Following reporting of the John Fraher affidavit here last week, which prompted the threat of an injunction by NAMA, a complaint was made to the Office of the Data Commissioner about the apparent disclosure by NAMA to third parties of confidential loan information. The ODPC provided an initial response which included a statement that NAMA has now made a report on the leak to it; further questions asked are extant, but the ODPC has a target of responding to messages within 15 working days.
You will recall that the data apparently disclosed by NAMA included names of individuals and companies and businesses with the par value of loans together with the amount NAMA paid for the loan. This is highly confidential personal information, and according to John Fraher, the details included borrowers with which he was not directly connected.
Elsewhere in the Dail on Wednesday, the Sinn Fein finance spokesperson asked Minister for Finance Michael Noonan about the apparent leak. In what is one of the most bizarre responses seen on here, Minister Noonan says he does not propose to comment as the disclosure is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Courts.
No, it is not. The Courts recorded a judgment of €5.9m against John Fraher, and that is the end of the matter. But the leak of the information by NAMA is completely peripheral to the (disposed of) court case.
I doubt you have heard the end of this matter.
The parliamentary question and response are here:
Deputy Pearse Doherty: To ask the Minister for Finance further to an affidavit filed in the High Court in Dublin in which the National Asset Management Agency was seeking a judgment against a person (details supplied), if he will confirm that NAMA has provided confidential details, both the par value of the loan and the NAMA acquisition value, to persons not directly connected to the borrowers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21635/13]
Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan: I am advised that this matter relates to a position taken by a NAMA debtor in attempting to defend judgment proceedings taken by NAMA against him. I do not propose to comment as this relates to a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Courts.