TheStory.ie

I will post the document first and tell the story below, it’s worth a look. The information contained in this FOI, is I believe, valuable.

Cost-benefit analyses, impact reports or preparatory reports for NAMA

Why is this information valuable? It contains a timeline of what companies were involved in consulting the Government on the formation of NAMA, and gives us insight into the process. It also contains previously unknown titles, such as HSBC’s “Project Neo”. This is likely relates to the rumoured formation of a “New Anglo Irish Bank” in 2010. And it gives us an idea as to the level of involvement of Merrill, Arthur Cox, Rotschilds, PwC and HSBC.

The background:

A little bit of a saga ended today, finally. It is worth noting the dates involved in this request.

On August 17 I sought the following information from the Department of Finance:

1) A list of all cost-benefit analyses, impact reports or preparatory reports that have been carried out by the Department in relation to the proposed National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). Please can you list the title of the document, its date, and by whom it was written.

2) A list of all cost-benefit analyses, impact reports, or preparatory reports that have been carried out by people or companies working on behalf of, or at the request of the Department, in relation to the proposed National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). Please can you list the title of the document, its date, and by whom it was written.

I received my acknowledgment as standard, which was followed up with an email. The email said it was unlikely my request would be successful but if I wanted, I could be given information outside of my request. I went along with this and it resulted in this blog post on September 30. That’s in and around the 20 day limit under the Act.

But I didn’t feel the information provided was sufficient, and I always wanted information should my request be refused. So I said I still wanted to proceed with my original request. The Department then took the date of my re-request as the initial date, thus giving them another 20 working days. This brought the result of the request into early November, despite an initial request in August.

Numerous emails were sent, and replied to. The civil servants involved were “busy” with NAMA and it was taking longer than normal to reply to my request. Last week I had enough, and wrote an email seeking an internal review as my request was now a deemed refusal since the 20 day limit had expired. Today, December 8, nearly four months later, I got the reply.

Deputy Joan Burton (Labour) has been kind enough to share more of her Freedom of Information requests relating to Anglo Irish Bank. I have scanned and OCRd these documents for easy searching. If any other TDs wish to share their requests, please contact us.

Burton 1 (Ireland notification to EC)
Burton Anglo 2
Burton Anglo 3 (Result of appeal for internal review)

Burton refusal

Anglo 3 is interesting. It contains an email to the Financial Regulator Patrick Neary on October 11, 2008:

Min v anxious that we have the pwc work on anglo asap so that we understand their book in detail – sees them as most likely source of trouble, esp given share price movements during the wk

It also contains this email from John Paul Coleman at Anglo, dated January 20, 2009:

Marie,

As discussed as at the 30th September 2008 (last published accounts) the Bank had €2.835 billion of perpetual bonds not guaranteed under the scheme.

This includes the Banks GBP300million preference shares (€371 million at 30th September).Attached is the note which will be in the Banks annual accounts showing this for September. The note has both dated and undated but I have highlighted the undated (perpetual) bonds.

Any additional information needed please let me know.

Regards,
John-Paul

Like Mark explained last week, we are closely watching the search strings and IP addresses of visitors. Today another one popped up. On Friday I submitted an FOI request to the Comptroller & Auditor General, located at the Treasury Building in Dublin. They would have received my request today.

And today this search:

Search Engine Phrase “gavin sheridan”
Search Engine Name Google
Search Engine Host www.google.ie
Host Name h137-191-239-45.gn.gov.ie
IP Address 137.191.239.45 [Label IP Address]
Country Ireland
Region Dublin
City Dublin
ISP Treasury Bldg
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length 2 mins 59 secs
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser IE 7.0
Operating System WinXP
Resolution 1024×768
Javascript Enabled

It is certainly interesting. I would imagine it is curiosity, or perhaps even a desire to know the purpose of my request. However, it is also worth noting Section 8 (4) of the Freedom of Information Act:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, in deciding In deciding whether to grant or refuse to grant a request under section 7:
(a) any reason that the requester gives for the request, and
(b) any belief or opinion of the head as to what are the reasons of the requester for
the request,

shall be disregarded.

Searching for who I am after my request has been submitted is a curious one. Legally, the reasons for my request are irrelevant to the Deciding officer or the FOI officer.