The Minister says that he cannot hold the DPP to account, but he should be able to so hold NAMA. The decision of the DPP raises a lot more questions than answers. We have to wonder what caused the body to feel that it could not prosecute. When did NAMA first find out that Mr. Pugh had been leaking information, and when did they report it to An Garda? These are answers the Minister should get from NAMA. NAMA would like us to believe that Mr. Enda Farrell was the only bad apple in the barrel in nine years, but we know that this is not true. Mr. Pugh was accused of intentionally disclosing confidential information about McCabe Builders (UK) Ltd. to a London-based investment company, Connaught and Whitehall Capital UK Ltd., by email on 6 June 2012. Section 202 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009, to which the Minister referred, states that confidential information means "information relating to the commercial or business interests of a participating institution or of a person who is or has been in a relationship with a participating institution".
The section goes on to state:
For the purposes of this section, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that a person knew that information was confidential information, if that person reasonably ought to have known that it was confidential information.
The information I have is that the senior executives of NAMA are able to pick and choose which information they deem confidential whenever it suits them. The case did not suit them. Can the Minister find out-----