Date of response:
August 2012
Request:
"I would like to ask under the Freedom of Information Act. It is in relation to Peace funding and how it has been allocated.
How much of Peace I, II and IIa funding has been allocated to Nationalist interests and how much has gone to Protestant initiatives?
Also what percentage of these three funding schemes has gone to ex-prisoners group?"
Outcome:
Date of response:
July 2012
Request:
"In the ASM Report it refers to the 'whistle blower' which you have now identified as myself. I am the person who went to your office to discuss one document.
Can you provide the minutes of the meeting, of what the discussion was and the exact wording I alleged have said. I am entitle to this information under the Data Protection Act and also the Freedom of Information so can you please provide this information as soon as possible."
Outcome:
Date of response:
June 2012
Request:
"I have been involved in the Magheramorne regeneration plans since 2001 both through Friends of Larne Lough Community Group (of which I am currently Chair) and in relation to film production on the site since 2004.
Unfortunately although founder partners in the scheme, for reasons so far unexplained, the regular and constructive communication with Lafarge on the actual plans for the site ceased, effectively since the grant of planning approval in late 2009. As there are fears of a change of agenda on the part of site owners Lafarge, and as requests for details of the Interreg application have been ignored, I need to request a copy of a the application and correspondence under the SEUPB FOI agreement with the two Member States.
It is very unfortunate that dialogue has been cut off and I hope it can be restored but the situation remains unsatisfactory and a complete reversal of the preceding attitude of the owners."
Outcome:
Date of response:
June 2012
Request:
"This request is made under the terms of the FOI Act and if felt appropriate under the terms of the DPA.
Please supply me with the following;
1. A copy of the Deloitte investigation report dated the summer of 2010 into the conduct of the Head of the Central Investigation Service (CIS), Mr Thomas McCauley, who was used for advice and guidance in the investigation into me and my organisation FAIR.
2. Confirmation that Mr McCauley, who gave advice and guidance and prepared a report is a qualified "Counter Fraud Examiner"
3. A copy of the CIS report into the investigation of me and my organisation FAIR. The report was conducted by Thomas McCauley on behalf of SEUPB.
4. A copy of the advice and guidance given by McCauley, internal memos, emails and all other documents contained in the CIS investigation into me and my organisation FAIR.
5. A copy of the minutes of all COS meetings with SEUPB on my investigation from start to finish.
6. A copy of any documents presented or used as part of a fraud awareness programme given to SEUPB staff by CIS covering the period 2009 to date."
Outcome:
Date of response:
March 2012
Request:
"Re: FOI-2012-02
I refer to the above FOI request and your subsequent response.
Further investigations have revealed the SEUPB initiated forensic audit of FAIR cost £17,738.06 to complete. Investigations also show FAIR is the only organisation the SEUPB has subjected to a forensic audit process.
Clearly the information sought in my FOI-2012-02 request in respect of the cost of the forensic audit of FAIR is in the public domain. In light of this can you please explain why the SEUPB refused to provide me with this information claiming it was exempt from release.
I now formally appeal the SEUPB decision to only provide me with parts of the information requested in my FOI-2012-02 request.
-I would ask you to confirm FAIR is the only organisation the SEUPB has subjected to a forensic audit.
Furthermore, I now submit the following request for information under current FOI legislation.
-What action has the SEUPB taken in respect of investigating the allegation highlighted in the BBC programme 'Spotlight' concerning serious financial irregularities in relation to funding provided to the victims group, SAVER/NAVER?
-If not, why has the SEUPB failed to do so?
-Has the SEUPB referred the allegations of serious financial irregularities within SAVER/NAVER to the PSNI?
-Again, is not, why has the SEUPB failed to do so?
-Does the SEUPB intend to recoup funding it provided to SAVER/NAVER?"
Outcome:
Date of response:
February 2012
Request:
"Under the Freedom of Information can you please provide me with the following information:
1. Can you provide me with the number of Victims Groups that you had Audits carried out on?
2. Can you provide me with the names of Victims Groups that you have had Audits carried out on?"
Outcome:
Date of response:
January 2012
Request:
"I request the following information under the Freedom of Information:
1. Procurement procedures applied to tender for Auditors to carry out the SEUPB Audit on FAIR
2. The date of advertisement and the date of confirmation to successful applicants
3. Details of the newspapers advertised in and the date the newspaper was circulated
4. How many companies applied for the tender?
5. If you employed ASM to carry out an Audit on FAIR can you confirm the date this company was employed by you for this work?
6. Can you provide procurement and the names of the other companies who tendered
7. Can you provide me a copy of the newspaper advert for the tender
8. Can you provide me with the total cost of this audit
9. How long did the procurement process take in order to employ auditors to carry out audit on FAIR. Was this days/weeks or months?
10. Was this advertised locally and which papers."
Outcome:
Date of response:
January 2012
Request:
"I submit for your attention the following requests - Parts 1 & 2 - for information in respect of the SEUPB actions in relation to the 2010 audit report carried out into the victims group, FAIR and the religious breakdown of SEUPB staff in Northern Ireland. Both requests are made under the terms of the current Freedom of Information Act."
Outcome:
Print this page