Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I second the amendment. It is in keeping with the general theme we have pressed on Second and Committee Stages, that the operation of NAMA should be carried out in as transparent a manner as possible in the public interest and that there should be sufficient scrutiny and accountability to ensure there is public trust and confidence in it. We tabled amendments on Committee Stage that were designed to achieve that. This is another such amendment. It seeks to add the NAMA group entity and the valuation panel to the definition of public bodies under the Freedom of Information Acts.

I emphasise the valuation panel. Amendment No. 7 should be read in conjunction with amendment No. 21 which specifically relates to the valuation panel and proposes that it "shall operate in a transparent fashion and in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2007". Amendment No. 7 seeks to add the panel to the category of bodies under the freedom of information regime. That is particularly important when one considers the provisions relating to the valuation panel in section 119 and succeeding sections in the Bill. The method of appointment of a valuation panel is left to the Minister. I accept a Government amendment was tabled on Committee Stage to specify levels of knowledge and expertise, and there was some debate on that. However, there is a lack of transparency as to who will be on the valuation panel and the method of appointment. This was discussed on Committee Stage. Given the lack of transparency in the provisions relating to the establishment of the valuation panel, it is especially important that the valuation panel be covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

As Senator Alex White said, plenty of exemptions are provided for in Part 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, as amended in 2003. Section 27 refers specifically to commercial sensitivity as a ground for exempting matters from having to be disclosed. There are plenty of safeguards to ensure the danger the Minister identified on Committee Stage is not a problem if these entities are included under the Freedom of Information Act. This is about transparency and ensuring greater public trust in the workings of NAMA. We all agree that public trust is critical in this enterprise. Other speakers when discussing amendment No. 3, and departing somewhat from its terms, referred at length to the Frontline marchers outside the gate of Leinster House. All of us are very conscious of the people who are suffering the brunt of the recession and in whose interests we are hoping NAMA will work. Even Members who are opposed to NAMA very much hope it will be effective in protecting the interests of members of the public, ordinary working people and especially vulnerable people.

In those interests, we require a level of transparency about the operations of NAMA. Some of our amendments seeking to ensure transparency were defeated. This is a critical amendment which seeks to include NAMA as a public body covered by the Freedom of Information Act.