Mr. Séamus Dooley:

We make reference in our submission to the work of TASC on the assessment of the total cost to the State of freedom of information requests. It is minuscule. There is a cost but we should remember there is a cost to democracy. I regard freedom of information and access to information owned by the citizen as an integral part of being a citizen. It is similar to voting. There are ways to reduce the cost of information, with one being the placement of the information on websites, reducing the necessity for freedom of information requests. Putting more information on websites would reduce the number of freedom of information requests.

Placing basic information - including information relating to Members of these Houses - on a website would have certain effects. The information would be more easily available and as a result, some information would cease to be news. A general presumption in favour of requests was an original assumption.

Our members tell us now that the general presumption is that a request will be refused.

On transparency and the issue of people concealing information, the State must issue a directive to indicate that the legislation allows for action to be taken against deliberate obstruction. As Deputy Sean Fleming will recall from our discussions regarding the previous Act, this provision of the Act is not being taken seriously. The offence is not one of deliberate obstruction but of interference with the flow of information or concealment of information. It is an obligation on public servants working under the Freedom of Legislation Act to co-operate with the Act.

There is a suggestion, especially from politicians, that freedom of information legislation has resulted in people being afraid to put decisions down on paper. All of us know the consequences of decisions taken outside office hours in rooms where there is inadequate note-taking. That is a problem.

Some of my colleagues may wish to comment on some of the other points raised. I agree on the points regarding the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. While there are limited grounds for confidentiality with regard to some of the work by NAMA, the issue of who is engaged by the agency and how decisions are taken on giving work to one person rather than another is a legitimate public interest which does not give rise to a confidentiality issue. If one secures a contract with NAMA, the price one should have to pay is public scrutiny.

Ms O'Kelly has particular experience in dealing with what I would describe as the "sending the fool further" mentality that is evident when someone files a request under freedom of information legislation.