HSE expense claims 2007 to 2010 all regions

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 Northwest all years

HSE Midlands: €31,470,046.22, 14,807 rows, 12.08% of the total claimed

HSE Midlands all years

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 Midwest all years

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

HSE Northeast 2009

HSE Northeast Jan – Mar 2010
HSE Northeast Apr – Jun 2010

Reply to Anglo Irish

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:



Central Bank emergency lending soars to €44.67bn

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.

Anglo Irish Bank – a public authority?

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.

Wikileaks and Ireland

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.

Security costs for politicians – OPW

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

Tracking the EU's structural funds

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, a Potter Foundation-funded investigation unit, has partnered with the Financial Times to shine some light on how the €347bn of European structural funds is distributed. For eight months the Bureau and the FT have systematically sought details of how EFSF and ESF monies are used in all 27 member states of the European Union, including Ireland.

It came to light in September that Ireland had failed to apply for ESF monies for FAS for over 10 months as a result of investigations into fraud at the agency. The European Commission is reviewing some of the €600m given to Fas over the past 10 years. We might expect more revelations in relation to the investigations from the stories in the FT.

We met Cynthia O’Murchu, the FT’s lead journalist for the story, in Amsterdam at the Data Driven Journalism event organised by the European Journalism Centre over the summer. You can watch Cynthia’s talk at the conference here.

Myself and Mark were happy to provide some assistance to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in relation to the Irish component of the investigation over the past number of months.

Press release here:

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in collaboration with The Financial Times, has for the first time traced how the European Union distributes billions through its structural funds, revealing a trail of undetected waste, missed opportunity and even fraud.

As Europeans face the uncertainty of swingeing government cuts, the European Union continues to spend. Its structural fund programme distributes a colossal €347bn of European tax payers’ money across 271 regions in 27 countries. Yet a web of bureaucracy makes it almost impossible to track how the EU’s second largest budget is being spent. Even MEPs have not had a truly transparent view of the data.

Over eight months the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Financial Times have created a unique database that traces every penny distributed under the EU’s structural funds programme to date. The research collates information on 646,929 beneficiaries across all 27 member states, to provide a clear view of the EU’s second largest budget.

The research shows how big businesses are accessing grants, despite the fact that the structural funds are intended to provide a helping hand to Europe’s weakest members and smallest businesses. It also shows how EU funds have poured cash into the hands of the Italian mafia.

The key findings will be revealed in the Financial Times over five days from November 30 at www.ft.com/eu-funds and on the Bureau’s website www.thebureauinvestigates.com.

Iain Overton, Editor at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based at City University, explains the importance of the database: “In an age of austerity we need to ensure that every penny counts. The EU hands out nearly €350bn, and yet the distribution of these funds has remained opaque. Even MEPs haven’t had access to the detail. Our database shines new light on how the money is spent.”

Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, said: “Our joint investigation raises some serious questions about the way the EU allocates development funds. The European Commission and the EU’s 27 member states need to ensure more transparency and greater accountability over how billions of euros of European taxpayers’ money are spent.”