Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I could not make a judgment on that without hearing the arguments or having it appealed to me. If it was appealed to me, obviously I would listen to what the organisation had to say and why it thought the information was commercially sensitive, and would consider the public interest concerns before making a judgment. In regard to what records would be revealed, when it comes under FOI it will have to produce what are known as section 15 manuals, which give a general glossary of the records it holds, the sort of things it does and the processes it has in place. This would give an indication of the type of records that could be accessed. The records could include everything from personnel through procurement to correspondence with Departments, the Revenue Commissioners and people trying to buy property. Everything is potentially accessible through an FOI request.

Perhaps one can stand back to consider the public interest in this. Clearly the public interest is that NAMA should work and that its processes safeguard the public interest and allow it to make a good commercial fist of its work. That is not necessarily my concern as Information Commissioner. I am aware this is an overused term but it is a matter of public trust. In the years leading up to the crash we trusted people and organisations, whether regulators or banks, to do the right thing but it was only when we saw what happened that we started to question them. I understand the reluctance of bodies such as NAMA to come under the FOI system or to release too much information given that its work is clearly commercially sensitive but its work is also of public interest. It must also realise that part of the basis on which it can work well is by enjoying the confidence of the public and, indeed, politicians and committees such as this. In order to earn our trust, we need to have confidence in it and, therefore, to be able to see a sufficient amount of what it is doing. I do not know how much money NAMA is dealing with but it is a sizeable amount and given the amount of control it enjoys, the number of individual transactions it takes and judgment calls it makes on a daily basis it is my view that it would be in the public interest to see a little more of its business. That is not to say as Information Commissioner I would be releasing records incontinently. I, too, must have regard for the public interest. Any good organisation or public body that comes to us will argue in the public interest exceptionally well if it writes down all the public interest arguments for disclosure, as well as those for non-disclosure. That should be done so that I and, in time, the courts can take a particular view.

There are three stages before requests come in. First, organisations come under FOI. Second, when members see the legislation they will be able to judge for themselves how transparent these bodies are likely to be. Third, we will see what records they hold in a broad sense. It is only when the outcomes of the requests are known that we will be able to determine the level of transparency.