The extent of difficulties in the relationship between IBRC and the Department of Finance in the run-up to the controversial transactions to be investigated by the commission of investigation are further underlined by fresh information released to The Irish Times.
Included is a letter written by then head of banking at the department John Moran to then IBRC chairman Alan Dukes at the end of 2011 but never actually sent, which outlines in the clearest terms the extent of the tensions.
A meeting note from December 1st, 2011 provides further evidence of disagreements over the direction and management of the bank, with Mr Dukes noted as saying he was “pissed off” with the constant references from the public service to the amount of State cash which had gone into the bank.
The unsent letter from Mr Moran to Mr Dukes followed several months of tense correspondence in which it was clear that there was deep disagreement on the level of control which the department should exercise over the board and management of the bank.
Details of a number of these letters were published in yesterday’s Irish Times, but further correspondence was released late yesterday on foot of a Freedom of Information request. The extent of control exercised by the Government and the department over IBRC has become a focus of political debate following the Siteserv controversial and the claims made in the Dáil in relation to Denis O’Brien’s loans.
‘Difference of opinion’
In his letter dated December 23rd 2011, Mr Moran – who later became secretary general of the department before leaving last year – said he felt the department and IBRC “remain still back at the beginning of the fundamental difference of opinion between us in terms of the desirable autonomy of the bank’s management with respect to the shareholder [the State] management team of the Department.”
In a file note also released yesterday it was said that a decision was taken not to send the letter and to deal with the issues in face-to-face meetings. It said that sending the letter in reply to the “ unfounded, argumentative and unhelpful” letter from Mr Dukes might further “disrupt” the situation.
However, the text of Mr Moran’s letter highlights the divisions, with Mr Moran saying Mr Dukes had made “unfounded serious allegations”.
Mr Moran goes on to outline how the board of what was then Anglo had been appointed by the previous Fianna Fáil led government with a mandate to “restore and grow” the bank, where now the mandate was to run it down.
The IBRC board and management team needed to reflect this new mandate, he said, criticising the bank for resisting new board appointments suggested by the department. Mr Moran said he “stood over his claim that solving the relationship between the IBRC and the department/NTMA has been one of the most difficult tasks I have faced in this role in the face of very disappointing resistance from you to take our suggestions on board”.
New rules
Later Mr Moran says in relation to a disagreement over the text of new rules being drawn up to govern the relationship between the bank and the department that “I find I no longer know how I can satisfy your expectations of me”
In an earlier letter, details of which were published yesterday, Mr Dukes had said that the IBRC team just wanted to be allowed to “ get on with the job”.
In a note of one meeting on November 24th, 2011, Mr Dukes is minuted as advising that the meeting “ should not be subject to FoI provisions”. The meeting discussed whether IBRC might go on the State’s balance sheet. There was also tension about a request that IBRC’s public statements be vetted by the department.
At a subsequent meeting on December 1st 2011, the two again clashed over the need for new board appointments being pushed by the department. Mr Moran said that at every step the bank appeared to put up a “a wall of obstacles”.
There were also discussions between the two men and IBRC chief executive Mike Aynsley about why disagreements kept emerging. Mr Dukes said the new draft relationship rules looked like a transfer of power and asked for an outline of the department’s problems.
