Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)

The two Government parties promised the people that they would legislate to restore the Freedom of Information Act to what it was before it was undermined by Fianna Fáil. In addition, they promised, rightly, to extend its remit to other public bodies, including the administrative functions of the Garda Síochána, with the exception of security issues. They promised to extend freedom of information legislation and the Ombudsman Act to ensure all statutory bodies and all bodies significantly funded from the public purse were covered. I support such actions, but that was then and this is now. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, has yet to even seek or receive approval from the Government for the draft heads of a Bill. The Government is not in a great rush to introduce full accountability, which is a great pity. I urge reconsideration of the matter.

To right the wrong done, all that is needed is to reintroduce the original 1997 legislation in line with the programme for Government commitments. It is that simple. My colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty, introduced a Bill earlier this year to bring NAMA under the Freedom of Information Acts. His Bill would also have removed the application fees charged for processing freedom of information requests, returning the fees structure to the original 1997 Act system. NAMA is a multi-billion euro agency which must be brought within the remit of freedom of information legislation. Deputy Pearse Doherty's Bill would have done two simple things, the first being the addition of NAMA to the First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act. There are 600 bodies included, but there are notable exceptions, including NAMA, the National Treasury Management Agency, the Garda Síochána and the Central Bank. For the purposes of his Bill, Deputy Pearse Doherty concentrated on NAMA. The exclusion of any public body from freedom of information provisions is completely unacceptable, but this is particularly the case with NAMA which disposes of millions of euro in assets every month, with very little public knowledge of its activities. The agency costs the State over €500,000 per day in running costs and has developers on over €200,000 on its payroll. It is mired in potential conflicts of interest and does not want a spotlight shone on its activities. As Deputy Sean Fleming noted, this arises partially from commercial sensitivities. Unlike him, I did not note in Mr. Daly's commentary at the Committee of Public Accounts a real appetite to have freedom of information provisions extended to NAMA, but it should happen nonetheless.

The second part of Deputy Pearse Doherty's Bill would have returned the fee structure to the original 1997 system. Our proposal, therefore, is that application fees be removed. The introduction of application fees-----

See this speech in context