Those ECB letters

It’s been an interesting week. There have been several articles about those ECB letters, and this blog has received a fair bit of traffic from various sources. So it’s worth going back over what has happened.

To start chronologically, it’s worth mentioning that Ireland has not been the only country getting letters of this nature from the ECB.

On September 29 last year, Mario Sensini writing in the Italian newspaper Corriere published the contents of a leaked August 5 letter sent to the Italian government by the ECB. The letter bares a striking resemblance to the purported contents of our own November 2010 letter.

The following December I sent a request to the ECB seeking access to “any and all communications from the ECB addressed to the Irish Finance Minister (or his direct office) in the month of November 2010”. On January 9, Pierre van der Haegan and Roman Schremser from the ECB sent a reply stating that two letters existed from November 2010, dated November 18 and November 19. They granted full access to the November 18 letter but refused access to the November 19 letter. I then appealed this to internal review at the ECB.

On February 8 I received a reply to my internal review from ECB president Mario Draghi. He stated that the Executive Board had thoroughly considered my request but they had again decided to refuse access to the November 19 letter. Myself and Tom Lyons wrote an article in the Sunday Independent on February 12, 2012, outlining the contents of Draghi’s letter. In both cases, in the original refusal and in the second refusal, no mention was made to any other letter from November 2010.

I, along with some other journalists, also sought any letters from the other side of the equation – the Irish Department of Finance. No reference is made in the schedule of documents to a communication in the week ending November 14. I appealed the refusal by the Department to release the letters to the Irish Information Commissioner in June. And there the matter has rested since – until recent weeks.

In a matter that appears to have some similarity to the Irish letter, on July 19 2012 the European Ombudsman made a decision on a request by a Spanish lawyer in relation to a letter sent by the ECB to the Spanish government. The lawyer sought a copy of the letter because he wanted to know if the ECB had sought an amendment to the Spanish constitution. The lawyer was refused access by the Ombudsman, “however, with the consent of the ECB President, he confirmed to the complainant that the letter did not suggest any amendments to the Spanish Constitution. The lawyer was satisfied with this outcome”.

Then on August 17, Karl Whelan pointed to an odd discrepency in an article in Forbes. He wondered why the ECB referred to a letter dated November 19, as per my ECB request, yet Brian Lenihan had always referred to receiving a letter on or around November 12. The week difference is important. Among other points, he asked “Did the ECB communicate with Brian Lenihan on November 12, 2010? If so, why was this letter not referred to in response to Mr. Sheridan’s request?”

On August 22, Minister Pat Rabbitte appeared on Tonight with Vincent Browne. Colm McCarthy speaking on the show said that reference to a letter of November 19 was “probably an error” on the part of the ECB and that they had likely got their dates wrong. Pat Rabbitte said “the ECB strong armed the Irish government into taking on board effectively private banking debt” but that he “hadn’t heard about the letter Colm is talking about”.

But then on August 26 Daniel McConnell writing in the Sunday Independent, quoted Finance Minister Michael Noonan as saying the bailout letter should be released. The issue of the letter was now back firmly onto the news agenda. Several articles appeared in print over the following days talking about the letter, and it’s possible release to any banking inquiry.

On September 1, Stephen Collins writing in a front page Irish Times story, wrote that his paper had sight of the letters. He wrote:

Three critical letters were dispatched by Mr Trichet to Mr Lenihan in the run-up to the bailout.

They were sent on October 15th, November 4th and November 19th, 2010. It also appears likely that an email or fax reinforcing the message was sent to Mr Lenihan on November 12th, prompting his conversation with Mr Trichet.

He further says:

On November 4th, Mr Trichet wrote another letter to Mr Lenihan. He repeated many of the points made in the earlier letter about the massive exposure of the ECB to Irish bank debt.

However the article did not quote from any of the letters, nor were the contents of the letters released by the Irish Times.

Given that Mr Collins has had sight of the letters, then what of the ECB’s position that there were only two communications in November, and not four (including the Nov 18 letter I did receive) as Mr Collins says? Is Colm McCarthy right, did the ECB just make a mistake? And what of a purported fax communication on November 12? What of the communication of November 4, that the ECB did not refer to in their communications with me?

To try and get to the bottom of this I have submitted a followup request to the ECB seeking further information on any other letters over a broader timeframe. I have also submitted a request about my original request and how it was handled by the ECB (also known as a meta-FOI). Let’s see what happens.

Corrib earthquake documents

A small earthquake off the coast of Co Mayo sparked a flurry of correspondence within the Department of Communications, Energy, and Natural Resources.

Although no damage was caused, the Department sought assurances from Shell that pipelines in the area could withstand a 4.0 quake. The company also carried out an underwater inspection of their assets.

The documents indicate the high levels of sensitivity that still surround the entire Corrib gas project with a memo prepared for Minister Pat Rabbitte to bring to Cabinet.

– Ken Foxe (Mail on Sunday)

The documents can be found here:



European Commission review of Ireland's bailout programme

This is a draft of the 7th review by the European Commission on the ‘Economic Adjustment Programme for Ireland’. It was not obtained via a right to information request.



Office of President expenditure at Waterford IT

This is a report carried out by Deloitte & Touche into €3.7 million worth of expenditure by the Office of the President of Waterford Institute of Technology. It was released by the Higher Education Authority under Freedom of Information legislation along with the response drafted by the college.



And the response drafted by the university:



Department of Finance FOI log Jan to Apr 2012

Part of an ongoing process. I understand that the Department plans to start publishing logs, so hopefully I won’t have to keep asking for these. This is the FOI log for the Department of Finance for January to April 2012.



FOI reform – what is proposed?

Two of the more significant changes made by Fianna Fail to the FOI Act in 2003 were: the introduction of charges for FOI requests and appeals, and the lengthening of the five year rule to ten years under Section 19 of the Act, among others. Indeed the latter proved particularly controversial at the time because the five years were set to begin to expire in 2003. Though government records including Cabinet records began to become available in 2008.

But having reneged on the promise over removing the fees, what is the Government now proposing to make good on? They’ve given us some details in advance of the legislation being published. So here is what we know:

1) The prescriptive list of bodies subject to the Act is to go. Instead will come a broad definition of what a public body is, perhaps akin to the AIE legislation (though what that wording itself means is going through the High Court in relation to NAMA vs the Commissioner for Environmental Information).

2) Any new exemptions will be listed in a schedule with the Act in relation to certain public bodies. This can be added to via Ministerial Order rather than amendment.

3) Non-statutory bodies that the Minister chooses to fall under FOI and don’t fall under the public body definition in 1) will be listed in a separate schedule.

4) It is not proposed that the Freedom of Information Act will be extended to commercial state bodies – other than where they provide services on behalf of public bodies. This means that CIE, Bord Gais, the ESB, Bord Na Mona and others will remain outside FOI. The stated reason for this is commercial sensitivities – a rather spurious reason given Section 27 of the Act.

5) There will be a lead-in time before new bodies come under FOI, to allow them prepare for the change. The retrospective nature of access to non-personal records will depend on the body concerned.

And now for individual Sections:

Section 6 (11) (b)
This is a repeal of a section added in 2003. It *seems* technical in nature.

Section 19 Meetings of the Government
The Minister seems to be proposing either to amend or repeal this portion – (3) (b) refers to the 10 year period after which Government records can be obtained. The Minister wants to bring it back to five years, as per the 1997 legislation. This is partially fulfilling the promise to restore FOI to the pre 2003 position.

Section 20 Deliberations of public bodies
In 2003 this section was strengthened by allowing the use of certificates to say the deliberate process was ongoing. This meant that no appeal was possible in relation to the records sought. The proposal is the repeal the amendments made in 2003.

Section 24 Security, defence and international relations
The proposal is to narrow the scope of mandatory exemptions (often used in relation to Northern Ireland related records) and also to restore the harm test that existed in the 1997 legislation. The note says: “The absolute exemption for records relating to the
tactics, strategy or operations of the Defence Forces and certain diplomatic communications will be removed and made subject to a harm test. The mandatory exemption will remain for highly sensitive confidential communications relating for example to negotiations between States.” It will be extended to the Defence Forces, it appears via 2) above.

Section 46 Restriction of Act
The proposal here seems to only related to (d) (a) “a record held by a public body relating to the costing, assessment or consideration of any proposal of a political party carried out for or on behalf of that party”. The proposal is to repeal, which should mean (I think) that the position where written promises made to independent TDs while a coalition is being formed will now be subject to the Act.

Section 47 Fees
This section will remain (specifically (6)(a)), and the Minister will retain the power to increase or decrease fees via Ministerial Order. It is proposed the fees will be changed via Ministerial Order/SI, and not by amendment. The Minister has chosen to retain the €15 upfront fee for non-personal requests, while reducing internal review to €30 and appeal to the commissioner to €50.