Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. I will put some observations and questions to them because we are more interested in their views than they are interested in listening to us. We can express our own views at subsequent meetings and we have many people to meet.

There is a practical issue with regard to fees. It was mentioned in the submission that the Office of the Information Commissioner had fees of approximately €5,000 last year. I am sure the cost of establishing the administration system, programming computers, setting up an accounts, receipts and acknowledgement system, along with an auditing system, was a multiple of the €5,000 which was received. Public bodies at local level may get four requests in a year, with income of less than €100; nevertheless, the cost of processing the requests may have run to several thousand euro. I know some bigger organisations deal with more requests. I am inclined towards the view that the cost of processing the fees in many organisations is higher than the fee income received. Perhaps the witnesses may be correct to reconsider the view of not having fees.

There is an undercurrent in what has been said about fees. By and large, journalists never indicate that there are no fees for personal information. We have heard much about the fees but there was a reduction in requests for personal information when the legislation was introduced some time ago, notwithstanding the fact there was no fee for personal information. The barrage of publicity through the NUJ gave the clear impression that fees existed, which put people off. I ask the witnesses to consider putting the other side of the equation out there, as people have been put off making individual requests.

With the likes of NAMA, the Minister holds the view that commercial State organisations working in competition should not have an arm tied behind their back. An example of such competition would be RTE and TV3, as TV3 is not covered by freedom of information legislation. If there is a State monopoly, as there is with Irish Rail, EirGrid and Irish Water, with no competition issues, is there any question that they should be included? Mr. Foxe seems to have indicated that even organisations in competitive business should be automatically included in the freedom of information umbrella, and exemptions could arise afterwards that deal with commercial sensitivity.

One facet of the legislation has not been addressed in the debate. All Departments are subject to freedom of information legislation but there are exemptions in every Department for a variety of reasons. A request could be made to several Departments but it could be refused because of an exemption. Has the NUJ run into that issue? There are dozens of exemptions.

We can have more transparency but less information. If people believe their thoughts will be placed in the public sphere, they may commit less information to the record. I am somewhat concerned that we could have full transparency but little substantive information. What is the view of the witnesses in that regard? For example, there has been discussion of a banking inquiry taking place through the Oireachtas, and the people most resistant to the idea are public servants. Some former colleagues may not emerge in a good light and they may not want to be exposed when they leave office. Politicians would have no problem speaking in public, as they have always done. The "Sir Humphrey" process is alive and well in that regard, and politicians tend to be more open when officials do not have a hold on them.

Do the witnesses agree that most of the work done in the NAMA name is not carried out by the agency but rather by receivers, administrators or individual property owners who sell by private treaty with the consent of NAMA? The beneficial interest would be the taxpayer. If the beneficial interest of the Irish taxpayer is involved, should the likes of receivers, administrators and private treaty sellers of property be included?

There is the question of legal protection for freedom of information requests, which we all know about. There is legal protection by issuing information through the freedom of information process but there may not be the same legal protection if the issue is raised by means of correspondence. Do the witnesses agree that the anomaly should be eliminated?