What is Charlie McCreevy like? One hundred and fifty one files dealing with currency exchange controls go missing from his Department and he takes himself off to Punchestown racecourse.
Not that a Minister for Finance shouldn't relax and enjoy himself at the races, especially with a heavy weekend coming up on Ireland's EMU membership. But timing is important in these matters. And minding the shop when the political manure is hitting the fan should take precedence.
By any yardstick, the loss of one-fifth of the files requested by the Moriarty Tribunal should have qualified as important, requiring his personal attention. Instead, Mr McCreevy took a little R & R, while his junior Minister, Martin Cullen, was sent to face the baying opposition parties in the Dail.
Michael Noonan simply oozed concern. The Sunday Tribune, he said, had linked the request by the Moriarty Tribunal for files on exchange controls with the possibility that Charlie Haughey, as Minister for Finance, and his friends, had benefited from insider knowledge about the sterling devaluation of 1967. That allegation had been forcefully denied by Mr Haughey, the Fine Gael man said. But would the Minister say if files from 1967 were missing?
As it turned out, they were all accounted for. Safely tucked away in the National Archives.
Pat Rabbitte wanted an immediate explanation of how the files had "apparently disappeared into thin air". What steps were being taken to locate them and why had the Department of Finance failed to alert the Moriarty Tribunal that the documents were missing?
Derek McDowell found it "astounding" that a key Government Department should lose such an amount of documentation. A full inquiry should be held, he insisted, and Mr McCreevy should explain how he had presided over a debacle that affected the smooth operation of the Moriarty Tribunal.
But Mr McCreevy was "as lathair". And Mr Cullen wasn't in a position to give comprehensive replies. A statement issued in Mr McCreevy's name had, earlier, sought to minimise the loss of the files by saying "the vast bulk of them" had been registered before 1970 and "a large majority" of those dated back to before 1960.
It took 24 hours - and intensive media questioning - for the Department to admit that five of the missing exchange control files date from 1991, and a further partial file from 1995. Those files on exchange controls could possibly include details of the Department's attitude to tax evasion through the use of offshore bank and building society accounts.
The Moriarty Tribunal has been asked to make broad recommendations for the protection of the State's tax base from fraud or evasion in relation to offshore accounts. Maintaining the independence of the Revenue Commissioners, while ensuring openness and accountability, was also to be addressed.
It's about time. A recent report by Liam Collins in the Sunday Independent blew the lid off a £600 million tax evasion racket, facilitated by Allied Irish Banks, involving an estimated 53,000 offshore accounts.
In April 1990, AIB promised the Revenue Commissioners it would make a "determined effort" to clear up "the problem". This lukewarm approach to the crime of tax evasion didn't seem to cause concern. The Commissioners extended an unofficial "amnesty" to June 1991, but warned: "Detection of offences arising after that date will give rise to prosecution of both the bank and the officials involved".
In March 1991, John Keogh, AIB's group financial director, recognised a continuing problem and wrote: "Our customers are, of course, an important constituent in this matter, as is the pace of implementation of Revenue requirements by our competitors and indeed the concern of Government overall lest over-enthusiastic action by anyone should lead to a flight of funds as exchange controls diminish."
But those were the days of Charlie Haughey's Fianna Fail/Progres sive Democrats government, whose perceived concern was that "over-enthusiastic action by anyone" might lead to a flight of capital.
It may have been a correct assessment. By December 1991, the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners were reported to be examining the possibility of a tax amnesty for those citizens who held money illegally outside the State. A figure of £2 to £3 billion was mentioned.
But the scheme didn't come to fruition until Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring formed a new government, and Bertie Ahern, as Minister for Finance, was given charge of the operation. The 1993 tax amnesty raised £230 million for the Exchequer. But it wasn't confined to offshore accounts.
All of this raises the question of who makes taxation policy: the Government, financial institutions or officials at the Department of Finance? It also reflects the secrecy which veils issues of prime public importance.
Last December, the Moriarty Tribunal sought files, going back to 1954, on exchange control matters. And Mr McCreevy gave instructions that they should be assembled. But it wasn't until last week, when George Lee of RTE started asking questions about missing files, that Department officials though it necessary to break the bad news to the Minister.
At least, that is what is suggested in a carefully drafted Department statement. It said the Minister was unaware that "a significant number of files could not be located until last week". And it continued to use the phrase "a significant number" throughout the document. Could it be that the Minister was aware of some difficulties? Or had he been kept totally in the dark by his officials?
Perhaps Mr McCreevy wasn't interested in knowing why the entire building was being ransacked by up to 30 officials as they searched for the missing files. Perhaps officials briefed him only on a "need to know" basis. Or they may have hoped to quietly bury the matter - like offshore tax evasion.
Whatever the reasons, Mr McCreevy still owes an explanation to the Dail for the way his Department handled these issues. It may be that none of the 151 files went missing during his term as Minister. We just don't know. But because of the uncertainty - and the importance of the issue in relation to the work of the Moriarty Tribunal - Mr McCreevy should have taken a far greater interest in the matter.