Access to Information Updates
Some time ago I sought information on certain emails between the Department of Finance and other organisations. The request was refused on volume grounds (I am appealing), but in the internal review the Department broke down email volumes for the period I requested, September 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009. Here is the breakdown:
The email exchange to both Bank of Ireland and to the Department of the Taoiseach are particularly interesting. Why was Bank of Ireland more than twice Anglo? Interesting.
I recently sought details of staff travel at Dublin City Council. Under the Environmental Regulations I obtained details of staff travel for the period July to September:
This is all claims for expenses from people working in the HSE from 2007 to mid 2010. The total comes to €260,450,676.60.
Contextual documents:
FOI letter
Internal review decision
Expenses context
HSE South: €39,532,886.69, 23,415 rows, 15.18% of the total claimed
HSE South 2007
HSE South 2008
HSE South 2009
HSE South 2010 (to end June)
HSE Northwest: €35,786,735.08, 16,715 rows, 13.74% of the total claimed
HSE Midlands: €31,470,046.22, 14,807 rows, 12.08% of the total claimed
HSE West: €45,275,421.66, 20,298 rows, 17.38% of the total claimed (the largest)
HSE West all years
HSE East (Right click and save as.., or open in new tab)
HSE East 2007
HSE East 2008
HSE East 2009
HSE East 2010 (to end June)
HSE East AP 2007
HSE East AP 2008
HSE East AP 2009
HSE East AP 2010 (to end June)
HSE Southeast
HSE Southeast, all years
HSE Midwest
HSE Northeast
HSE Northeast Jan – Mar 2007
HSE Northeast Apr – Jun 2007
HSE Northeast Jul – Sep 2007
HSE Northeast Oct – Dec 2007
HSE Northeast Jan – Mar 2008
HSE Northeast Apr – Jun 2008
HSE Northeast Jul – Sep 2008
HSE Northeast Oct – Dec 2008
As mentioned previously, I am arguing that Anglo Irish Bank is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) (SI 133/2007). Here is my reply to Anglo’s submission:
A follow up from myself and Lorcan’s post last month on how much liquidity the Irish Central Bank is providing to Irish banks. November data has just been released and the figures are stark, a jump from €34bn in October to €44.67bn in November:
Of course that’s not the only story. Lending to euro area credit institutions rose as well, from €130bn to €136bn. As Lorcan points out on his blog:
Firstly, banks other than Anglo are now accessing this facility – Total loans from Anglo destined for NAMA were €20bn
Secondly, the ECB is NOT accepting NAMA promissory notes as collateral for repo operations. If it was, there would be no need for this facility from the Irish central bank. Presumably, the fact that NAMA is paying with promissory notes (basically an IOU) rather than government guaranteed bonds means they are not repo-able.
So, what does all this mean?
Well, the first broad point is that the amount of liquidity – both ECB and ‘exceptional’ – being provided to the Irish banking system has reached utterly unsustainable levels. At a combined total of €181.110bn, current ‘extend and pretend’ policies must be close to their limit.
I have an econo-crush on Simon Johnson, I think. Honestly, I giggle whenever anyone mentions his name.
I joke, I joke. Still, this one is well worth a read. I’m not going to bother quoting any specific section, it’s all relevent.
A fair few of the comments refer to Ireland.
Also, close watchers of The Digest – see right hand column of this website – will have already read “The clear correlation between crisis and corruption” by Sigrún Davíðsdóttir. Davíðsdóttir is the London correspondent for RUV (Icelandic national television) and has been spending some time in Dublin of late.
You may also have picked up on “Assange accuser worked with US-funded, CIA-tied anti-Castro group“.
“Must not Sleep, Must warn Others”
Readers may recall that at the start of this year we submitted two Environmental Information Regulations requests (EIRs, not FOIs). One was sent to the National Asset Management Agency and the other was sent to Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited – the nationalised bank. Both organisations replied by saying that they did not consider themselves to be public authorities for the purposes of the Regulations.
I have already blogged extensively about our argument with NAMA, that we believe it is clearly a public authority for the purposes of the Regulations. For a chronological look through that argument try these links
NAMA denies status as a public authority April 21, 2010
NAMA submission April 22, 2010
NAMA status June 30, 2010
Is NAMA a public authority July 27, 2010
NAMA reply August 1, 2010
The NAMA saga continues September 27, 2010
We are now awaiting a binding decision by the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information in relation to NAMA’s status as a public authority for the purposes of the Regulations.
Events have also now moved forward in relation to Anglo Irish Bank. In February this year I started the process by seeking information from Anglo in relation to its loan book, and to the travel expenses of its executives. Anglo denied it was a public authority and I appealed the decision to the OCEI. I have now received a copy of Anglo Irish Bank’s submission to the OCEI giving its legal argument as to why it believes it is not a public authority.
However, Anglo has sought to exert confidentiality over its 16-page legal submission (a copy of which I and the OCEI have), stating that the submission contains:
details of the management of the bank, its relationship with the Minister for Finance and the relationship framework established under the Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Act 2009 constitute confidential management information which should not be disclosed further than is necessary for the purposes of dealing with the appeal to the Commissioner
The OCEI have stated that they have not formed a view on the status of the information contained in the submission. However with the help of a very dedicated individual we have now drafted and completed our reply to Anglo’s submission. We will be publishing our submission shortly. We are unsure as to the status of Anglo’s submission in legal terms – but will seek advice from OCEI about whether we have a legitimate right to publish their submission.
I had a brief chat with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange earlier this summer in London, just prior to the Afghanistan war logs being released. He is an interesting character. Not many leaks from the latest release so far have related to Ireland, but here are the three we have found, of over 900 to come:
So what infrastructure in Ireland does the US have an interest in?
Ireland: Hibernia Atlantic undersea cable landing, Dublin Ireland
Genzyme Ireland Ltd. (filling), Waterford, Ireland: Thymoglobulin
Not many things then.
Meanwhile in another cable released last week, it was stated
2. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX met recently with XXXXXXXXXXXX, who sought UNHCR support in facilitating the movement out of Afghanistan of Brahmdagh Bugti, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti’s grandson and head of the Baloch Republican Party. XXXXXXXXXXXX reportedly told XXXXXXXXXXXX that the Government of Ireland was willing to receive Brahmdagh Bugti, who “had to get out of Afghanistan and would not be safe returning to Pakistan.” XXXXXXXXXXXX also contended that the USG would be supportive of this transfer. (Note: XXXXXXXXXXXX has met with Embassy poloffs several times to float the idea of moving Bugti, sharing with us that Ireland’s Deputy Prime Minister is willing to help Bugti gain asylum there. End Note.)
The other Irish related cable to troops transiting through Shannon.
Some time ago we sent a request to the Office of Public Works seeking information on how much had been spent by that body on any works at the homes of Irish politicians. We sought a breakdown of this information and sought to understand if anything other than works in relation to security had been carried out at the homes or constituency offices of politicians, particularly ministers.
The OPW initially refused our request citing several exemptions under the FOI Act. We appealed the decision, at a cost of €75. Four weeks later our appeal was rejected. We then appealed the decision to the Information Commissioner. It appears to have taken the OPW some time to deal with the Information Commissioner’s office (we started this process several months ago).
In a settlement reached via the Information Commissioner, it was agreed that information related to expenditure would be released but in an anonymised format, due to security considerations. We agreed to this.
As far as we can understand much of these costs are in relation to some things you can see on Google Street View, such as the green structures outside the Taoiseach’s house, and the home of the former Taoiseach. It also might relate to the laying of cables, triple glazed windows and security systems.
Politician A
€ 3,300.00
€ 48,160.00
€ 262.00
€ 20,640.00
€ 52,168.35
€ 13,270.27
Total: €137,800.62
Politician B
€ 15,600.00
Politician C
€ 13,850.00
€ 25,681.50
€ 38.974.00
€ 10,861.50
€ 4,428.28
€ 2,400.00
€ 780.00
€190,572.50
Total: €248,573.78
Politician D
€ 74,450.39
Politician E
€ 1,440.00
€ 1,895.00
Total: €3,335
Politician F
€ 20,000.00
€ 385.00
€ 9,900.00
€ 2,850.00
€ 87,950.00
€ 96,650.00
€ 68,000.00
Total: €285,735
Overall total: €765,494.79