Positive Action Group - Possan Jantys Jarrooagh

Open, accountable government, rigorous control of public finances, and a fairer society for all.

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Opinion Tynwald Tynwald lacks perception

Tynwald lacks perception

E-mail Print PDF
User Rating: / 27
PoorBest 

The KSF affair continues to rankle with many, both on and off the island.

Salt was rubbed into the wounds in July Tynwald when a recommendation of the Select Committee was rejected in order to continue to allow bank directors to also be members of the Financial Services Commission.

It will be remembered that at the time of the collapse of KSF (IoM), John Cashen, one of the directors was also vice chairman of the FSC.

Chairman of the Select Committee, Juan Watterson, warned of the reputational damage by association this could have. So the youngest member of Tynwald would appear to have greater insight than his more experienced colleagues, about the broader implications that the vote may have. Perhaps he is aware of an earlier 2002 Select Committee Report about Maladministration - 'the Pilling Report'.

At paragraph 20.01 “Recommendations” the Report states:

“It should be accepted as a rule in the public service that wherever an official might reasonably be perceived by a member of the public to be likely to be biased, partial or otherwise personally interested in the outcome of dealings between the citizen and the state, that official should cease to be involved with them”

Or perhaps he is aware of the 2004 Report of the Standing Committee of Tynwald on Expenditure and Public Accounts: Ramsey Post Office and Associated Matters stated (paragraph 9.4):

“We recognise that the Island has a relatively small population and there are many links to members of the public through family connections, business associates and friendships.  It may therefore sometimes be difficult for Members of Tynwald or members of the business community to distance themselves sufficiently to ensure that they cannot be criticised for a potential conflict of interest.”

Perhaps he is aware of a ruling, delivered on 12th February 2007, in the matter of a Petition of Manx National Heritage. His Honour Deemster Kerruish made reference to the “perception” of conflict of interest in realation to the “compact” nature of the Isle of Man public service.

So there has been an awareness for many years that just a perception by ordinary people of a conflict of interest can undermine confidence in public service.

We are always told that in the Isle of Man our politicians are close their constituents.

The above vote shows that, as far as perceived conflicts of interest is concerned, there's a gulf as wide as the salty Irish Sea!

 

Comments   

 
+12 #14 Shameless and irresponsibleGuest 2011-08-13 15:18
Hundreds, even thousands, of innocent (but hood-winked) depositors have tried for years to get the IOM officials to do the decent thing and ensure the full, speedy return of their hard-earned savings. Those so-called 'officials;' Brown, Bell, Craine (and let's not forget the bank Manager of KSFIOM Doherty and the chief executive at the FSC John Aspden) they just couldn't care less. They all ducked and dived and left we depositors out in the cold. Talking to government officials on the Isle of Man is the same as casting pearls before swine. They are all a bunch of shameless, irresponsible cretins who are not to be trusted. But then again, this is the Isle of man where standards are low. Our advice is to keep away from them. DON'T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN.
Quote
 
 
+14 #13 The SoA follyGuest 2011-08-13 13:06
Good point F. Erker. The SoA folly, which the Select Committee has now concluded should have been 'given up on' by the Government when it became clear that it was going nowhere fast, was doggedly and determinedly pursued to the bitter end by Treasury at a substantial cost not only to the depositors (liquidators' and DAG's costs) but also to the IOM taxpayers (Treasury's own costs). A gigantic cock-up which benefitted no-one – neither the depositors, nor the tax-payers, nor the reputation of the island which it was presumably intended to protect. Now that is really something to be proud of!

Anne Craine and former Treasury minister Allan Bell - who, up to the eve of the SoA vote, tried desperately to frighten creditors into voting the 'right' way by dire threats of fire-sales of assets and doubts over the payment of the DCS if the SoA were not adopted (neither of which materialised) - should be sent packing.
Quote
 
 
+17 #12 FollyGuest 2011-08-13 08:25
From Treasury Minister Anne Craine:

"In addition the collapse of KSF caused by outside influences has been boldly addressed by this government and I am pleased that the end result will be the payment of 97.5p in the £1 for the depositors."

Errr... Ms Craine and the IOM's gvt played no role in that recovery rate, it is purely the outcome of the liquidation process. Actually, they contributed to lowering the recovery rate by launching a costly SoA purely designed to cover their backs and which was of course rejected by depositors. But all the costs linked to that folly was charged to depositors!!!!!

Ms Craine is a politician of the worst kind and has no place in office. The only way for her is OUT.
Quote
 
 
+16 #11 Contrast and Compare AK and DepositorsGuest 2011-08-12 15:11
It has taken two and a half years to get 73.6% perhaps Mrs Craine would like to delay receiving 73.6% of her salary for that length of time. Further How would Mrs Craine like to have 26.4% or her salary witheld for 4 years with the certainty that she will never receive the full amount? The IOM stinks.
Quote
 
 
+20 #10 Fantasy IslandGuest 2011-08-12 12:30
The level of denial and delusion exhibited by the IOM establishment would beggar belief anywhere else. Fantasy Island would be a better name for that island in the Irish Sea.

This what passes for the KSFIOM ‘good news story’.

A derisory ‘early’ payment of £1,000 and another ‘early’ payment of up to £10,000 6 months after the bank’s collapse.

An attempt to impose a Scheme of Arrangement on depositors, at their own cost, that would have offered no better return in timing or amounts paid than straightforward liquidation.

In inadequately funded Depositors Compensation Scheme that required the proceeds from liquidation and in injection of money from the IOM treasury to meet it’s obligations.

Antiquated liquidation legislation that only permits claimants 5% interest on their principle amount claimed, less than the bank was paying at the time of collapse.

A treasurer who believes that “...?paying out a portion of the remaining amount outstanding would now achieve little.” and responded to the Depositors Action Group’s loan trust proposal as follows: “I?t is apparent that our views are diametrically opposed with regard to the relative merits of your proposal for a Loan Trust. As previously advised The Isle of Man Treasury reached its decision after detailed and careful consideration and will not be progressing your proposal.”

And a Chief Minister who presumably regards all of the above as “As far as the situation for the Isle of Man is concerned, we are accepting our responsibilitie s and endeavouring to rectify the situation.”

If all this is good news what passes for bad news on the Isle of Man?
Quote
 

Add comment

Please note that unregistered visitors are required to add their email and 'captcha code' in order to prevent spam and advertising. Your email address will NEVER be published. Registered members do not need to enter this - why not register today?


Security code
Refresh

Newsletter

Subscribe

Receive
Our occasional newsletter provides details of forthcoming events and features new website articles.

Main Menu