Dermot Desmond's letter to Gavin O'Reilly

Back on March 8 journalist Chris Lowry wrote an article for the Irish Independent about Celtic Football Club. The article was an opinion piece about Rangers and Celtic, and how both need each other to survive. He concluded:

But actually, without Rangers, the whole house of cards could collapse. Celtic would be the hardest hit. What would point of them if their fans had no pantomime villain to boo?

What, come to think of it, would be the point of Scottish football?

Discuss.

The next day on March 9, IN&M minority shareholder Dermot Desmond (a long friend of this blog) sent a letter to then IN&M chief executive Gavin O’Reilly. In it he complained about the above mentioned article saying:

I was very disappointed to read the above article in the opinion section of the Irish Independent website yesterday. The high standards of journalism, that the IN&M claim to uphold, were clearly ignored when this article was published. It is frankly a disgusting piece of journalism that does a disservice to the IN&M Group. This type of gutter press is not what I would have expected from a company in which I have invested a substantial sum of money.

And concludes:

Mr Lowry’s article is not based on fact. Therefore, any response from you to the effect that “this is ‘fair comment”‘ simply will not stand up. I am calling on you to retract this opinion piece without delay and to issue an apology to both clubs. In the absence of a suitable apology, I will be recommending that Celtic FC make a formal complaint based on incitement to hatred.

Of course, as Mr Desmond admits, he is a significant shareholder in Celtic FC. After reading of Denis O’Brien’s spokesman James Morrissey’s letter to Karl Brophy, one has to wonder just how often current IN&M shareholders Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien (or people acting on their behalf) are sending letters like this to management, or indeed to individual journalists working at Independent Newspapers.

Thanks to a reader, here is Dermot Desmond’s letter, on the paper of IIU, his investment company:



Minister for Transport diary 2011

Part of an ongoing process and via another person’s FOI request. The appointments diary of Transport Minister Leo Varadkar from March 2011 to February 2012:



Mortgage arrears

The only way is up.

Brian Cowen's bank guarantee calls and texts

Thanks to journalist Vinnie O’Dowd for this one. This is the mobile phone bill breakdown for Brian Cowen for the dates around the bank guarantee in September 2008. The numbers were removed by the Department of the Taoiseach. But the times and durations are interesting. Another piece in the jigsaw.



NAMA vs OCEI

It’s not clear whether it will be for mention or hearing (I’m hoping the latter) but tomorrow sees another step in the long process of trying to find out if the National Asset Management Agency is a public authority for the purposes of the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations 2007/2011. (This is not Freedom of Information, but a separate piece of legislation). We began this process on thestory.ie back in February 2010 with simultaneous requests to NAMA and Anglo Irish Bank. It’s listed for Court No 4, Four Courts at 10.45am on May 17.

The core of the argument comes down to legislative interpretation. Myself and Fred Logue (who has kindly given his free time to give huge help on the matter) have argued that the “and includes” part of the legislation when referring to public authorities really does mean “and includes”. NAMA have argued that it effectively means “may include”.

The Commissioner for Environmental Information, Emily O’Reilly, agreed last September with our view. She noted:

The National Asset Management Agency has argued that allowing the word “includes” its ordinary meaning would have the consequence, in the present context, of extending the definition of public authority beyond what is envisaged in the EU Directive. What NAMA proposes is that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word, as used in the Regulations, be set aside in favour of a meaning which implies a restriction rather than an expansion or an inclusion. It is not at all clear that, as Commissioner for Environmental Information, I may abandon the plain language of the Regulations in favour of an interpretation which is arguably more in keeping with the provisions of the Directive. This is particularly the case where the language of the Regulations, in this particular instance, is neither obscure nor ambiguous.

In any case, I am not persuaded that reliance on the plain meaning of the word “includes”, as used in the definition of “public authority” in the Regulations, gives rise to an outcome which is at odds with the Directive. In fact it is very arguable that the Directive encourages and enables Member States to take an expansive approach to what constitutes a “public authority”. Recital (11) of the Directive refers expressly to an expansive intent in relation to the definition; and Recital (24) expressly permits Member States “to maintain or introduce measures providing for broader access to information than required by this Directive.” Therefore, I do not accept that subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of “public authority” in the Regulations should be interpreted as restrictive criteria where a Member State has apparently chosen to take an expansive approach to the definition.

NAMA and Anglo disagreed with this view, and appealed to the High Court – leading us to this current situation.

If we are right, then NAMA becomes a public authority, but *only* for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. By extension, Anglo Irish Bank, as a company wholly owned by the Minister for Finance, would also become a public authority, but *only* for the purposes of the AIE Regulations.

And by further extension, if we are right, a Minister of the Government, a harbour authority within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1946, a board or other body (but not including a company under the Companies Acts) established by or under statute, a company under the Companies Acts, in which all the shares are held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government or by directors appointed by a Minister of the Government, would also automatically become de facto public authorities for the purposes of the AIE Regulations.

It has always been clear to us from the beginning that as a little-known and indeed little-used legislation that cases like this were possible – since it is relatively untested. Ultimately we are seeking legal clarity and trying to push the boundaries of how citizens can access information generally – this is not just about NAMA (though NAMA is an oddly opaque organisation in my view).

It is worth noting the following:

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

In TÁRSASÁG A SZABADSÁGJOGOKÉRT v. HUNGARY in 2009, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 10 when access to information was refused. The court noted “in view of the interest protected by Article 10, the law cannot allow arbitrary restrictions which may become a form of indirect censorship should the authorities create obstacles to the gathering of information. For example, the latter activity is an essential preparatory step in journalism and is an inherent, protected part of press freedom”

While there are cases where access should be limited to some degree, in general free access to information by citizens should be the default position. Access to information is a human right.

Environmental information is largely untested in Irish legal waters and unless the boundaries are pushed both in terms of what defines public authorities generally, and what defines environmental information, we cannot progress the right to information agenda generally.

James Morrissey letter to IN&M

Following on from yesterday’s look at the life and times of Denis O’Brien’s spokesman, James Morrissey, comes this April 2012 letter sent to thestory.ie by a reader.

It is a letter dated April 2, 2012, addressed to IN&M Managing Editor Michael Denieffe and CCd to IN&M Chairman James Osborne and Independent Newspapers chief executive Joe Webb by James Morrissey, concerning the Sunday Independent’s coverage of Denis O’Brien. It also contains a list of articles that Mr Morrissey says “produce a cocktail designed solely to discredit Denis O’Brien”.

Those James Morrissey texts

There was an interesting article in the Sunday Independent today surrounding a legal case involving Karl Brophy.

It is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly it’s one of the first times I’ve seen someone who is traditionally referred to in articles as “a spokesman for Denis O’Brien”, instead being referred to as “Businessman Denis O’Brien’s spokesman James Morrissey”. Rarely if ever do you see the name of spokesmen, though I am not sure what tradition in journalism means that is the convention.

Of course James Morrissey rings lots of bells, not just for his involvement in the early days of the Sunday Business Post, along with others such as Aileen O’Toole and current Sunday Times editor Frank Fitzgibbon. But also there was the infamous Mespil Homes deal as blogged about on this website back in 2009 and on my old blog earlier in 2009. So who is he?

James Morrissey is from Kiltimagh, County Mayo, and studied commerce at UCD. He worked in the showband scene and at the music magazine Spotlight after leaving UCD. He left Independent Newspapers in 1989, where he had variously worked on the business desk for over 10 years – becoming involved in the development of the Evening Herald as a tabloid and became close to Tony O’Reilly during the 1980s. He eventually became deputy business editor of the Indo before leaving to co-found the Business Post in 1989. He also wrote a book on the battle to take over Irish Distillers, which was published by The Kerryman in 1989. As one would imagine, and given his interest in the showband scene, he was reported to have a close relationship with former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds.

In July 1992 he joined Gilmore and Associates, just prior to the Mespil Homes deal with Irish Life. He was one of many members of Irish society who purchased apartments at the Mespil complex in 1992. Michael “Fingers” Fingleton, then managing director of Irish Nationwide, and for whom James Morrissey was a spokesman, also availed of a purchase (though it emerged that Fingleton had broken rules on borrowing from his own building society). Mr Morrissey (along with his wife) bought the apartments along with his associates, Brendan Gilmore and Michael Holland (of New City Estates).

Brendan Gilmore also acted as a financial adviser to former INM CEO/chairman Tony O’Reilly back in the day.

Indeed New City Estates essentially organised the purchase of all 299 apartments, financed by First National Building Society (whose managing director Joe Treacy also bought six apartments himself though with loans from Ulster Bank). Of course there was nothing illegal in the Mespil deal – New City Estates organised a consortium who purchases the apartments from Irish Life – the controversy only arose because the apartments were sold from under the feet of the tenants, many of them pensioners.

In December 1993 when it was reported that Mr Morrissey had been appointed to the Customs House Docks Authority, he was described as “a financial consultant with Gilmore Associates”.

It was reported in 1993 that James Morrissey approached publican Dessie Hynes in October 1992 to see if he wanted to purchase. Management were reported to be looking for 10% of the rent, so Mr Hynes ended up only buying five apartments through ODOM Ltd. Mr Morrissey also approached broadcaster Marian Finucane and her husband, on behalf of New City Estates, to see if they would be interesting in purchasing – ultimately one was purchased by the broadcaster (she in 1996 sued Independent Newspapers for defamation in relation to an article about the deal – the case was settled soon after).

In 1994 he was appointed to the board of Bula Resources – a company also later associated with Albert Reynolds. In late 1995 Mr Morrissey joined PR company Murray Consultants (where Frank Dunlop and Ita Gibney had worked previously). By 1999 Mr Morrissey was representing JMSE as a PR spokesman during the Flood Tribunal. Mr Morrissey started working for Fleishman-Hillard Saunders in April 1998, and joined the board there in 2001. In 2004 he also joined the board of Newstalk (News 106 Ltd), one of Denis O’Brien’s companies. He also self-published several books, including one on the history of the Fastnet lighthouse in 2005. Interestingly the same year James Morrissey was acting as spokesman for Atlantic Philanthropies at the height of the Centre for Public Inquiry/Frank Connolly affair.

By 2007 Anthony O’Reilly was threatening legal action against Mr Morrissey (who was by then representing Mr O’Brien), accusing him of defamation in relation to a report into IN&M that had been ‘leaked’ to the media. Mr Morrissey denied the accusations and hired Belfast solicitor Paul Tweed to defend himself.

When it emerged in 2009 that Michael Fingleton had received a €1m bonus just after the bank guarantee, all questions were directed to Mr Morrissey. During the property boom, Mr Morrissey was involved with Bernard McNamara in Varleigh Limited, a company which owes its banks €63m (assets in Tallaght were valued at €59m but this is likely to have now fallen).

John Perry's enormous mileage claims

Small Business Minister John Perry managed to claim almost €30,000 in mileage expenses in less than 11 months.

The Fine Gael TD even managed to claim for 4,417kms in a month in which only two official appointments are listed in his diary. The Minister had an engagement in Wexford and one in Tuam, which is just a short drive from his home in Ballymote, Co Sligo.

Asked how the mileage was run up in a period in which the Dail and many government offices were closed, his Department said he had taken no holidays that month. They also said much of the mileage had been run up driving between his three constituency offices in Co Sligo.

In July of last year, the Minister made a claim for 8,722kms, which works out at 281kms per day. Mr Perry’s home in Ballymote is 192kms from the Dail, with a driving time of two and a half hours. To put it in perspective, that claim was the equivalent of a round trip to Wexford every single day, including weekends.

In the month of September, the Minister made a claim for 7,588kms despite the fact that at least nine days of the month were spent abroad (in Australia, the UK & Belgium). For the remaining days, his claim works out an average of 344kms per day, the same as a round trip to Belfast every single day, including weekends and the Bank Holiday. This level of mileage would require the Minister to have spent around four hours of each day in his car.

At the most fundamental level, it is very difficult to see how a tax-free sum of €29,782.35 can possibly be required to keep a car on the road for less than a year.

The Department of Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation issued a lengthy statement on the matter to the Irish Mail on Sunday at the weekend:

‘While the Dail was not in session during the whole month of August, Minister Perry continued to carry out his duties and work commitments as an elected representative for his constituency of Sligo/North Leitrim and as Minister for Small Business.

‘Due to work commitments, and to enable the Minister to fulfil his constituency obligations, Minister Perry did not take any holidays during the month of August.

‘In his role as a public representative for the constituency of Sligo / North Leitrim the Minister has three working constituency offices based in Ballymote, Tubbercurry and Sligo. The Minister operates clinics for his constituents in these offices and travels between them very frequently. In his role as Minister for Small Business he has also met with members of the business community from the region at his offices in the Constituency.

‘During the months of July, August and September – just like in every other month since being appointed Minister of State – Minister Perry has covered long distances within his constituency, between his constituency and Dublin, and all around the country in order to balance his duties as Minister of State with representing and meeting his constituents.

‘Details of the Minister’s constituency engagements and his engagements as a member of a political party were not released as part of the Freedom of Information request as these records are exempted from release.

‘It would not be unusual for Minister Perry to drive to and from Dublin, as well as to undertake other trips in the same day.

‘Mileage paid to Ministers of State is strictly based on mileage driven, and odometer readings are provided to the Department at the beginning and end of every month.’

Here are the documents: