Mr. John Coleman:

It is a really good question. One way to think about that is to consider the different context that applied in NAMA as opposed to the LDA. NAMA was of a time. The nature of its work was highly controversial. There were many people tied up in NAMA who did not want it to succeed in its objectives, which may have been against their interests. It is a different beast from the LDA. The LDA is generally dealing with State assets, certainly in its initial guise before it starts acquiring land on the private market at the appropriate time. It will probably be more of a force for positivity as opposed to the difficult and sometimes unpopular job that NAMA had to do.

That applies a different context to the FOI requests that come in. We have had a number of FOI requests and our approach to FOI so far would be to err on the side on the side of transparency and releasing as much as we can. We try to engage with inquirers and FOI requesters to work with them to establish what exactly they are looking for and see if we can get to the nub of the issue they are trying to uncover etc. That would be our bias towards doing that and I do not see why that would change. Irrespective of whether the provisions of the Bill carry through, we will still be subject to FOI.

I would rather not speak too much about NAMA because it was a different context. I would see the LDA having a bias towards releasing as much as we can without it impacting on the commercial sensitivities of the LDA and ultimately taxpayers' money.