Mr. John Moran:

The Department of Finance was the line Department in the context of the legislation in respect of the establishment of NAMA and, therefore, the putting in place of the structure of NAMA, the valuation process which has been well described and the various checks and balances in the system in that regard. The Department is responsible for ongoing monitoring of NAMA's performance. As part of the checks and balances, a robust series of financial information must be prepared and delivered to the Minister in advance of presentation to the Oireachtas. Therefore, staff in the Department participate in a review of that information and, if required, have conversations with Mr. McDonagh and his team in respect of clarifications required in the giving of advice to the Minister to whom the NAMA board and CEO directly report.

On the freedom of information request commentary, the Department finds itself in a difficult position with respect to the documentation concerned. First, as I recall it, reference was made to 19 documents. It was stated the Department had refused to release 13 of these documents, three of which were already in the public domain by way of responses to parliamentary questions. I am happy to answer further questions in that regard for those who do not have copies of the replies in their possession. The other documentation relates to a number of offers received by the Department from parties with respect to loans, in which one particular individual had an interest. These offers were considered by the officer with responsibility in this area to be commercially sensitive. Following the procedure of the Freedom of Information Act is essential in the interests of protecting the Department. If we do not follow this procedure correctly, we do not have the ability to protect the Department from civil and criminal liability for unauthorised disclosure of documentation.

The series of documentation requested falls into a number of categories, some of which contain specific descriptions of offers made in respect of assets held at the time by the IBRC or contain email exchanges between officials in the Department relating to these offers. A key ingredient of whether documentation can be disclosed is that of commercial sensitivity. It is certainly the case that with the passage of time what was sensitive information at the time of the freedom of information request may well not be so in the future. In that sense, it is welcome that these documents have been submitted to the commissioner for urgent adjudication on whether they are still commercially sensitive. The committee may recall that the FOI requests were made prior to the liquidation of the IBRC and, therefore, the scenarios being used to determine such sensitivity are different than they are today. The departmental officials are happy to engage in a conversation on what information is now less sensitive and could be released. Although some may be less sensitive now than previously, I cannot release the documentation because to do so would not be in accordance with the Act and would, in my view, expose the Department to an unnecessary risk of litigation by parties who might describe disclosure of that information as being inappropriate. It would be helpful if in the fullness of time these documents were disclosed as I believe the information therein would get to the basis of the allegations made against the Department in regard to the reason these conversations were taking place and would explain the reason my officials felt it was absolutely necessary for them to do what they were doing in the interests of protecting the taxpayer.