Alex White (Labour)

It makes sense that it should be grouped with the other amendment. I made the point last night to one of the Minister's colleagues that I take the view, I am not sure whether it is shared by the Minister, that the Freedom of Information Act is vitally important legislation that applies right across the public service and that a strong and compelling case needs to be made where it is proposed it should not apply to a public body rather than a case having to be made that it should apply. In other words, the default position across our system should be that the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act apply. I can anticipate what the Minister might say in response, and it was argued last night. Briefly, it is that commercial confidentiality is at the heart of the NAMA legislation.

I accept that we are discussing commercial matters of a high degree of sensitivity and that in many cases there is need for confidentiality to be observed. However, the Freedom of Information Act 1997, as amended in 2003, already contemplates many instances in which information cannot and will not be released. Part 3 of that Act, which deals with exempt records, excludes, for example, information obtained in confidence, under section 26; commercially sensitive information, under section 27; financial and economic interests of the State and public bodies, under section 31; and enactments relating to non-disclosure of records, under section 32. I did not have a copy of the Act with me last night but what I suspected to be the case is the case. That Act already excludes from disclosure a considerable range of data and information. It is not possible for applicants to obtain it. The blanket argument that commercial sensitivity is involved with regard to the matters covered by NAMA is not a persuasive argument by itself. The House should be told in more detail why it was considered necessary to exclude this body from the coverage of the Freedom of Information Act.

We debated this morning the culture here over the decades in respect of the transactions that have occurred and the lack of transparency and so forth about them, the risk of abuse and the sense the public has that it should be able to understand and have information about what will occur in its name in the coming years. I am not naive enough to claim that everything should be open and that there is a case for every book, document and transaction to be available immediately to somebody who simply asks for it. In any case the Act and the further restrictions of 2003 would put the kibosh on many such frivolous applications because they are already excluded very considerably from the operation of the Act. The basic question is why exclude, rather than ask those of us on the other side of the argument to make the opposite case?