Category: Comment

More linkage. Working elsewhere.

FT Alphaville on Irish sovereign spreads last week. ‘Ireland shakes, rattles and rolls’.

… but as Lorcan Roche-Kelly says, tongue-in-cheek, in the comments, “don’t be worrying yourself, sure it will all be fine“.

P O’Neill on A Fistful of Euros. The man has some observations.

Paul Krugman agrees.

Guest post: Nat O’Connor is a policy analyst with TASC and contributes to their Progressive Economy blog. He recently published two discussion papers on democratic accountability and the economic logic of strengthening public access rights to official information. The first paper can be viewed here and downloaded as PDF here. The paper on public access to official information can be read here and downloaded here. In recent weeks there has been much media attention given to the papers with articles in The Irish Examiner, an appearance on Morning Ireland and an opinion piece by Hugh Linehan in The Irish Times stemming from their publication, to name a few. – Mark

—

It may be stating the obvious, but the extent to which the public can readily access official information has got a lot to do with the health of our democracy.

The Freedom of Information Act 1997 has come to represent this idea in some ways, in direct opposition to the Official Secrets Act 1963 (still in force) which represents government decision-making behind closed doors, where the reasons for those decisions remain secret.

Yet, the need for public access to information in a democracy is much more than just freedom of information law.

In a democracy, people need reliable information to vote; otherwise voting is a meaningless exercise. And just as importantly, people need reliable information between votes, when the real business of running the country takes place. We need information so that we can monitor where tax money is being spent, what policies are in place, what evidence informs decision-making, etc.

This democratic argument is spelled out in more detail in one of the discussion papers I wrote for TASC.

Continue reading “Public Information and Power”

The usually-reliable Royaldutchshellplc.com blog has published what it says are leaked emails relating to the Corrib gas pipeline.

Shell Corrib Gas Pipeline – flood of leaked internal emails.

Nothing explosive (excuse the pun) as far as I can see, though some readers may be interested in having a goo. There’s a natural gas glossary here for those in need too.

Two things did twig my interest, according to the last few mails Shell didn’t really have any idea who had the “current asset ownership of the wells”. That was in early 2009.

Also, Shell told the government that documents are commercially sensitive when they may not have been, thus ensuring the department would have to inform them were the documents to be released under FOI.

That blog is run by some guys with a serious gripe with Shell, but has been recognised for its work in exposing strange workings inside Shell over the years. It is seen as a forum for Shell whistleblowers. The Financial Times, Reuters, Times of London and Fortune magazine have all recognised it as a bona fide source. It’s former owner, Alfred Donovan has featured in several documentaries about adversarial websites and online activism.

I was away in Niger. I’m back blogging. The Digest shall return on Sundays this week.

A reader has commented that coincidentally perhaps, the phone numbers of Ivor Callely and his son Ronan are almost identical. According to his Facebook page, Ronan Callely’s number is 086 2571489. According to the Oireachtas documents, Ivor Callely’s number is 087 2571489 – a one digit difference which applies usually when your provider is different. Curious.

In the past I’ve spoken about the odd – unfortunately, odd – position the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday occupy in the national conversation… please Ireland, don’t sleep this time.

Luke Byrne knocks it out of the park. Cracking journalism.

A two-month investigation into the Fianna Fáil senator’s expenses claims show he was paid the cash on foot of invoices indicating he had bought four mobile phones in five years from a north Dublin firm. But the MoS has established that the company, Business Communications Ltd, went bust over a decade before Callely’s claim.

A former director told the MoS the invoices had not been generated by his company – and that Business Communications Ltd had never sold a mobile phone to Ivor Callely.

While Callely this weekend refused to comment on the damning revelations, they seem certain to spell the final chapter of his ignominious political career.

Can Callely come back from this one? More to the point, does anyone want him to?

The OECD/Transparency International Progress Report into international bribery passed the world by there yesterday. Pity, it’s broadly positive.

On the Irish angle though, not so much. What’s new though, hey?

On the international comparisons Ireland is ranked in the lowest category for its efforts to deter the payment of bribes in the export/import markets. We’re categorised as having “little or no enforcement”. The experts of OECD/Transparency International point out that we do have ‘jurisdictional limitations’ (i.e. a porous border) but find that we lack sufficient legislation for criminal liability for corporations anyway; and once again that we’ve no whistleblower protection. The OECD also found fault with Ireland’s level of sanctions for foreign bribery and false accounting. Furthermore they question whether “the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigations is sufficiently trained and resourced to enforce the prohibition of foreign bribery”.

More worrying however is the country report. As you can see in table B and C or the PDF, Ireland is the only country examined with ‘null’ figures. This is because the Gardaí outright refuse to provide information to the OECD/TI team in relation to investigations carried out during the year.

The claim is any report would tip-off subjects that they are being investigated. Stunning; a ‘1’ – no further details! – on a TI report published annually would tip-off an person paying bribes? Gimme a break.

In compiling their figures Transparency International experts do also attempt to glean information from relevant media reports on investigations, but none were available for Ireland. This shows just how secretive the Garda Siochana is by international standards. Figures were calculable for Turkey, Estonia, Bulgaria, Chile and South Africa but not Ireland. We alone are the country with null figures in table B and C. This reflects poorly on the Gardai, the State and, to an extent, the media.

OECD/TI also express concern that the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill has yet to be enacted despite being due for implementation in January of this year. They recommend it be enacted as soon as possible. Who wouldn’t? Here’s hoping.

Previous posts from this website on Garda secrecy and unaccountability: ‘Gardai and Freedom of Information‘, New details relating to the Terence Wheelock case; Deaths in Garda Custody.

Maybe Paul Williams could look into international bribery for Transparency International’s 2011 report?

I’ve been leafing through the company accounts of several interesting Anglo subsidiaries. The numbers would make you ill.

Anglo Irish Asset Finance PLC stands out (AIAF for short). The company directors have changed somewhat, but for most of the relevant period the directors were:

Brian Linehan (Not the Minister for Finance)
Gordon Parker (FG Parker)
J Brydie (Jim/James Brydie)
TP Walsh (Thomas Walsh)

AIAF, under cashflows, in the 12 months to September 30, 2008, had losses before tax of £116,805,450.That was before the bank guarantee.

In the 15 month period between September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2009, the company had losses before tax of £1,197,670,982, or almost £1.2 billion. (In an interim management report in March 2009, the company reported a loss of £972m, including £613m on a Yen deal that went badly wrong). The majority of the £1.2bn loss was from UK investments, £88m was from Mainland Europe. The company had £5.34bn in liabilities up to the end of 2009. Interest and similar income fell from £399m in the 2008 period, to £290m in the 2009 period. Trading losses would make your brain melt. In the 2008 fiscal year it lost £99m in “trading losses”, in the 2009 fiscal year it lost £613m. Provisions for impairment went from £124m to £974m in the 2008 to 2009 period.

Now for derivatives – and as far as I can tell, the taxpayer still holds these.

As of December 31, 2009, AIAF held £2,148,360,000 total derivative financial instruments, of which £1.74bn was interest rate swaps.

AIAF held £3.16bn in loans classified for sale to NAMA at year end 2009. Less provisions for impairment this is £2.3bn. But it was the £3.16bn that was designated on December 31.

Share capital was increased from 300,000,000 shares in 2008 to 3,300,000,000 in 2009. On November 18, 2008, 1,000,000,000 ordinary were issued at par for a consideration of £1 billion and subscnbed by CDB (U K ) Limited, the parent company, thereby increasing ordinary share capital by £1,000,000,000 to £1,220,000,000. Note 28 states:

In order to further strengthen the capital position of the Company, on 18th November 2008, the issued ordinary share capital of the Company was increased by £1,000,000,000. In addition AIBC agreed to the irrevocable write off of £200m of the intercompany loan between AIBC and the Company which has further increased the capital of the Company through the creation of a capital reserve of £200m.

Note 29 is on NAMA (in relation to AIAF’s parent in Dublin):

The transfer of assets to NAMA is a fundamental aspect of AlBC’s restructunng process. AIBC estimates that NAMA will acquire land and development loans and certain associated loans with a value of approximately £3,166m on a gross loan basis (i e before taking account of £864m of loan loss provisions) from the Company. AIBC and the Company have no control over the quantity of eligible assets that NAMA will acquire or over the valuation NAMA will place on those assets. NAMA has not confirmed to AIBC or the Company the total value of eligible assets it expects to purchase or the consideration it will pay in respect to those assets.

NAMA appear to have applied the following (Note 29):

Total assets as classified for sale, neither impaired or past due: £451m
Past due but not impaired: £176m
Impaired: £2.538bn

So let’s put it this way. NAMA have said that 80% of the loans are impaired as of December 2009. And 87% of all loans (either impaired or not) are related to just three sectors, retail (10%), residential development (37) and commercial development (40%).