departmental advice that his claim flatly
contradicted what the Tánaiste Mary Harney
had argued three months earlier when
concealing the fact that the Department had
informed the Garda in April 1999 why the
allegation was baseless.
He would later acknowledge he had been
misled, only later to deny it.
Micheál Martin also briefed the Taoiseach. In
an endeavour to doubly authenticate his
Department’s parliamentary replies, he
advised Bertie Ahern in private that the
Department’s General Secretary had taken the
highly unusual step in 2004 of meeting me in
person to reassure that the ocials had been
absolutely fair. The problem with that claim
was and remains that I had never and have
never met the Secretary General. It was more
lies.
Of all the characters in this play, Mícheál
Martin let me down the hardest.
Lawyers get nowhere and
I despair
Around 2004 too, several legal practices con-
cluded that I had no case. They posed the
reasoned question as to why the Department
and the Garda would lie apparently for no
reason. I had no answer. Having been paid in
excess of £60,000, the lawyers walked away.
They included Binchys, James Wall of Owen O’
Brien Solicitors and Co and Terence O’ Sullivan
SC.NEED TO VERIFY THIS.
Broke and deserted I was left to my own
devices. I recall sitting in Monkstown Crescent
in suicidal despair.
I had spent four years seeking to prove the
state wrong, only to have the Garda
Commissioner, the EU Commission, serial
Ministers for Enterprise, the Taoiseach and Dáil
Eireann unite in pointing to my culpability in
breaching the rules.
Added to that were the rumours promoted by
the Garda and used by others that I had been
“psychologically traumatised” by the fraud
squad investigation. Friends eventually grew
tired of my single mindedness. Business
acquaintances avoided me. My constituency
representatives accused me of being obsessed.
By then they were right.
Engaging the EU Commission
In desperation I sent six random emails to the
grant authorities in the EU Commission. In ref
-
erencing the EU grant programme that I was
implausibly alleged to have defrauded I hoped
that it would resonate with someone, anyone.
I received a reply from an Ian Johnson who is
British.
Commission shows me
withheld Departmental report
Unasked, he sent me a copy of a
lengthy report which had been
submitted to the Commission in
March 2002. The report was
authored by the very Departmental
officials who, two years later,
undertook the investigation in
2004. It dealt with the administra-
tion of the grant programme that I
was alleged to have defrauded.
Yet, despite more than 50 FOI
requests, the Department had
withheld that document from me.
The report implied, contrary to
the public image, that the EU
Commission was at loggerheads
with the Irish authorities.
My ostensible
exculpation
The report emphasised that, after I
voluntarily left my place of employ-
ment and retired, certain invoices
gave rise to temporary diculties,
but on checking the invoices they
were found to be perfectly proper.
That was electrifying. I was
suddenly wide awake, because I
had been destroyed by those
invoices. Why, I wondered, would
the Department of Enterprise
Doc ument 1: The Devlin Memo – Proof that the
authorities and the Garda lied and fabricated evidence
12 July 2021
importantly, he noted, “no irregularity” to jus-
tify even the suspicion of fraud
Document 1(Page11)
Crimes and Lies,
In reply, Devlin was scandalously told by his
superiors to just report the non-irregularity.
That memo necessitated the false description,
the lie, in relation to my very public sacking
from ISME that the Department had sent in their
report to Brussels several weeks later. Had they
reported the facts, the Commission might well
have enquired how a citizen was reported to
the DPP for a transaction that was standard
practice. As I was to find out the Department
could not aord for that to happen.
Anyway, here was absolute proof that the
Garda authorities, the Department of
Enterprise, its Secretary General and by default
its Ministers Harney and Martin had,
throughout 2004, lied egregiously to Deputy
Quinn, lied later in the parliamentary chamber
and lied later still to the Taoiseach of the day.
Still, parts of me still clung to the belief that
our police and civil servants were essentially
honest; that they were merely mistaken.
Commission, Department and Garda dismiss
crucial evidence.
However, when I presented the relevant
Departments with a copy of the Devlin memo,
they simply ignored its content. The Secretary
General of the Department of Finance David
Doyle wrote that since my name was not
appended to the memo his ocials hadn’t
understood that it applied to me. Yet manifestly
it could have applied to nobody but me. At the
same time the EU Commission, the Department
of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the
Garda dismissed the memo as irrelevant. I was
reminded that the files had been closed in 2004.
However, to my great surprise the Chief
Accountant to the EU, Brian Gray, agreed to a
meeting. Before leaving for Brussels I rang Ian
Johnson who had given me the Department’s
report to the Commission recognising there
had been no irregularities. I was hoping that he
could give me direction. Discovering who was
on the line, he informed me that he would get
into trouble if it was known that he spoke to me.
He apologised and put the phone down,
abruptly.
Senior civil servants in the Department of
Finance’s Financial Control Unit had made a
similar request that I not ring them and given
the same reason.
EU denies there was no
irregularity
Mr Gray was familiar with my complaint. While
he oozed sympathy, he insisted that invoices
“not previously defrayed” constituted a breach
of Community rules. He reconfirmed Minister
Harney’s denial that the administrative rules
pertaining to EU-funded expenditures had
been changed in 1997. In the end, he gave me
no succour.
It looked to me like a cover-up – all the way
to the EU.
But the EU had intervened…
However, as we concluded the meeting I pro-
duced Department of Finance handwritten
minutes [obtained by FOI?] and asked him to
comment on the claim therein that he was polit-
ically motivated against Ireland. I could tell he
was shocked. He was silent for some time and
then asked if I knew that he had “traumatised
the Irish civil servants” in the late 1990s over
a dierent issue.
Ireland Made History -
EU accountant demanded
repayment of an EU grant.
On my return to Ireland I quickly established
that Gray had set an extraordinary precedent,
when in 1998/99 he had insisted on a first ever,
within the EU Community, repayment by
national authorities - Irish authorities - of a
European grant - a FEOGA agricultural grant to
the tune of €100 million.
More - Andersen reports show
Ireland administered EU
grants chaotically and noted
the maladministration.
Two unpublished Arthur Andersen reports
dated March 1998 and April 2000 respectively
revealed a story of chaos within the spending
Departments but particularly in the Depart-
ments of Finance and Enterprise.
The Arthur Andersen reports were
devastating. They recorded that the relevant
officials had failed to make themselves
available to EU audit authorities on pre-
planned visits. That the ocials had signed
EU-funded expenditures “blind”.
Their stewardship was at best “ineective
and haphazard”. Separately, the EU
Commission concluded that the Department of
Enterprise had “systematically mal-
administered” its EU expenditures – grants
- since 1994. Simultaneously, the Department
of Finance identified thirteen areas of repeated
errors by the Department of Enterprise.
To the best of my knowledge this mal-
administration has never come to public light,
until now.
Document 2
Document 2: Department of Finance letter
chronicalling systemic and repeat audit
mistakes by the Department of Enterprise
A lengthy report submitted by the
Department to the EU Commission
emphasised that after I “retired” certain
invoices gave rise to temporary difficulties
but on checking the invoices they were found
by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and
Employment to be perfectly proper.
The official Ian Devlin asked
why he was required to
report me to Brussels for
an “irregularity”, when there
had been no fraud and
more importantly, he noted,
“no irregularity” to justify
even the suspicion of fraud.
Belying Harney and Martin, EU
confirms the EU rules changed
Despite the untruthful replies ventilated in Dáil
Eireann by Ministers Harney and Martin, the
Arthur Andersen reports also confirmed that EU
July 2021 13
repayment that had already traumatised the
Irish civil servants when they were compelled
to repay the FEOGA grant.
Compromised Gray confirms
allegations against me
baseless
Given his reply to the contrary to Titford, clearly
Gray’s integrity was on the line. Definitely,
somebody was lying and it looked like the
culpable party was one of the Commission’s
highest ocials. Gray must have been shaken
by the new facts that I was conveying to him,
compromising his commitment to key civil
servants not to engage me further.
I, on the other hand, unaware of his self-
imposed restraint, allowed him to believe that
some middle ranking ocials bore him a
grudge; that it was payback time for the trauma
he had caused them a few years earlier.
Gray was now in trouble and needed my help.
Eventually, he asked for an account of the
allegation levelled at me and for time to
consider matters over the Christmas break.
In February 2009 Gray replied. He confirmed
what the Department of Enterprise’s
whistleblower had disclosed in 2003, namely
that the allegation never had a basis.
He disclosed for the first time that the
“advance payment” on foot of unpaid invoices
was standard procedure. Most tellingly, he
disclosed that the rule applied to the
Department itself. He added, “I do not see that
you have infringed this EC rule”.
Document 3
But the timing of my
vindication was awful: Lisbon
To my utter surprise I got no traction from that
critical revelation. In retrospect, I had not
appreciated that politics had been paralysed
in 2008 by the result of the first Lisbon Treaty
referendum. In 2009 the likes of Ruairi Quinn
were compelled to hold fire for fear of negatively
aecting the vote on the second referendum
set for Oct 2009 which remained in jeopardy.
Ireland took a case against the
EU precisely because it was
unfair to insist on retroactivity
By chance in September 2009 I was directed by
the MEP Marta Andreasan to a European Court
case that had been initiated by the Department
of Enterprise against the EU Commission. The
lead counsel for Ireland was future Attorney
General Paul Gallagher SC. Between 2002 and
2005 he had pleaded that it was unlawful for
the Commission to compel Ireland to apply EU
Regulation 2064/97 retroactive to 1994.
That was an extraordinary discovery since it
underpinned and exacerbated what we had
previously established, namely that the
Department of Enterprise had sent Ministers
Harney and Martin out to lie. For, while
Ministers Harney and Martin were claiming in
Dáil Éireann that the administrative rules had
not been changed, their officials were
simultaneously asseerting the exact contrary
in the European Court of Justice.
Department had lied, Gray
confirms it but no Irish
authority interested
Providentially, in June 2010 we secured
file evidence which demonstrated that
the letter which the Department of
Enterprise had tabled to Ruairí Quinn in
2004, as proof of its “absolute fair-
ness”, had been doctored to enable the
Department to deny what the whistle-
blower had disclosed in 2003.
Whereas in the past we were
cautious, since we didn’t know why the
ocials and Ministers had dissembled
and dissimulated, by 2010 we knew in
detail why. Namely, the Department’s
endeavour to minimise the threatened
400 million plus euro penalty because
of its “systemic maladministration”
since 1994.
In June I travelled back to Brussels. I
had a further meeting with Brian Gray. He gave
me written confirmation that he would meet
any Irish authority and confirm to them what he
had disclosed, namely that the culpable party
Document 3: The first hard evidence that I had taken
the rap for the Department’s costly errors
The allegation is supported by nothing.
- Confidential letter by ISME’s lawyers to Ercus Stewart SC, on
24 March 1999, two weeks after ISME had called in the fraud
squad.
The grant rules were not
changed in 1997
- The Minister Mary Harney when replying
to Ruairí Quinn TD, 18 May 2004
Regulation 2064/97 had radically altered and
changed the administrative rules in 1997.
UK Hansard says that the
EU rescinded the retroactive
requirement in October
2000. Yet in July 2001 the EU
insisted that Ireland apply that
“retrospective” clause.
In 2008, after two years of ploughing through
numerous libraries I came across the record in
Hansard whereby in January 2001 the UK Sec
-
retary of State for Employment Alan Johnson,
recorded in the House of Commons that it was
“at a Commission presentation at the Homo-
logues Group for Financial Control
Organisations [Berlin, October 2000] that they
stated that Reg. 2064/97 does not apply
retroactively”.
Armed with that armation, I had the UK
MEP Jerey Titford write to Brian Gray and ask
if the new administrative rules promulgated by
Reg 2064/97 had been applied in Ireland
“retroactive to 1994”. Gray replied on 8 October
2008. He denied that proposition. I soon found
out why.
The Irish authorities had secured from Mr
Gray the commitment that the EU Commission
would not provide me with any more
information.
Ireland believed the EU had
changed its mind
I now presented Brian Gray with an [FOIed]
Department of Finance letter from 2001, in
which the Second Secretary had advised the
spending Departments that Gray had changed
his mind and was then requiring the Irish
authorities to confirm in writing that they would
apply EU Regulation 2064/97 retroactive to
1994.
And the EU meant business
The letter noted that, if compliance was not
confirmed, the EU would impose a financial
penalty “in excess of 400 million euros”. The
penalty threatened was quadruple the
14 July 2021
was the Department of Enterprise. However,
that oer has never been availed of: not by the
Department, not by the Garda authorities nor
the GSOC when investigating the Garda,
presumably because they always knew the
truth and where culpability rested.
Deputy Quinn instructed that we were to
compile a document of four pages, setting out
the evidence and complaint. which, he stated,
he would have the relevant Department publish
with the appropriate financial compensation
for the Department’s part in the ongoing
“wrong by the state...”.
Ruairi Quinn made particular reference to
Richard Bruton TD who was in support.
Deputy Quinn gave written instructions as to
how it was to be delivered. It was as if he knew
what was about to happen.
After two weeks we checked with the
Department of Enterprise, including the oces
of the Minister, the Secretary General and the
post room. All denied knowledge of the
registered post.
Those denials were maintained for three
months, until the Department was confronted
in Dáil Éireann by a Parliamentary Question to
which the An Post signed and dated receipt was
attached. The Dail was told that a reply was
being finalised. None was ever received. Soon
after the Government fell.
Micheál Martin looks like
my champion
After the formation of the new Fine Gael/Labour
Government in 2011 we engaged over a period
of several months with Deputy Micheál Martin
by then leader of Fianna Fáil through his secre
-
tary Deirdre Gillane. Subsequently, we were
invited to a meeting in Leinster House sched-
uled for 7 March 2012.
I had done enough research to cause Deputy
Martin to confirm that he had lied.
During the meeting Micheál Martin asked
Deirdre Gillane if, as Minister, he had been
informed of the facts in 2004. She replied in the
negative. Micheál Martin was visibly angry. He
declared himself to be outraged. He
immediately volunteered his need to correct his
record. He asked for time.
However, in late 2012 Micheál Martin wrote
that he had been advised by the Department of
Enterprise (the same Department that
according to Ms Gillane had misled him) that
the Ombudsman had absolved him of his
obligation to correct his parliamentary record.
Not really true and not really relevant. Martin
was reneging on his commitment.
In 2017 we asked for the record of the 2012
meeting. When that was not forthcoming we
involved the Data Protection Commission
(DPC). Eventually, on 9 April this year Martin
advised the DPC that he was the designated FF
data controller for the minutes. In that capacity
he had shredded them. You’d think in April
2021 that he, as Taoiseach, would have more
pressing roles to attend to. Perhaps Gillane was
embarrassed for her boss’s delinquency here.
In November 2013, when we hadn’t gone
away, Micheál Martin wrote to Ministers Quinn
and Bruton. Strangely, he did not ask if what I
maintained was valid. He simply asked Minister
Quinn to confirm that the file was “closed” and
would remain closed
Minister Bruton replied, claiming there had
been a comprehensive investigation and that
the file had been closed. He of course had
personal reasons to keep the files closed since
he was the Minister when the Department had
“systematically mal-administered” its
EU-funded expenditures.
Document 5
miscarriages of justice. In referring my case to
the IRM, the files that had been closed
permanently in 2004, and which according to
each subsequent Minister had remained
closed, were reopened. I was very hopeful.
IRM recommends Statutory
Inquiry
The IRM recommended a Statutory Inquiry. Of
the three hundred or so cases investigated by
the barristers (excluding five cases that
involved manslaughter) mine alone was judged
to warrant investigation.
Martin finally engages with
the Ombudsman and is put
straight
Coinciding with the announcement that there
was to be a Statutory Inquiry, and presumably
getting nervy, Deputy Martin finally wrote to
the Ombudsman. Whoever constructed that
letter slyly avoided asking the only question
worth tabling - if the Ombudsman had absolved
the former Minister of his need to correct his
parliamentary record which was the excuse
used to renege on his commitment.
Nevertheless, on 3 May 2017 the
Ombudsman adamantly denied undertaking
any investigation. In respect of his predecessor,
he disclosed that her investigation had
predated by several years the evidence that
had caused Ms Gillane and Deputy Martin to
conclude that he had an obligation to correct
his record. Thus the excuses attributed by
Document 5: Incredibly, in August 2020
Toisech Mrtin ws designted s the
FF dt controller solely for the minutes
wherein he undertook to correct his
prlimentry records though for ll other
purposes Finn Fil uses its dedicted dt
control officers
It was neither reasonable
nor possible that such
recommendations
be implemented
retrospectively
- Chapman Flood Mazars when asked
in 2001 to apply Regulation 2064/97
retroactive to 1994
The IRM had recommended a Statutory
Inquiry. Of the three hundred or so cases
investigated by the barristers (excluding five
cases that involved manslaughter) mine
alone was judged to warrant investigation.
Quinn and Ahern get me
an Independent Review
Mechanism
In April 2004 Ruairí Quinn hand-delivered a pri-
vately typed memo direct to Taoiseach Kenny]
after he was refused access to the relevant files
which came under his jurisdiction as the Min-
ister for Training. He was supported by the
former Taoiseach Mr Ahern who also wrote to
Kenny.
As a consequence the complaint was referred
to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM).
That was the first time that my complaint had
escaped from the direct control of the ocials.
The IRM comprised a team of ten barristers
charged with reviewing cases of possible
July 2021 15
Micheál to the Ombudsman were rendered null
and void. The Nobbling of the Statutory Inquiry
We saw nothing untoward when we learnt
that the Inquiry was to be based on the as-yet-
unpublished GSOC report. After all the GSOC
were the good guys.
That report had been in the making for more
than ten years, since the blocking of my emails
by the Garda in 2007. Publication had first been
due in 2016 but had been pulled after the
Garda authorities had objected.
GSOC would not release their
report that had been ten years
in the making
Month after month GSOC failed to disclose its
report first to us and then to judge McMahon.
Fully two years after the report had been due to
be released the report was finally disclosed to
the Inquiry as “Dr Brian Doherty’s GSOC
report”.
The GSOC wrote that the closure of the report
on their system would allow the “process to
progress under judge McMahon”.
GSOC report a whitewash
On reading the report we were utterly shocked
to discover that it omitted the key statements
which, at Dr Doherty’s insistence, I and my two
witnesses had separately recorded in 2014.
The statements which dealt with the belated
proof provided by the EU Commission and
others, of “mala fides and collusion” between
the Gardai and the Department of Enterprise.
When asked, the GSOC and Dr Doherty repeat
-
edly declined to explain. It was, they said, a
matter for the judge.
Why, we wondered, had the Gardai objected
to the report when due for publication in 2016
if that report had also whitewashed them? It
made no sense. When challenged, the Garda
Ombudsman and Dr Brian Doherty adamantly
declined to provide explanations. They passed
the buck in its totality to the judge.
And head of Inquiry judge
McMahon makes off, after
saying he cannot substantively
review the report
The judge in turn disclosed that his terms of
reference prohibited him from commenting on
any aspect of the GSOC report no matter how
“inadequate or improper” the report was. At
the same time he heralded that that report was
comprehensive, leaving him very little to
investigate.
Unhappy indeed
I had felt the terminal portent when before any
hearings had commenced, the judge had
turned to me and predicted that I would be
“unhappy” with the
outcome” whereas, addressing the State Solic-
itor, he had noted that they would be pleased.
It had been an extraordinary framing of the
Inquiry.
The limitation was Dáil-imposed
In eect the state, the culpable party (as
armed by Minister Quinn and the EU Secre-
tary General Catherine Day), had imposed
terms of reference on the judge to protect itself.
Not only had the Dáil been used since 2003 to
protect the state as primarily represented by
the Department of Enterprise and the Garda,
but in 2018 the judicial process was being
manipulated to the same eect.
Ahern states concerns but
Taoiseach Varadkar ignores
him
On 4 March 2019 Bertie Ahern wrote again to
the Taoiseach and restated his concerns. On
that occasion Leo Varadkar was the incumbent.
Nevertheless the former Taoiseach was
ignored.
I withdraw from useless
Inquiry
Exasperated, in June 2019 my lawyers advised
me to withdraw. Our primary concern was that
the judge had ruled that the core complaints of
collusion and mala fides had been dealt with
by Dr Doherty’s GSOC report, whereas we
strongly contended to the contrary. The law-
yer’s reasons are in part set out in their 12-page
letter of explanation to judge McMahon.
And then things got really bizarre.
The GSOC report’s author ,
Doherty won’t correspond
further for contractual reasons
Naturally we continued to press GSOC and Dr
Doherty for answers. In mid-2019 I discovered
that Doherty had been the CEO of the newly
established Legal Services Regulatory Author-
ity since August 2017.
On 3 Sept 2019 he emailed claiming “my
contract with LSRA provides that I should
spend all of my time working for LSRA engaged
solely in LSRA activity…I have no contractual,
moral or other obligation to respond to your
emails or your queries” and somewhat
ironically the CEO of LSRA didn’t.
Nevertheless, a week later he contradicted
that statement. He intervened with one side of
the Inquiry. He wrote in private to the judge. Dr
Doherty, in the context of several incomplete
truths, denied being the author of the GSOC
report, what the GSOC depicted as “his report”.
The very report which Justice Ellen Ring had
passed to the Inquiry as “Dr Doherty’s GSOC
report”. We were nonplussed. It made no good
sense. Why did he wait two full years before
disclosing that critical fact in private, and then
only to the judge after I had withdrawn?
When we sought to have that latest claim
explained, we received several distressing
legal letters from Field Fisher on behalf of the
LSRA, instructing us to desist or else.
In July 2020, a year after Dr Doherty disowned
his report, the GSOC emailed disclosing that Dr
Dohery’s GSOC report dealt with the period of
our complaint up to 2012 before any
involvement whatsoever by Dr Doherty.
Furthermore, the GSOC was explicit; the report
did not investigate our central complaint of
mala fides and collusion by the Garda in
tandem with the Department of Enterprise.
Inexplicably the GSOC had elected at some
stage post 2016 to ignore our core complaint
and the initial issue that had caused us to
contact them back in 2007, namely the email
block.
Those were perplexing revelations,
particularly since the Judge had ruled that the
report was comprehensive, except for some
relatively minor issues such as the blocking of
my emails.
The Data Protection
Commissioner and An
Taoiseach
As if by providence, in August 2020, the Data
Protection Commissioner wrote in respect of
the critical minutes requested from FF in 2017
The investigation was
terminated; there is to be no
report to the DPP.
- The fraud squad April 2008
I am satisfied that no evidence or
documents relevant to the allegation levelled
by the organisation have been withheld by
my Department”allegation
- The Minister Mícheál Martin, 18 November 2004.
16 July 2021
in which Deputy Martin had volunteered the
need to correct his parliamentary record.: The
DPC wrote:
“Ms Gillane has indicated via the Data
Protection Ocer for Fianna Fail, that while she
has worked in multiple capacities for Fianna
Fáil and Micheál Martin TD, she has not been a
data controller in any of those roles. The
relevant data controller for the matter in
question is Deputy Martin”. Doc 5
That was preposterous. Prior to that claim
Deirdre Gillane had directed me to Jill Golden
as the Fianna Fáil data controller.
Why I wondered was Uachtarán FF suddenly
entrusted with the role of the FF data controller
for the minutes wherein he confirmed that the
ocials had lied to him and had undertaken to
correct the Dáil record. Consequently, we
immediately asked the Taoiseach to release his
minutes.
Being thorough - Leo
In November 2020, while I waited on a reply
from the Taoiseach, we sent a registered letter
to the Minister for Enterprise Leo Varadkar.
Given his distinguished role in respect of the
Garda whistleblower in 2014, we anticipated
that he would, given the facts, quickly rehabili-
tate his Department’s own whistleblower; the
ocial who in 2003 had revealed that the alle-
gation had always been baseless.
Then to our surprise on the 11 March 2021,
after a silence of two years, judge McMahon
suddenly wrote directly to my chief witness Don
Curry and myself. He invited us to take part in
his extended Inquiry then of four years and
on-going.
We assumed that the judge had processed
the admissions by Dr Doherty and the GSOC in
2019 and 2020 respectively and had adjusted
his ruling to take account of the realities. We
thought it prudent to ask for confirmation from
the judge before agreeing to rejoin the Inquiry.
But there was still ocial recalcitrance
On 16 March Leo Varadkar wrote that the file
which had been closed in 2004 was to remain
closed. He attributed statements to the EU
Commission and the Ombudsman which, even
if he didn’t know, his ocials certainly knew to
be ridiculous and untrue. Despite being
exhorted by the Oireachtas Committee on
Privilege, the Minister declined to hear an
account of those untruths.
Two weeks later, on 29 March the judge
replied that his rulings from 2019 stood. That he
was intent on proceeding in accord with his
terms of reference which blindside him to the
realities that have been disclosed by the CEO of
LSRA and the GSOC. Clearly we were in the zone
of Lord Denning’s infamous “a vista too far”!
A fortnight later on 9 April the relevant Fianna
Fáil data controller as depicted by Deirdre
Gillane, namely An Taoiseach Micheál Martin,
replied to the four questions posed by the Data
Commissioner
Document 6
Dramatis Personae Martin
Callinan and the Fraud Squad
In late 2003, after several meetings, Chief
Superintendent McNally threatened to resurrect
a charge if I did not desist from seeking to clear
my name. He insisted that the report to the DPP
in 1999 was justified. He declined to record the
whistleblowers’ evidence and other facts which
demonstrated otherwise.
However the files now available to us shows
that the Department of Enterprise ocial John
Reilly, in his statement to the Garda dated 26th
April 1999, described why there was no basis
to the allegation, namly because there was no
prohibition on unpaid invoices. The grant was
allocated in three tranches.
Document 7
His statement was repeatedly and maliciously
concealed and denied by both the Department
and the Garda. Those denials remain the formal,
on the record, position of both entities
In 2005 Martin Callinan initiated a review of
the original Garda investigation. He gave his
“personal guarantee” of a thorough and
comprehensive investigation. Consequently, I
insisted on emailing Callinan to his personal
email address as the investigation progressed
at pace, a snail’s pace.
It took a year for the fraud squad to take my
statement - in September 2006, and then
nothing.
In mid 2007 I presented Callinan with the Ian
Devlin memo and other evidence which to us
showed that the allegations had been contrived.
I speculated on the mere possibility of collusion
between the Gardai and the Department as one
explanation for what was happening.
Suddenly my emails were blocked to all Garda
addresses. They were to remain blocked despite
Garda denials of the block.
Then in February and April 2008 no fewer
Document 7: Proof that the Department and
the Gardai had concealed the facts from the
outset
Document 6: In April 2021 the Taoiseach
confirmed that he shredded the minutes
Fine Gael and Richard
Bruton are more determined
than Fianna Fáil to keep the
lid on this scandal.
- Ruairi Quinn’s office in 2013
“Did FF meet with Frank Mulcahy and
company in March 2012?
Micheál Martin replied yes
Were minutes recorded?
Micheál Martin replied yes.
Who took the minutes?
Deirdre Gillane was identified as the minute
taker
Where are the minutes?
The Data Commissioner was told that they
had been ey are discarded”
The important question arises: why would the
Taoiseach shred minutes relating to his serious
commitment to correcting his Dáil record, which
he had reneged on?
Full Circle
We have come full circle. From the lies in 2004
culminating in the Department of Enterprise
declaring its files closed in October of that year.
Through Deputy Martin’s admission in 2012,
after consulting Deirdre Gillane, that he had
been grossly misinformed in 2004 and of his
need to correct the consequential wrong.
To the shredding of that record as he
confirmed to the Data Commissioner in April
2021 and the Tanaiste’s simultaneous
insistence that the Department of Enterprise’s
file was closed and is not be reopened.
July 2021 17
than three senior Garda, in person and in
writing, advised that Martin Callinan’s
investigation had been terminated without
notice.
In February 2009 Garda Commissioner
Murphy advised Conor Lenihan that a report
was about to be sent to the DPP. That was news
to us. Consequently we wrote to Mr Callinan.
On 29 April 2009 he replied in writing, “in
2005 the fraud squad conducted an
investigation concerning your goodself, which
resulted in an investigation file being submitted
to the Law Ocers”.
Document 8&9
Since that was manifestly contrary to the
facts, we challenged that claim. Nevertheless,
Callinan issued a second letter in which he
reasserted that a report had been sent to the
DPP.
But there had been no investigation and
there was no report to the DPP. So much for his
personal guarantee.
Furthermore, throughout his time both as
Deputy Garda Commissioner and as the
Commissioner Martin Callinan denied that my
emails had been blocked. Nevertheless in 2017
we established that the block was imposed as
a consequence of an instruction emanating
from the Commissioner’s oce. That is the
central issue that the judge is now proposing
to investigate. Not why the block was imposed
but if the Gardai blocked by emails. But that
question was rendered redundant in 2017
when we acquired the relevant Garda file
Document 10
In 2009 Assistant Commissioner Derek Byrne
was appointed as my sole point of contact with
the Garda. I wrote to him concerning the
November 2007 letter in which I had raised the
possibility of collusion.
He eventually wrote “I have retained the
letter previously referred to and if you wish to
see it you are welcome to call to my oce by
appointment and I will facilitate you”.
I then called to his oce by appointment to
view the said letter, but was refused access.
Then on the 17th June 2010 A/C Byrne wrote
“I do not recall at any time asking you to call to
Harcourt Square to view a letter in dispute,
further I do not require your attendance in
Harcourt Square to view any such letter…”.
From the biggest to the most mundane
issues, right from the top the Garda were
dishonest and inept.
The Attorney General Paul Gallagher SC
On 18 May 2004, the Tánaiste and Minister
for Enterprise Mary Harney denied that the
rules governing EU grants had been changed
in 1997.
Later, when it was clear that I was not going
away, the Irish authorities secured from
Brussels and Brian Gray a commitment that the
Commission would not answer any further
questions from me. I of course remained
ignorant of that.
Nevertheless we persisted despite regular
setbacks. In September 2009 we were
rewarded when Marta Andreasan MEP directed
me to a European Court case in which Paul
Gallagher SC pleaded
on behalf of the
Department of Enterprise
that it had been unfair of
the EU Commission to
change the rules in 1997
and compel the
Department to
retrospectively comply.
The contradiction
between the
parliamentary replies of
Ministers Harney and
Martin and the Attorney
General’s plead was
stark. Consequently, I
initiated high level
c o n t a c t w i t h
Departmental
Secretaries General and
the Attorney General concerning the
retrospective audit process.
The Department heads reminded me that the
relevant file had been closed. The Attorney
General’s oce on the other hand maintained
that the issue was nothing to do with them. I
was advised to take the matter up with the
relevant Departments.
I didn’t know until March of this year that in
2010 the Department of Finance had
– extraordinarily
- been advised by the Attorney General to
acknowledge but “not to enter into any further
discussion on the matter raised by him”.
So the Department’s refusal to answer my
questions concerning Reg. 2064/97, was
based on the instruction of the then Attorney
General , Paul Gallagher SC, the very lawyer
who had previously pleaded the unfairness of
the retrospective regulation where it concerned
the Departments.
The Presenting of invoices not previously
defrayed constituted a breach of Community
Rules”: that has been the Department’s formal
position in tandem with the Garda since
November 2004.
Document 10: Proof of Garda Lies and GSOC dereliction of duty.
Document 8&9 : Martin Callinans double down
claims in 2009 that he investigated the new
evidence and made report to the DPP. Neither
claim was true.
18 July 2021
Bertie Ahern
During the currency crisis in 1993 Bertie Ahern
broke protocol. To my utter amazement, he
instructed me as the Director of the Small Firms
Association to reveal to the waiting press that
he was making available £50 million for troubled
businesses. Perhaps he had his own reasons.
Nevertheless, overnight I became a mini-
celebrity. That resulting profile helped me
launch ISME a year later. I was indebted.
Between 2004 and 2019 Bertie Ahern
intervened on three occasions to have the state
correct its record.
In August 2004 Taoiseach Ahern asked his
Enterprise Minister for a briefing on my concerns.
He had advised me that if what the Department
of Enterprise whistleblower had disclosed was
correct, he would personally intervene.
PLEASE PASS DIRECT TO THE TANAISTE LEO VARADKAR
c/o Orlaigh Quinn Sec General DETE
Strictly Personal to Tanaiste Leo Varadkar
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Kildare Street
Dublin 2
Dear Tanaiste
I enclose for your attention Ms Quinn’s letter of earlier today and a copy of the Department’s letter dated 20th
Feb 2004.
e similarities are striking. In both letters your Department expressed exasperation at my continuing
endeavour to have it communicate the facts, insist that I am wrong, claim that the Department has been
“patient and fair” and then conclude that it is a waste of time and resources in continuing to respond to me..
DETE has repeated that excuse ad nauseam since 2004, the latest being received this evening.
As the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, you should personally note that the letter of Feb 2004 was not the
result of some typical DETE letter of dismissal. It was the result of a two month Department investigation to
establish if what the DETE ocial Turlough O’ Molloy had disclosed in October 2003 was the truth,- namely
that there was no EU prohibition on the use of unpaid invoices and hence the reporting of that matter to the
DPP had been baseless.
You should also know that the internal enquiry was undertaken by the Secretary General Paul Haran in
response to the direct intervention of Deputy Ruairi Quinn in Dec 2003 and January 2004.
In the letter of Feb 2004 DETE contorted the facts and stretched logic to dismiss what I had attributed to Mr
O' Molloy. It added that it was being “absolutely fair” in claiming ”you have now received all relevant records”.
at letter was a tissue of deliberate untruths, which necessitated the subsequent sequence of untruths
conveyed via Dail Eireann and direct to several senior public representatives.
To assist your personal understanding I have below recorded several claims posited by DETE in 2004 in reply
to several deputies as evidence of the Department’s unimpeachable integrity.
I understand that it will be your inclination to accept the word of your ocials over that of a mere citizen.
Nevertheless I now require you personally to have your ocials conrm to you in writing whether the claims
they had their Ministers authenticate were in fact the truth, namely;-
Was Turlough O’ Molloy correct when he disclosed that there was no EU prohibition on third party use of
unpaid invoices to claim payment of EU/ESF grants? -October 2003
Was Lorraince Benson correct when, while denying what I had attributed to Mr O’ Molloy, she wrote that
“copies of all relevant records have been disclosed”? - February 2004.
Were Ministers Harney and Martin correct when they insisted in Dail Eireann that the rules governing EU
grants had not been changed in 1997? - April, May,June, October and November 2004
Was William Parnell correct when he armed the claim “on your particular case…. the presenting of invoices
not previously defrayed constituted a breach of Community rules”? - November 2004
Was Conor O’ Mahony correct when he claimed to Taoiseach Ahern that the Secretary General Paul Haran
had taken the unusual step of meeting me in person to assure me of the integrity of the parliamentary replies?
- Dec 2004
It is a proven fact that when a body has stooped low for a considerable period it is dicult to stand straight.
Assistance is required. In that context, if yours ocials continue to insist on the integrity of previous responses,
as Ms Quinn did again in her email of this evening, can you have your Secretary General explain how in 2015
Catherine Day wrote to Marian Harkin MEP stating;-
“On the question of a possible "EU prohibition" on the use of unpaid invoices to claim payment of ESF
grants from the Department of Enterprise Ireland, under EU law the Irish authorities were entitled to pay the
advances for this project but were not entitled to declare this expenditure to the Commission until the use of
the advances had been justied in paid invoices”.
e reply by Ms Day, and other les acquired from the EU Commission, now demonstrate that DETE was
the culpable party and brazenly used its political heads (as in your predecessors Harney & Martin) to protect
themselves.
e DETE whistleblower’s account from October 2003 eventually proved to be the correct narrative.
Consequently, is it not time for you as Tanaiste and as the former champion of the Garda whistleblower, to
judge Turlough O’ Molloy self evidently “distinguished” and act to set the record straight. Surely the buck
cannot be passed in your name -as per the Secretary General’s email of today.
I anticipate that you will do the right thing.
Yours sincerely
Frank Mulcahy
Mrch 2021 Oirechts Committee On Privilege request the Tniste to
engge with the fcts which fltely contrdict his Deprtment’s clims.
In reply, the Minister Micheál Martin
spuriously advised that the Secretary General
Paul Haran had taken the unusual step of
meeting with me to reassure me that the
whistleblower had been wrong.
A decade later Mr Ahern wrote to Taoiseach
Enda Kenny seeking again to have the record
corrected but was rudely dismissed by
Department ocials.
He wrote for the third time to then Taoiseach
Leo Varadkar in March 2019. That time he was
ignored.
Ahern remains strongly supportive of the
need to correct the record.
Leo Varadkar
It was Leo Varadkar’s forthright description in
2014 of the Garda whistleblower as distin-
guished that brought him to prominence in my
mind’s eye. Nevertheless, as Taoiseach, Leo
Varadkar did not respond to our concerns. We
have no idea if as Taoiseach he was ever
shown our communications.
In November 2020, as instructed by Ruairi
Quinn, we sent a registered letter to the
Tanaiste marked strictly personal.
The Tánaiste finally replied in March 2021.
In doing so he reiterated that the file was to
remain closed Leo Varadkars recent letter and
Don Curry’s reply.
Let’s be clear: that is the file that was closed
fully seventeen years ago with the instruction
of the retiring Secretary General that it was “to
remain closed without his express permission”
to the contrary.
Since 2004 the Department’s three
Secretary Generals and five Ministers have
each confirmed that the file is closed and
dsudisdihskjdghkjsdjhsgdjhsgdjhsgdjhsgdjhgsdj
July 2021 19
caused Deputy Martin in 2012 to commit to
correct his record.
I later came to understand that Richard
Bruton had personal cause to keep the files
closed. He had after all been the Department
of Enterprise Minister in the period 1994 to
1997, at the time when the Department was
judged by the EU Commission to have
“systematically mal-administered” its
European funding. It would be important to
Bruton’s career not to be implicated in that
murk.
That seemingly had been the price of
damning my good name, and the cause of the
cover-up.
Micheál Martin
In November 2004 Minister Martin replied in
Dáil Éireann that he was personally “satisfied
that no evidence or documents relevant to the
allegations made by the organisation were
withheld by my Department”.
On the following day his ocial William
subclauses allowed the Minister to present it
as the truth, and legally he may have been
correct. That excuse serves to deceive and it
is essentially a lie. Emily O Reilly’s judgment
of 2007 was in reply to the evidence provided
by the Department of Enterprise in 2004/05.
It did not deal with the disclosures and
admissions secured after 2007 which clearly
showed that the Department had deliberately
dissembled. Those disclosures that had
would remain closed. That is how the
Department has avoided dealing with the new
evidence and admission as each piece of the
jigsaw was located.
In communicating his decision Leo Varadkar
made claims in respect of the Ombudsman
and the EU Commission that are grossly
untrue. Lies. To be fair, the Tanaiste may not
know his claims are untrue, but his ocials
certainly do.
EU Commission officials -
Catherine Day
On 18 November 2004, coinciding with
Micheál Martin’s parliamentary reply of that
day and the Garda threat to “resurrect the
charge”, the EU Commission wrote “On your
particular complaint, the presenting of
invoices not previously defrayed constituted
a breach of Community rules”.
That was unambiguous. It allowed for no
doubt. The whistleblower had been wrong.
The report to the DPP had been warranted.
However, on 21 April 2015 Catherine Day
wrote (to Marian Harkin MEP): “On the
question of a possible ‘EU prohibition’ on the
use of unpaid invoices to claim payment of ESF
grants from the Department of Enterprise
Ireland, under EU law the Irish authorities
were entitled to pay the advances for this
project but were not entitled to declare this
expenditure to the Commission until the use
of the advances had been justified in paid
invoices”.
Richard Bruton
In December 2010 Ruairí Quinn’s told me he
would resolve my concerns after the first 100
days of Government had elapsed. I thought
vindication was nigh. However, In September
2011 the Minister for Enterprise Richard
Bruton wrote to Ruairí Quinn and advised that
he was not reopening the files
I was in the old Dun Laoghaire Library when
I read that communication. Within seconds I
had collapsed. I was taken to St Michael’s
Hospital where I spent several hours on heart
monitors being prodded and poked. Richard
Bruton’s response had been a shock, made all
the more dicult to comprehend by his public
image.
Whether Bruton knew that the files had a
potential to damage him is a legitimate
question, but what is not in doubt is that his
ocials knew.
He wrote “the Ombudsman determined in
November in 2007 not to uphold the complaint
against the Department. In that context,
insofar as my Department’s remit is
concerned…. I believe that the matter has
been fully investigated and there are no
matters outstanding”.
The phrasing of that reply and the
Deprtment Of Justice hs beltedly chllenged the Judge’s ruling of erly 2019
I do not see that you
infringed EU rules.
Brian Gray, EU Commission
1 Feb 2009
20 July 2021
Parnell was designated to uphold the claim that “the
presenting of invoices not previously defrayed
constituted a breach of Community rules”. That
statement was crystal clear. The allegation was
justified. I had no case. Minister Martin was correct.
In 2006 Minister Martin in a letter to Jim Higgins
MEP argued that I was unreasonable for not accepting
the word of his ocials. Consequently, he noted that
the file had been closed in October 2004. It had been
closed on the instruction of the Secretary General
that it was “not to be opened without his express
permission”.
Since 2004 successive Secretary Generals and
every Minister for Enterprise have to this day
declared the file closed without prospect of it being
opened.
However, in March 2012, when reduced in status to
being a mere Deputy without the protection of his civil
servants, Uachtarán FF confirmed that his ocials
had fed him untruths in 2004. He declared himself
“livid” and volunteered to correct his ministerial
records from 2004 to 2007 - his period as Minister for
Enterprise. That commitment was rearmed several
weeks later by Deputy Dara Calleary.
Nevertheless Deputy Martin showed no great
urgency in delivering. Simultaneously he was
prominent in compelling several FG Ministers to
attend the Dail to correct their parliamentary records.
Frustrated in the extreme, in 2017 we sought under
the Data Acts access to the minutes of our meeting
with Deputy Martin in 2012.
Fianna Fáil’s response to the Data Act request was
long in coming. Somewhat incredibly, in August 2020
Fianna Fail designated Taoiseach Martin as the FF data
controller exceptionally for those minutes. Eventually
on 9 April 2021 last the Taoiseach Martin confirmed
to the Data Commissioner that he had shredded the
said minutes.
This should never have happened. I will need some time to consider how
best to correct the record
- Micheál Martin having been reassured on 7 March 2012 by Deirdre Gillane that he had been
deceived and used by his officials in 2004
Letter from Deprtment of Enterprise to Frnk Mulchy, 2004
July 2021 21
For the Frank Mulcahy Scandal A student:
THE TIMELINE!
Frnk Mulchy
1994 Ireland awarded €8 billion in European Structural Funds
1994 - 1997 Department of Enterprise under Richard Bruton distributes chaotic distribution of ESF
1997 Reg 2064/97 changes auditing rules for ESF and seeks to apply the changes retroactively to 1994
1998/99 EU audit of Irish government’s financial administration of FEOGA grants and levys a fine €400 million.
1998 1st Arthur Anderson report for the EU into Ireland’s mal-administration
1999 Unfounded accusation of fraud made against Frank Mulcahy results in his losing his job in ISME
Garda launch fraud investigation into Frank Mulcahy.
26 April Department of Enterprise state to the Garda states that there is no basis in EU auditing rules for an accusation of fraud
against Frank Mulcahy. Garda send file to the DPP
2000 EU Commission confirms at Homologues Group Meeting in Berlin that changes in the audit rules in Reg 2064/97 do not
apply retroactively. 2nd Arthur Anderson report for the EU into Ireland’s mal-administration
2001 Department of Finance letter stating that David Gray required the Irish authorities to confirm in writing that they would
apply Reg 2064/97 retroactively to 1994.
2002 Devlin Memo queries why are report on Frank Mulcahy’s alleged fraud was being submitted when it was already known
that those accusations were false.
2002 - 2005 European Court case between Ireland and the EU Commission concerning the retroactive application of the audit rule
changes in Reg 2064/97
2003 Frank Mulcahy has casual meeting with Turlough O’Molloy who confirms that the Department of Enterprise know that the
accusations of fraud against Mulcahy are baseless.
2004 Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Paul Harran, undertakes to make a full examination of the department’s
files Mary Harney makes a false statement to the Dail Micheál Martin makes a false statement to Dail and states that he
was personally satisfied that no documents or information were being withheld by his dept.
Meeting between Frank Mulcahy and Chief Accountant to the EU, Brian Gray.
2007 Ombudsman finding in support of the Dept. However, that was based on evidence given by the dept in 2004/5 and did not
take into account disclosures since then
2008 UK MEP, Jerey Titford, writes to ask Brian Gray if audit rules under Reg 2064/97Were applied retroactively - Gray replies
that they were.
2009 Brian Gray confirms that Reg 2064/97 give no grounds for allegations of fraud against Frank Mulcahy. Gray goes onto say
the invoices submitted by Mulcahy followed the standards applicable at the time and that any changes in audit rules would
only apply to government department procedures for claiming expenses that FM used were standard and, in any event,
only applied to government departments
2012 Frank Mulcahy meets with Micheál Martin with Deirdre Gillane in attendance taking
notes
2013 Micheál Martin wrote to Minister of Enterprise to ask specifically if Frank Mulcahy’s
file had been closed.
2017 Frank Mulcahy submits a Subject Access Request to view notes taken by Deirdre Gillane
at the 2012 meeting with Micheál Martin.
2018 Micheál Martin contacts the Parliamentary Ombudsman to query if Martin needs to
correct the Dail record
2021 In response to registered letter, Leo Vardakar asserts that the Department of Enterprise
has acted properly at all times in this matter and that Frank Mulcahy’s is closed and
would remain closed
Deirdre Gillane replies to the DPC to say that records of the meeting in 2012 have been
destroyed
