Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will go through them seriatim. There is a variety of subsets in the grouping. In respect of the amendment tabled by Deputy Sean Fleming, No. 12, which is grouped with amendments Nos 81 and 83, receivers and administrators, whether appointed by NAMA or by another secured lender, fall outside the definition of a public body as set out in section 6 of the Freedom of Information Bill. The receiver or administrator is an independent legal officer appointed to take control of and realise the assets securing the loan. The receiver or administrator acts as the legal agent of and for the benefit of the borrower and not of the lender or the secured creditor. The receiver or administrator’s costs are borne by the receivership and not by the lender. Accordingly, I am strongly advised that it would not be appropriate to define receivers and administrators as public bodies and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

NAMA appoints receivers and administrators by reference to sections 147 to 149 of the National Asset Management Agency Act. A secured lender, including NAMA, can also appoint receivers and administrators by reference to section 316 of the Companies Acts 1990, as amended. In the case of assets outside Ireland, receivers and administrators are appointed by reference to contractual loan documents or by reference to the courts in the relevant jurisdiction.

With regard to Deputy Sean Fleming’s amendment No. 81, the Equality Authority, the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court are being provided with an exemption from freedom of information to protect their functions in so far as they relate to dispute resolution, conciliation or mediation on a voluntary basis to settle disputes. That is their function. This includes the role of the Labour Court, the Rights Commissioner Service and the Labour Relations Commission in resolving industrial disputes. The possibility that records relating to parties to industrial relations processes would be released into the public domain under freedom of information would, I am strongly advised by the organisations, deter individuals, public and private bodies and trade unions from participating in the voluntary process. Moreover, continued recourse to the State’s industrial relations machinery to resolve industrial disputes is considered central to maintaining a stable industrial relations environment, promoting domestic and foreign investment and supporting economic recovery.

Where functions of these bodies relate to legally enforceable quasi-judicial functions, records relating to such functions will be subject to freedom of information, like those of other quasi-judicial bodies, but potential release of records will be subject to the exemptions in the Act in the normal way. In the case of Deputy Sean Fleming’s amendment No. 83, notwithstanding the established and strong general principle that pay information relating to any person employed by a State body should be subject to freedom of information, having consulted with the Minister for Finance, I accept that the NTMA is, for the most part, made up of specialist professional staff more or less exclusively recruited from the private sector and that this places it in a qualitatively different situation from other public bodies in terms of the potential impact of the publication of individual pay information. We have had discussions on this matter to see if we can make it more transparent and, in keeping with the need to promote greater openness and transparency on pay structures in the NTMA, I have requested that the NTMA take further steps to disclose additional information on remuneration levels by reducing the pay bandwidths reported on to €25,000. The NTMA has agreed to this measure. On that basis, I do not accept the Deputy’s amendment.

I will now move on to my amendment in this grouping, amendment No. 79, relating to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE. The ODCE currently has an exemption from freedom of information except in regard to administrative records. I had proposed in the Bill to refine this exemption from freedom of information to only exclude from freedom of information any records relating to the office’s functions performed by members of An Garda Síochána. However, my colleague the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation advises me that, given the nature of the work currently being carried out by the ODCE in respect of investigations relating to the IBRC and the added administrative burden that it imposes, it is not advisable to bring the ODCE more fully under the freedom of information provisions at this time, as it could potentially have an adverse impact on the office’s administrative capacity to effectively discharge its statutory responsibilities. I am proposing in this amendment, therefore, that the ODCE remain subject to freedom of information in respect of its administrative records, pending a review to be carried out after one year following enactment of the Bill. This will provide a longer lead-in time for the office to prepare for the extension of freedom of information that will apply to it in due course, during which time the nature of the exemption that might apply can be appropriately refined. It is hoped that current pressures on the ODCE - I must be careful what I say - arising from its investigatory workload will be attenuated over that period.

Amendments Nos. 80, 82 and 84 have been tabled by Deputy Catherine Murphy and are being moved by Deputy Stephen Donnelly. The Government decided that An Garda Síochána would be subject to freedom of information in respect of administrative functions subject to security exemptions. Human resources and their deployment - the point made by Deputy Catherine Murphy - and the factors and policy choices made by the Garda Commissioner and his staff in making those decisions will be encompassed by freedom of information, subject to security exemptions. In summary, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary, as it is currently encompassed by the provision set out in the Bill.