Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Oct 2015

Vol. 893 No. 2

National Asset Management Agency: Motion [Private Members]

Deputy Michael McGrath

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

calls on the Government to establish a Commission of Investigation under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 with regard to the sale of Project Eagle by the National Asset Management Agency.

There is simply no room whatsoever for any question marks when we talk about the sale of a State asset with a face value of over €5 billion, but shocking allegations have been made regarding NAMA's disposal of its Project Eagle portfolio. NAMA's Project Eagle sale of loans with a face value of £4.5 billion, or €5.4 billion, linked to Northern Ireland borrowers was announced in April 2014 and was the biggest sale since the agency was established in 2009. NAMA had paid €2 billion for the loans originally, and despite the fact that they were acquired at such a substantial discount on their face value, NAMA nevertheless agreed to sell them on at an even lower price of €1.6 billion, representing a further loss of €400 million for the taxpayer.

The US private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management bought the Project Eagle portfolio of loans secured on around 850 property assets, ranging from development land to state-of-the-art office blocks. The loans had been grouped together based on their connection to 55 Northern-Ireland-based debtors. Around half of the assets securing debts in the portfolio are in Northern Ireland, with the rest spread across this jurisdiction, the UK and the rest of Europe: 7% of the assets disposed of are located in the Republic, 50% in Northern Ireland and 37% in the rest of the UK. Clearly, therefore, Project Eagle did not just relate to Northern Ireland properties, which has often been said.

The law firm Brown Rudnick had been expressing a client's interest in purchasing the portfolio since at least June 2013. In September 2013 the firm made an unsolicited approach to NAMA to express the interest of its client, PIMCO, in acquiring the portfolio. PIMCO wanted a closed sale without an open tendering process, and in December 2013 it submitted a bid for the portfolio. The reaction of the board of NAMA was to decide to sell the portfolio but in an openly marketed, competitive sales process. Up until this point, Mr. Frank Cushnahan had been a member of NAMA's Northern Ireland advisory committee, stepping down on 7 November 2013. It has been alleged in this House that he had confidential information regarding Project Eagle and that it was discussed in detail a month before his departure at a meeting on 7 October 2013. Four months after the decision had been made to offer the portfolio for sale, PIMCO disclosed to NAMA that its proposed fee arrangement with Brown Rudnick included payments to Belfast firm Tughans but also to Frank Cushnahan, who had just stepped down from the NAMA advisory committee. NAMA acted immediately and the next day decided at the highest level that PIMCO must withdraw from the sales process voluntarily or be removed unilaterally by NAMA.

Over the course of the sales process, a list of nine potential bidders was narrowed down to just three: PIMCO, Cerberus and Fortress Investments. PIMCO stepped back from the process and Cerberus won the sales process. This was announced on 4 April 2014. Cerberus submitted a bid of £1.24 billion sterling and Fortress Investments offered £1.1 billion sterling. Remarkably, the successful bidder Cerberus also used the services of Brown Rudnick, which was to share its fee for this with Tughans. The fees were in part for what has been described as "strategic advice". Fees of almost €8 million were also paid to Tughans as payment for legal work relating to title documents and due diligence. NAMA received confirmation from Cerberus that no fees were to be paid to anyone with a connection to NAMA, but somehow £7 million sterling of fees was diverted from Tughans to an offshore account in the Isle of Man, under the sole control of Tughans' former managing partner Ian Coulter. Allegations have been made in this House that these funds were earmarked for a prominent Northern Irish politician, but no evidence has been advanced to back this up. Mr. Coulter has denied that the funds were destined for either himself or a Northern Ireland politician, but has not disclosed whom they were to be paid to. Intriguingly, Mr. Coulter has stated that the money had been diverted for "a complex, commercially and legally sensitive" reason but has not yet offered a more detailed explanation, at least in public. Mr. Coulter has now left Tughans and the money has been transferred back to the firm, which has reported the matter to the Law Society of Northern Ireland.

It has further been alleged in this House that £45 million sterling was paid over to so-called "fixers" who would give developers the opportunity to purchase back their loans at half their face value, something that NAMA would be legally precluded from facilitating. A further allegation is that Frank Cushnahan also organised a secret meeting between PIMCO and the North's First Minister, Peter Robinson, while he was still an adviser to NAMA. The National Asset Management Agency Act does not permit NAMA to sell assets back to borrowers where those borrowers are in default. There is a disturbing inference from some of these allegations that investment funds purchasing NAMA assets would seek to profit from exploiting the fact that they would not be bound by the provisions of the aforementioned Act.

All of this will be a cause for concern for the unsuccessful underbidder, Fortress, which I understand may be contemplating possible litigation relating to the Project Eagle sales process. While it is not directly related, an example of similar litigation is the case that I understand was lodged in the High Court today, whereby Patrick McKillen is suing IBRC, NAMA, the Minister for Finance and a number of other individuals, alleging misfeasance in public office vis-à-vis the handling of his loans.

NAMA has ultimate responsibility for the integrity of the entire Project Eagle transaction, both North and South. Its role must be the subject of a commission of investigation in this jurisdiction to ensure no question marks hang over NAMA's largest sale of assets to date. In its evidence before the Committee of Public Accounts and its public commentary on Project Eagle, NAMA has argued that no issue has arisen regarding the sales side of this transaction, but, to be perfectly honest, that is not an adequate answer. Ultimately, the decision to proceed with the sale of Project Eagle was made by NAMA in Dublin, and NAMA must account for the entirety of that transaction. That is why we believe a commission of investigation is warranted in this case, if for no other reason than to either prove or disprove the very profound allegations that have been made about the integrity of the single largest commercial transaction entered into by NAMA since its foundation approximately six years ago.

NAMA has been a cornerstone of Ireland's response to the banking crisis. It has been funded by taxpayers and is under a mandate to act in their interest. Any suggestion that taxpayers are not receiving the return they should be getting, or that a transaction has taken place in a manner that is not entirely above board, must be thoroughly investigated. While there may have been no wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of NAMA, the agency must still accept responsibility for anything done by its advisers or former advisers relating to a transaction to which it was party. Serious questions will be asked about the policies and procedures NAMA put in place to avoid conflicts of interest and about how closely NAMA monitored its advisers and others with access to key commercially sensitive information or relationships with NAMA.

Unless the National Asset Management Agency is exonerated by an independent commission of investigation, a shadow will be cast over the agency and its entire approach to asset disposals. It is only fair to the individuals who have managed NAMA that a thorough investigation is instigated in which members of the public can have faith, as it is only through such a process that the reputations of the individuals in question will be fully protected. Specifically, we must ensure there is no information held by NAMA or any other party in this jurisdiction on the £7 million that was inexplicably transferred offshore to an Isle of Man account. Only a commission of investigation would have the power fully to exonerate NAMA in respect of that revelation.

It is also essential for the integrity of the House that a commission of investigation is established to find out the truth about the entirety of Project Eagle. The ability of Members of Parliament to communicate freely is an important privilege in all democracies. With this privilege comes great responsibility, however. When serious accusations are made in this House, it is important that they are subjected to close scrutiny to ensure they are not entirely baseless and parliamentary privilege has been used responsibly. I would have expected the Government to be happy to join the Fianna Fáil Party in calling for a commission of investigation into this matter given the promise it made in its programme for Government to "insist on the highest standards of transparency in the operation of NAMA". The allegations made in regard to Project Eagle are so serious and the integrity of the National Asset Management Agency so important that a commission must be established to investigate them.

It is also important that the ongoing investigations in the North are not hampered by their limited scope. Decisions made in Dublin should not escape scrutiny on the basis that the investigations being carried out by the Assembly Committee for Finance and Personnel and Police Service of Northern Ireland do not have jurisdiction to consider matters that took place south of the Border. Ideally, a commission of investigation in the Republic would adopt a collaborative approach with any Northern investigation, allowing for the sharing of information and the most comprehensive results possible. It is undoubtedly the case that a commission assessing what took place in this jurisdiction would be of great assistance to the various investigations under way in the North.

The primary civil investigation in the North is being undertaken by the Assembly's finance committee. It is deeply disappointing that the National Asset Management Agency has chosen not to send representatives to appear in person before the committee. I repeat my call for NAMA to co-operate fully with that investigation. Such co-operation must include NAMA officials attending the hearings at Stormont. If they will not attend of their own volition, the Minister should exercise his powers under section 14 of the National Asset Management Agency Act to direct them to do so.

To date, NAMA has suggested that, as it is not legally answerable to the Stormont Assembly, it will not require its staff to appear as witnesses before the committee's hearings. While this is strictly true, it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, which envisaged closer co-operation and the development of an all-Ireland economy. I can understand the reason key political figures in the North would be reluctant to co-operate with a commission of investigation or the Committee of Public Accounts in Dublin at a time when NAMA was refusing to co­operate fully with the Stormont finance committee inquiry. NAMA's stated position that it will endeavour to provide answers to written questions from the committee falls well short of the level of co-operation which could be reasonably expected by citizens on both sides of the Border. Senior NAMA personnel should, if requested, appear in person before the committee to provide whatever information they can. This would be evidence of a partnership approach to an important economic and political issue affecting not only the Six Counties but the whole island of Ireland. I understand the reasons NAMA executives would take the conservative approach of not taking a politically sensitive decision to attend the Stormont committee in person without a clear direction or signal from the Minister to do so.

Representatives of the National Asset Management Agency informed the Committee of Public Accounts that the agency's decision to accept the winning bid from Cerberus was not influenced by pressure from any source. They also told the committee that each bidder had equal access to relevant information and that members of the Northern Ireland advisory committee had no access to confidential NAMA information. It is important that members of the public can have full faith in NAMA's position. This will only be possible after a thorough, independent, statutory commission of investigation review has taken place. Calling for a commission of investigation does not undermine the important oversight function of the Committee of Public Accounts. The simple reality is that the powers of a commission of investigation would allow it to look beyond the narrow focus of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Many questions need to be answered and only a commission of investigation in this jurisdiction will provide the necessary answers to the following questions, which are only a sample of the many questions that must be answered. What influence did NAMA's Northern Ireland advisory committee have on its decision to offer the Project Eagle portfolio for sale at a time when PIMCO wanted to buy it? Did the board of NAMA decide it was a good time to sell the portfolio because of the intense interest of PIMCO? What influence did Mr. Frank Cushnahan, as a member of the advisory committee until November 2013, have on that decision? Was Mr. Cushnahan privy to a detailed discussion of Project Eagle on 7 October 2013? Did he have access to any other confidential or sensitive information about Project Eagle? When exactly did Mr. Cushnahan become engaged with PIMCO? How extensive was the overlap in time, if any, between his involvement with PIMCO and his role as an adviser to NAMA? What information, if any, was given to PIMCO? Did Mr. Cushnahan give any advice to Cerberus given that Cerberus engaged Brown Rudnick, or did Brown Rudnick already have information which it could provide to Cerberus? Why did NAMA permit Cerberus to use the services of Brown Rudnick and Tughans when the reason PIMCO was ejected from the process was that part of Brown Rudnick's fees was to be paid to Mr. Cushnahan? Why was £7 million from Cerberus diverted into an offshore account in the Isle of Man and for whom was the money ultimately destined? Is there any substance to the allegation made in this Chamber that tens of millions of euro were to be paid to so-called fixers?

Many of these questions fall to be answered by NAMA or call into question the agency's performance and the conduct of its advisers. They are not questions that arise only north of the Border. Simply put, a cloud will hang over NAMA until all of the questions we have raised are answered by an independent and credible commission of investigation, working in close co-operation with the investigations under way in the North.

Given the seriousness of the allegations made and the fact that the value of the Project Eagle sale is measured in billions of euro, there can be no room for any questions to be left outstanding about any aspect of NAMA's dealings with this substantial portfolio of loans. A commission of investigation offers the best chance of getting to the bottom of these issues. The absence of a commission on this side of the Border means a cloud will remain over the Project Eagle transaction and the integrity of NAMA's approach to asset sales. This matter cannot go unaddressed. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I thank my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, for tabling the motion calling for a commission of investigation into the sale of Project Eagle. Simply put, allegations have been made in this House and Deputies need to provide a mechanism by which they can be upheld or otherwise. The National Asset Management Agency must be above reproach. Procrastination on the part of the Government allows these allegations to be made repeatedly without being refuted.

The amount of money involved in Project Eagle is stark. Assets once valued at €5.7 billion were sold for €1.6 billion. The difference between these two figures equates to the amount the Government has allocated to housing for the next four to five years. That indicates the scale of the project. The money purportedly provided to address the housing crisis for the next four years will only tackle 30% of the housing lists. This morning, I received information from my local authority that the provision of 2,338 units, as envisaged over the next four to five years, will only address 30% of the housing list.

We were informed when the Government took office that the State would receive a dividend from NAMA, yet we have not seen any such dividend. In the recent budget, the Government informed us that NAMA would build 20,000 new houses. We were informed four or five years ago that the agency would provide 6,000 housing units, yet it has only provided 1,000 of them thus far. It is against the background of such promises and the current housing crisis that my constituents learned of the allegations concerning Project Eagle. It is in this context that the Government, in its recent budget, placed all of its trust and faith in NAMA to solve the housing crisis.

While those allegations remain in the ether, there is no way to believe that NAMA is above reproach. I hope it is and expect it will be found to be so, but it is incumbent on the Minister to ensure that is the case and that there is no ambiguity whatsoever.

I am also conscious of the fact that there exists another project in the hands of NAMA, Project Arrow, which is currently the subject of negotiations in relation to its proposed sale. The assets have a face value of €6.3 billion, and 50% of them are residential units. It is alleged that the portfolio may be sold for less than €1 billion, which amounts to less than €100,000 per unit. Offaly's local authority and many others have been given funding to provide units to meet the demand for housing from the waiting lists in their areas. They will be paying well in excess of that for residential units and distorting the market into the bargain. I cannot understand how the Minister for Finance can sit idly by when the prospect of that sort of write-down is imminent, in addition to what we have had previously in terms of what is before us in this motion. I heard the Minister speak yesterday about his negotiations with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, with regard to proposals for the short-term situation. We will see how that lands. How is it landing in people's minds that there is an imminent sale for less than €1 billion of €6.3 billion worth of assets, 50% of which are residential, when that could allow the State to have units available to house people on housing lists in this and every other city and county local authority area for less than €100,000 per unit? It is disappointing that this has been left on the long finger and that there is no effort to use those assets to meet the demand that is there.

We are told that there is a surplus of up to €2 billion - a dividend - owing to the State in the forthcoming years in relation to NAMA's activities. We are led to believe there will be a dividend for the State. There is no dividend for my constituents on the housing list. There is no dividend for homeless people throughout the country. There is no dividend for many people who say to us that the Government will not treat the issue as seriously as it should be treated to address the situation. Here is an option. There is an alternative solution staring the Government in the face, but it does not want to know about it. The Minister would rather wait to see how his negotiations with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, land.

Deputy Colm Keaveney

The Government parties have attempted to paint the issue surrounding NAMA and the disposal of Project Eagle as a fuss stirred up by some in the Opposition, as an attempt to blacken the name of NAMA, or as a responsibility of the Stormont Assembly. The attitude of the Government with respect to the disposal of State assets alarms me, because we are managing a situation, as Deputy Cowen said, on behalf of the citizens of the Republic. With the scale of the portfolio involved, it is inexcusable that we do not immediately investigate, in the interests of the Oireachtas and the country, the conduct of NAMA and the disposal of the portfolio. The total face value of the loans associated with Project Eagle is in the region of €5.7 billion. It constitutes the biggest sale of what was a State asset, because, since its establishment in 2009, NAMA has been administering the disposal of State assets. The loans were packaged together on the basis of their connection with 55 borrowers based in the North. Of those involved with the assets, about half were from the North and the balance were from the Republic. Some were from the UK and Europe. The portfolio was eventually sold to a US private equity firm, Cerberus, at a price of €1.6 billion. NAMA originally bought the loans for €2 billion and impaired that loan to the value of €200 million. A sale price of €1.6 billion saw a further loss of €200 million. Of the face value of the asset acquired on behalf of the citizens of the State of €5.7 billion, the State discounted €4.1 billion. That is an astronomical sum given the context of the sum involved, as Deputy Cowen said, and the possibility of using funding to meaningfully address the housing crisis.

Among the pressing reasons for a commission of inquiry in this context are the questionable features of aspects of the disposal of the Project Eagle assets, particularly the methodology whereby the disposal was accelerated. That must be taken into context with respect to the rapidly growing property market in Northern Ireland. Commercial property prices in Belfast rose by 20% in the 12 months following the sale of Project Eagle. Property prices beyond Belfast had risen 10% in the same reference period. NAMA continues with its programme of disposal and it seems to be coming under significant pressure from the Government to deliver moneys to the Exchequer so that the Government can present itself in front of the citizens at the general election and say in a reassuring way that it has dealt with NAMA. The thought of a vulture fund quickly doubling its money by flipping property is repugnant at this time in particular when there are 1,500 children living in hotels in Dublin. The discussion about selling the assets in a block is a concern, because there is ample evidence that we could have broken down the Project Eagle assets into smaller lots and seen a greater return and percolation of that return to the community.

These concerns become sharper as we uncover aspects of the sale. Several apparent conflicts of interest were highlighted tonight by Deputy Michael McGrath. NAMA may not be directly responsible, but the robustness of its corporate governance structures is called into question. PIMCO was forced out of the sale process by NAMA and the legal adviser it used was forced onto the bidders at the insistence of NAMA. Separately, and in somewhat curious circumstances, £7 million was found in a offshore bank account. These funds are related, we are led to believe, to the sale. We need a commission of inquiry, and I am surprised the Minister for Finance does not agree. The allegations set out by Deputy Mick Wallace have been covered in an earlier contribution. I commend him on his dedication, commitment and action in staying with this very thorny subject. It is incumbent on the House to establish an inquiry, not for political gain but for the 1,500 children out there tonight who have no homes. Sitting as a body, neither the Dáil nor the Committee of Public Accounts is adequately equipped to investigate this matter. I say that with due respect to the Deputies who serve on the committee and in the House, including my own party colleague Deputy John McGuinness.

There is a need to get answers to questions that the public are concerned about. People are concerned North and South of the Border. We owe it to our fellow Irish men and women in the North to establish an investigation into the truth. It is essential that the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Stormont Assembly come together to iron matters out and collaborate to be transparent and get to the truth. However, the existence of an investigation in the North does not answer the need for an inquiry in the Republic. This jurisdiction ends at the Border, but the consequences of the sale and the magnitude of the impact of that decision rest with the citizens of the Republic. I urge the Minister and Deputies opposite to reconsider their opposition to the inquiry. As the Taoiseach said somewhat dismissively one day, "Paddy wants to know." Paddy wants to know what is going on with Project Eagle. Paddy wants to know if NAMA is serving the interests of the citizen well. It is not unreasonable, in light of the scale of the resources involved, to table such a motion. I acknowledge the contribution made by Deputy Michael McGrath and his commitment and resolve in tabling this motion.

Deputy Sean Fleming

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this motion, which calls on the Government to establish a commission of inquiry into the sale of NAMA's Northern Ireland portfolio. That is what it means in straightforward English, as people might not understand titles like "Project Eagle" and so on.

There was a loan book of €5.4 billion. NAMA paid €2 billion and received proceeds of €1.6 billion, representing a loss to the Irish taxpayer of 70%, or €3.8 billion. No matter how one views this, it is a disastrous day's work. Commissions of inquiry have been established for much less. That €3.8 billion is probably as much as is collected in USC in a full year. Imagine if we had that we would not need to have a chat about how long it would take to reduce the USC. The Minister might claim that NAMA was not responsible for all of the loss because it got the loans at a discount, but NAMA has had a duty from the beginning to recover as much for the taxpayer as possible, not just to set a target identical to the amount at which it took over the loans. I have discussed this matter at the Committee of Public Accounts.

NAMA has been clear on a couple of points, the first of which is that the £7 million that showed up in a bank account has nothing to do with its side of the sales process. That is correct in so far as it goes, as the money was on the purchaser's side, but that is not the full story. Instead, the full story is that the purchaser made that £7 million available to secure the purchase of the Northern Ireland portfolio. As such, the £7 million should have gone to NAMA. NAMA has claimed that the fee had nothing to do with it because it did not get that money, but the people making the purchase knew that they could allocate some of the amount they were bidding to other purposes, proving that the €1.6 billion was not the maximum amount that NAMA could have got.

I am not questioning NAMA's integrity, but its commercial competence. Its members are honourable people, including the former chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, against whom no one in the House would say a word. He is a man of integrity. However, when a process ends with one bid on the table, any sensible business person would cancel the process and return to it another day. Proceeding with just one live bid, one that was close to the price that NAMA had stated it would accept, was wrong. This is the crux of the matter. From a commercial point of view, the process should have stopped at that point. No one even knew about possible conflicts of interest.

Some probably misunderstand where the loan book was based. Geographically, 50% of the properties were in Northern Ireland, with 33% in the rest of the UK. Of that, 40% was in Scotland and 23% in the north west. In addition, 6% of the properties were located in rural counties in the South, 1% were located in Dublin, 6% were outside Ireland and the UK and 4% were in London. To fixate on the Northern property market not being great and that this was a scrappy portfolio does not reflect the truth. Only 50% of the underlying distressed assets were in the North. It is important that this fact be taken into account, as it is slid past in all of the discussions.

Regarding conflicts of interest, the question of Mr. Cushnahan has been raised several times, including at the Committee of Public Accounts. Since the committee's last meeting, I wrote to NAMA to ask whether it had been aware of the possible conflict of interest involved in that situation. I thank the person in NAMA who recently sent me a letter in response. NAMA confirmed that Mr. Cushnahan had not disclosed to it the "alleged" shareholding in Mr. Graham's company. That shareholding is a matter of public record, yet NAMA called it "alleged". According to the letter, NAMA understands that it is a matter of public record that Mr. Cushnahan's solicitor has stated that Mr. Cushnahan disposed of his shareholding in Mr. Graham's company in 2008.

I wish to refer to an extract from a Companies House record relating to the company in question, Fernheath Developments Limited, company registration No. NI055085. The date of the return sourced in the Companies House was 9 May 2010. The address is Oyster House, 12 Wellington Place, Belfast. Mr. Frank Cushnahan was listed as a shareholder on 9 May 2010. NAMA has accepted an assurance that the shareholding was sold in 2008. Elsewhere, I believe at the Northern Ireland committee, it was stated that the shareholding was sold in 2009. And yet the Companies House asserts that he was still a shareholder in May 2010. The Companies House record is the true version. Wrong information is being put about and people are accepting it at face value when it suits them not to pursue the matter in greater detail.

For shorthand, we have been calling it the "Northern Ireland" portfolio, but that is not what it is. Only half of it was located in Northern Ireland. As I have pointed out in immense detail, the rest was located outside Northern Ireland. For now, though, we will call it the "Northern Ireland" portfolio.

Why did NAMA feel the need to bundle all of the loans together and sell them off and why is it doing the same thing again? I referred to the reason recently. The Minister met some people in Davos who told him that they were not interested in scrappy little projects of 200, 300, 400 or 500 properties, and that they would only buy anything on the cheap if he gave them a decent bit. Given the scale of the projects being made available for sale, only a limited number of organisations in the world have the necessary resources to compete for them. We are removing the possibility that people in Ireland will buy back some of the loans. I am not referring to those whose loans these were in the first place, but to other people who could have put the loans to good use. NAMA took its lead from the Minister, put the loans up in large lots and sold them quickly.

The Northern Ireland portfolio process was fraught with political involvement at every stage. There were letters from the Minister and letters to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Assembly's finance committee. It is essential that there be no political interference in NAMA's activities, yet I have never seen such political involvement in anything that was not meant to have any as I did in this sale.

Intriguingly, everyone believes that a commission of inquiry is required. The Committee of Public Accounts has examined the issue, but there is a limit to its powers. The Northern Ireland finance committee also has limited powers to examine it. A commission of inquiry would have more teeth and the ability to go where neither committee has gone to date. It is remarkable how the Minister has resisted establishing a commission. Why is he the only one holding back a proper investigation? I do not understand it, as I do not believe that he has anything to hide. He will recall the issue with Siteserv and IBRC from some time ago. He set up a commission of investigation. I do not know how it stands now, although I believe it is to report in the near future. When the Minister saw that there was a genuine rather than frivolous public demand from people who had an issue with how that situation was handled, he believed that it was right for the reputation of everyone involved, including the Government's, to set up a commission of investigation. While that has long-fingered the matter to beyond the next election, as we do not expect the commission to report by next spring, people will be happy to get the truth in a report somewhere along the line. The Comptroller and Auditor General is also examining this matter and will report on it shortly.

That will be helpful in this context because he will have access to information that will not necessarily be available even to the members of the Committee of Public Accounts or, perhaps, the Minister. However, I must put the conflicts of interest I mentioned on the table. NAMA was a little naive in accepting some of the assurances it was given. I have given the Minister the concrete example of people having shares in a particular company when NAMA believed in good faith — I am not questioning its integrity — a statement that the shareholdings had been sold in 2008. To return to my point, I do not believe the organisation was commercially sharp enough to deal with some of the sharks it was in the water with.

This brings us to the conclusion of NAMA's loan book activity. Let us consider NAMA's statements to the Committee of Public Accounts. It takes a very conservative view. If it is saying it expects to have a surplus of €1.75 billion on concluding its activities in the next two years or so, it will be welcome. It should come back to the Irish taxpayer. I am quite sure NAMA will have a much greater surplus because it is taking a conservative view.

As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I was shocked to hear a certain response to one of my questions to the NAMA representatives. The public cannot get the information in question as of now but we are going to chase NAMA to provide it. NAMA took over loans from Anglo Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland and it has no system in place at the end of the day to report, in respect of the €34 billion of loans it took over, how much was achieved in respect of each of the banks. Ultimately, the agency can talk about what was achieved in respect of each of the developers and the loans from individuals but it cannot give the details on the loans it took from the various banks. That needs to be examined.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— the Project Eagle loan sale was executed in an entirely proper manner;

— attempts to conflate the National Asset Management Agency's open market loan sales process with allegations of wrongdoing on the buyer side of this transaction are entirely wrong;

— despite all the confusion and conflation in the coverage of this matter, the fact is that there are no claims of wrongdoing against NAMA; and

— NAMA is already subject to a high level of public accountability compared to other commercial bodies, including commercial bodies in the State sector;

acknowledges that:

— the chairman and chief executive of NAMA are accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and other Oireachtas committees and to give evidence to those committees whenever required to do so;

— the chairman and chief executive have appeared before the PAC and addressed the Project Eagle sale process on 9 July 2015 and 1 October 2015;

— during the most recent PAC appearance of 1 October 2015, a number of PAC members stated there were no allegations of wrongdoing being levied at NAMA;

— as part of its upcoming third section 226 review of NAMA, the Comptroller and Auditor General has confirmed he will perform a value for money review of various NAMA sales transactions; the Project Eagle sale is being evaluated as a first priority as part of this review;

— the Comptroller and Auditor General has indicated he intends to produce a draft report before year end 2015; and

— the Comptroller and Auditor General is best positioned to independently review this transaction and make such a determination; and

calls on Dáil Éireann to support the upcoming Comptroller and Auditor General section 226 review of NAMA which will examine the Project Eagle sale as part of a broader value for money review of NAMA sales transactions."

In accordance with section 10 of the NAMA Act, NAMA is obliged to operate in a commercial manner and to achieve expeditiously the best financial return for the Irish taxpayer. It is a function of NAMA, pursuant to section 11(1)(d)(i), to dispose of loans or portfolios of loans in the market "for the best achievable price". Another control in place under the NAMA Act that has received broad support in the Oireachtas is section 172, which provides that a defaulting debtor cannot acquire from NAMA or a NAMA group entity any interest in any property which secures the debtor's loans.

It is against this obligation that NAMA's activities since its inception must be assessed. That is why my predecessor, the late Mr. Brian Lenihan, ensured NAMA was held accountable over these objectives by the Oireachtas through the legal standing provided to the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General to oversee the work of NAMA. Under section 58 of the NAMA Act, the Committee of Public Accounts has the power, under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann to examine the accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and to call on the NAMA chairman and CEO to give evidence "whenever required" to report on various matters, including the Comptroller and Auditor General's audited accounts and special reports.

The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts are held in the highest regard and I have full confidence in the ability of both to hold NAMA to account on this and, indeed, every transaction that it concludes. In this regard, I very much welcome the fact that the Committee of Public Accounts invited NAMA to appear before it to discuss the sale of the Northern Ireland portfolio, both on 9 July 2015 and on 1 October 2015. NAMA's opening statements for each appearance are available on the NAMA website and the full transcripts of those sessions are available on the Oireachtas website.

Concerns raised by the Committee of Public Accounts focus on whether NAMA maximised value for the taxpayer through this sales process. It is entirely appropriate that the Committee of Public Accounts explore such concerns. After all, it is the mandate of the Committee of Public Accounts to ensure NAMA operated in line with its legislative objectives, and the committee is well equipped to do so through the Comptroller and Auditor General.

As part of its upcoming third triennial review of NAMA under section 226 of the NAMA Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General has confirmed to the Committee of Public Accounts that he will perform a value-for-money review of the NAMA sales and will evaluate the sale of the Northern Ireland loan portfolio as a matter of priority. The Comptroller and Auditor General is best positioned to review independently this transaction from a value-for-money perspective and has indicated that he intends to produce a preliminary report as soon as is practicable. I am confident this report will be useful to the Committee of Public Accounts in continuing its important work. This represents the institutions of the State working in line with legislation in the best interest of the Irish taxpayer. It is clear to me that we have established the appropriate mechanisms to hold NAMA accountable on its legislative mandate, and we should allow those mechanisms to function.

There has been much coverage of various aspects of NAMA's sale of its Northern Ireland loan portfolio, most of which focuses on what may have happened on the purchaser side of the transaction, particularly in Northern Ireland. Serious allegations have been made against various individuals within the Northern Ireland business community in regard to their behaviour surrounding the acquisition of this portfolio. There are a number of investigations under way, including those with the UK National Crime Agency, NCA, the US Department of Justice, the Northern Ireland Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Law Society of Northern Ireland. Furthermore, I believe Deputy Wallace has brought his allegations to the attention of the Garda. I welcome these investigations. Such serious allegations should be, and are being, thoroughly investigated. However, to my knowledge, these investigations concern activities on the purchaser side of the sales process and do not involve NAMA's role in the process.

The NCA, supported by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, is conducting a criminal investigation into alleged inducement payments among parties involved on the purchase side of this transaction. The Northern Ireland Committee for Finance and Personnel has undertaken a fact-finding mission focusing on the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel's relationship with NAMA, its interest in the assets of Northern Ireland and the basis and rationale for any actions it may have taken in regard to this sale.

The Law Society of Northern Ireland is investigating the behaviour of a former partner of Tughans solicitors, based in Northern Ireland, regarding allegations around the diversion of advisory fees paid to that firm. The CEO and chairman of NAMA met the NCA some weeks ago to provide an overview of NAMA and the chronology of the sale process. It is their clear understanding, based on that engagement, that the NCA investigation is not concerned with NAMA's role in this transaction. The NCA's focus appears to be very much on the purchaser side of the transaction. Both NAMA and the Department of Finance have supplied extensive documentation to both the Northern Ireland Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Oireachtas Committee of Public Accounts. NAMA provided both committees with a detailed 300-page response to 73 questions posed by the Northern Ireland committee. This response is available on the NAMA website. My Department has also provided extensive documentation to the two committees. These documents are available on the Department of Finance's website. The Northern Ireland committee has indicated that it may submit further questions to NAMA, and NAMA stands ready to assist the committee with responses.

I would encourage the signatories of the current motion to read the materials that have been made available by NAMA and my Department as a thorough review and understanding of these materials may quench their desire for an investigation. It is important to state that, through all of this disclosure and investigation, there has not been a single allegation of wrongdoing directed at NAMA.

Attempts to conflate NAMA's open-market loan sale process with allegations on the purchase side of the sale process are entirely wrong and misleading. As I have previously confirmed, NAMA is not being investigated as part of any of the ongoing inquiries. We should ask ourselves who stands stand to gain from the establishment of an investigation when there is no allegation of wrongdoing. Who stands to gain from drawing a halt to current sales processes while an investigation is undertaken?

With the millions or potentially billions of lost value that would likely result from such an action, it is clearly not the taxpayer who stands to gain.

In any case, the Deputy has put this motion to the House without any indication of wrongdoing by NAMA and may have created questions in people's minds, so I will again set out the facts surrounding the sale of the Northern Ireland loan portfolio which raise no question regarding NAMA's behaviour in this process. These events and the documents supporting these events are a matter of public record and can be found on the Department of Finance and NAMA websites.

In late June 2013, I received a letter from the Northern Ireland Minister for Finance and Personnel, Mr. Sammy Wilson. With his letter Mr. Wilson enclosed a copy of a letter he had received from a law firm, Brown Rudnick, which indicated that a client of theirs was interested in acquiring NAMA's Northern Ireland loan portfolio. The Brown Rudnick letter advocated a semi-exclusive sales process and considered a number of suggestions regarding the future management of the portfolio, which suggestions were for the Minister, Mr. Wilson, to consider.

In my reply I pointed out to the Minister, Mr. Wilson, that parties interested in acquiring NAMA loans or assets securing NAMA loans should contact NAMA directly. I also drew attention to NAMA's policy that loan and asset sales should be openly marketed and pointed out that NAMA did not favour granting exclusive access to any potential purchaser as that would militate against achieving optimal value for the assets concerned.

In September 2013, Brown Rudnick made an unsolicited approach to NAMA and indicated that one of their clients, PIMCO, was interested in acquiring NAMA's Northern Ireland loan portfolio. In its subsequent engagement with NAMA, PIMCO indicated a preference for NAMA not to market the portfolio openly. The NAMA board agreed that senior NAMA staff should engage further with PIMCO but with a view ultimately to completing an openly marketed loan sale in line with board policy.

On 27 September 2013, at his request, I met the First Minister, Peter Robinson, in Stormont Castle. At that meeting we discussed, among other things, NAMA's Northern Ireland portfolio. I explained that NAMA's policy was that loan and asset sales should be openly marketed and that NAMA did not favour granting exclusive access to any potential purchaser. The First Minister, Mr. Robinson, while completely understanding NAMA's position, expressed his reservations that an open process may attract buyers seeking to profit at the expense of the Northern Ireland economy.

As would be expected, NAMA did not conduct an exclusive sales process. At a meeting on 12 December 2013, the NAMA board decided that the portfolio should be openly marketed as part of a competitive process. The board also set a minimum price below which it would not be willing to proceed with a sale.

At a further meeting on 8 January 2014, the NAMA board approved the appointment of Lazard bankers to advise NAMA on the appropriate marketing approach and to oversee the sales process. It was envisaged that this would involve marketing to suitable targeted bidders who would have the financial wherewithal to submit credible bids on the portfolio.

On 14 January 2014, at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, I held a call with the First Minister, Mr. Robinson, and the Deputy First Minister, Mr. McGuinness, to discuss the Northern Ireland portfolio sales process. I reiterated NAMA's intention to conduct an open and competitive sales process. It was agreed during that call that the Northern Ireland Executive would send to NAMA for informational purposes a draft letter of intent which the Northern Ireland Executive would seek to put in place between itself and each bidder relating to the proposed management of the Northern Ireland portfolio following its sale by NAMA.

On 17 January 2014, NAMA received a copy of that draft letter of intent which appeared to summarise an agreement between PIMCO and the Northern Ireland Executive. Its purpose was to require the purchaser of the portfolio to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Northern Ireland confirming certain fundamental conditions relating to the future management of the portfolio. I am assured that NAMA did not engage further in relation to the draft letter.

On 10 March 2014, PIMCO informed NAMA that its compliance staff had discovered that PIMCO's proposed fee arrangement with Brown Rudnick included also a payment of fees to Tughans, a Belfast law firm, and to Mr. Cushnahan, a former external member of NAMA's Northern Ireland advisory committee, NIAC. While Mr. Cushnahan was not a member of the NIAC at the time - he had resigned on 8 November 2013 - and never had access to confidential portfolio information, NAMA viewed this disclosure as a very serious development and the NAMA board met on 11 March 2014 to consider the most appropriate course of action. The NAMA board decided that if PIMCO did not withdraw, NAMA could not permit it to remain in the sales process. NAMA informed me of the proposed fee arrangement at the time it was brought to its attention. On 13 March 2014, following discussions with NAMA, PIMCO informed NAMA that it would withdraw from the sales process.

Up to that point, during the first quarter of 2014, Lazard had engaged with a total of nine potential purchasers, including PIMCO. Following the withdrawal of PIMCO from the process and having concluded that there was sufficient competitive tension among the remaining bidders, Lazard went on to engage with the remaining interested parties. On 28 March 2014, I held a call with the First Minister, Mr. Robinson, to update him on the sales process. At the end of the process, the best bid from the two remaining bidders was received from Cerberus.

In light of the arrangement that PIMCO had brought to NAMA's attention, prior to NAMA accepting its bid, Cerberus provided NAMA with written confirmation that no fees were paid to any party that ever had a relationship with NAMA, including any current or former NAMA board member, current or former committee member or current or former staff member. The Cerberus bid was accepted by the board on 3 April and was announced on 4 April 2014. The transaction was completed in June 2014. I am assured by NAMA that the sale process was well managed and competitive, conducted in line with best international practice, independently overseen by Lazard, and that NAMA took care at all stages to ensure the integrity of the process was fully protected.

There have been some suggestions that upon learning about the PIMCO fee arrangement I should have intervened and halted the sales process. It is crucial to remember that the Oireachtas, in framing the NAMA Act, ensured that NAMA would be independent in its decision-making to avoid a position where others, whether for political or commercial self-interest or for other reasons, would seek to influence decision-making in a way that would serve only certain vested interests. By extension, any such interference would be detrimental to the interests of Irish taxpayers. Political interference in NAMA's independent commercial decision-making would render the agency incapable of carrying out its work on behalf of taxpayers and would cast a major shadow over NAMA's ability to achieve its objectives.

Turning back to the proposed Private Members' motion before us, I maintain that no such investigation into NAMA is necessary. I can see no benefit of such an investigation because up to now there has been no allegation of wrongdoing directed towards NAMA. NAMA is held accountable by the Oireachtas for fulfilling its objectives, and the Committee of Public Accounts is exercising that oversight through the Comptroller and Auditor General's current value for money review of NAMA transactions. The Comptroller and Auditor General has confirmed that this review will prioritise a value for money review of the sale of the Northern Ireland portfolio. The Comptroller and Auditor General expects to produce a draft report as soon as practicable. It is entirely appropriate that the Comptroller and Auditor General would conduct such a review. I welcome and support this review and ask that Members do likewise.

I am very surprised that Fianna Fáil tabled this motion. NAMA is one of the few successes in the Fianna Fáil legacy-----

Deputy Michael McGrath

The Minister was opposed to it.

Deputy Michael Noonan

-----in the disastrous management of the affairs of the State, which fully explains the reason nominal values crashed and actual values are a small percentage of nominal values. That is a measure of the disaster. It is not proof of anything except that it crashed the economy.

Deputy Michael McGrath

That is not the issue.

Deputy Michael Noonan

It is the argument made by Deputy McGrath's colleagues.

Deputy Michael McGrath

The Minister skipped over the €7 million in the-----

Deputy Michael Noonan

It is the argument made by the Deputy's colleagues. I am very surprised because of the various disasters over which the previous Government presided. Brian Lenihan did his best. He brought NAMA in and made sure it was designed in a fashion which prevented political interference, and I will continue doing that.

Deputy Liam Twomey

No doubt there are a number of different players in this saga and it is worthwhile having a debate in the Chamber. It is important to ensure we do not make allegations or use half-truths to denigrate any individual or organisation in this Chamber at any time.

NAMA is very much the subject of tonight's debate. The agency has operated under legislation passed by Dáil Éireann. Thus far, it seems to be completely innocent of any alleged wrongdoing as far as fraud is concerned. In fact, the only charge thrown against the agency to date is that it did not, perhaps, have the proper business practices in place or that it could have done more to extract value from the loans. This has been confirmed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The latter has also confirmed that his investigation will prioritise a value-for-money review of the sale of the Northern Ireland portfolio and all assets within that portfolio.

NAMA operates under instruction from the Oireachtas, with a certain input from the Department of Finance. However, as every member of the Opposition is aware, the board of NAMA is fully independent and free to make decisions about achieving the best value for money for Irish taxpayers. Let us consider with what the agency has had to deal. NAMA was set up by the State to deal with €34 billion of variable assets. As many Opposition Members will recall from when we discussed this matter at the very outset, some of these assets were nothing but junk, some were performing poorly and others were normal performing loans. People would be naive to think that there would be absolutely no problems considering the economic mess the country was in. Most Members present tonight sat through all the debates in both Chambers on the establishment of NAMA and are aware of the reasons for setting it up and the crisis which obtained at the time. There have been numerous debates about the legitimacy of the NAMA Act, the NAMA business plan and whether the staff were up to it. I imagine the Deputies opposite have heard the same whispered gossip and allegations of dodgy business dealings by individuals in NAMA. However, no one has ever said that NAMA is in any way corrupt and no one has made any allegations of fraudulent or unethical behaviour against it. There has been nothing of that nature in all the time this organisation has been in existence. NAMA has come before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Committee of Public Accounts. Certainly, we argue with the officials, including Frank Daly and Brendan McDonagh. However, Deputy Michael McGrath is in the same position as me in that throughout my following of this conflict and the crisis to date, neither of us can point to a smoking gun in the hand of Frank Daly, Brendan McDonagh or anyone from with NAMA for whom we have the utmost regard. We would do ourselves a disservice by standing up for these half-truths that are being bandied about.

We are calling for a major review but some of this is completely outside our scope. There may be sharp practices in Northern Ireland. I am unsure how business operates there. Perhaps there are certain individuals in what is probably a small business community. Perhaps there are certain individuals who know all the people who have these loans. Perhaps they can contact these individuals at the weekend and ask how much they would be prepared to pay and put together a reasonable idea of what personal guarantees can be delivered if an outside investor bought into a given company. I am unsure whether the informed opinion paid for by these international investors can be considered to be real or whether there is an unethical dimension to it. That is what has been alleged. It has been alleged that some fraudulent activity has gone on within the business community in Northern Ireland. I am unsure but perhaps that is what happens within business.

There is an issue around the Law Society of Northern Ireland. Perhaps it needs to step up to the plate, investigate its members quickly and decide whether there has been sharp practice relating to alleged fraud, criminal activity or unethical behaviour by certain individuals within the legal profession in Northern Ireland. That needs to be done speedily if Northern Ireland wants to be perceived as a destination for inward investment in future and wants to compete with what is happening in our economy. For the same reason, it is important for the PSNI to conduct its investigations rapidly if serious allegations have been made about criminal activity around the NAMA sale.

As the Deputy opposite indicated, there has been much talk about this matter. No allegations have been made to the effect that NAMA is in any way involved in dirty dealings, underhand practices or unethical behaviour. It has stood the test of time. Deputy Michael McGrath has been involved with various relevant committees of the House. No one among the management of NAMA has got an easy ride at meetings of those committees. They get rough, tough questioning when they come to this House and they answer every question we put to them. We can e-mail them. Of course, they will not deal with individual issues but they can deal with anything around the legislation and the business plan of NAMA. They have always answered those questions clearly. We should be very careful about who we are laying these accusations against. We need to be careful about what we say in this House.

I am happy to leave it to the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the business practices of NAMA and obtain an independent assessment. That is important for the taxpayer. The Comptroller and Auditor General must establish whether NAMA is doing its job and following the procedures expected of it by the Oireachtas.

We cannot be 100% right on the matter. Perhaps NAMA has been a victim of the economic success that this country has gone through. A vendor may have been considered daft for buying a certain asset three years ago but now may be considered to have got a bargain. Perhaps that is the way the business practice went. I am keen to hear what other Opposition Members have to say. No one is saying there is any allegation of unethical behaviour relating to senior management within NAMA. Certainly, no one is saying anything to the effect that there is any sort of alleged criminal activity by anyone within NAMA. These issues are important to put on the record when we consider both the vast size of NAMA, as an organisation, and the major responsibility it has been given. We should consider this in the context of the major economic crisis the country underwent at the time.

If there are questions to be answered about how procedures were followed in Northern Ireland by the PSNI, the Law Society of Northern Ireland or the political establishment in Northern Ireland, that is a different matter. That is not our responsibility. I would be far happier for those organisations to answer the questions that Deputy Michael McGrath has posed. They should answer those questions quickly in order that we can see it as a necessity for us to go further in this jurisdiction. However, NAMA has completely played its role - as expected - with both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the various the regulatory organisations in the North. It is important that this should continue to be the case.

We can continue, if necessary, to proceed further by calling representatives from NAMA to come before the relevant committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas on foot of the outcome of the Comptroller and Auditor General report in some weeks' time. However, let us not undermine or in any way denigrate the character of individuals who have worked tirelessly for this country in recent years to get us out of the incredible mess we found ourselves in. I believe we are working closely with political parties in Northern Ireland to come to the end of this. This matters because the future of Northern Ireland is very much connected to our economic and political future. It is important that there be no ambiguity regarding how business is done in Northern Ireland. I hope that matter will be cleared up as quickly as possible for the sake of the people who are trying to make a living and make business work in Northern Ireland. That is very important for all of us.

My final comment relates to some of the remarks and the pure stupidity of Opposition Members referring to loans worth of €5.6 billion which were then sold for only €1.6 billion. The economic ignorance is either pure stupidity or simply amounts to trying to play a political game. Deputy Michael McGrath might consider giving a lesson to the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party about what happened in this country and why loans which were borrowed on assets and which were worth €5.6 billion decreased in value to €1.6 billion in a couple of years. Some of that was pure speculation of the daftest kind, coupled with an economic crisis that literally put us on our knees.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Only 7% of these assets are in Ireland.

Deputy Liam Twomey

Deputy Michael McGrath is aware of what happened in Northern Ireland as well.

It was a spill-over of the same sort of exuberance which existed here. To try to make references to homelessness and what happened up there is a different thing.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Byrne)

Deputies Adams and Stanley are sharing time. Deputy Adams has five minutes.

Deputy Gerry Adams

For years Sinn Féin has raised concerns about the sale of NAMA's loan books, including its Northern loan books. I have raised the issue with the Taoiseach on several occasions. It is not just an issue about the North or, as the Tánaiste described it, just a Northern tale; rather, it is a national tale.

The revelations, which the Minister conceded in his remarks today, that an illegal £15 million fixers fee was to be paid to individuals involved in the sale of the Northern loan book was brought to the attention of NAMA by PIMCO, a potential US bidder. NAMA previously claimed that its Northern advisory committee was not privy to confidential or useful information regarding the sale. It has since been disclosed that the committee discussed potential purchasers on at least two occasions before the loan book was sold at a huge loss to Irish taxpayers.

Belfast accountant Mr. David Watters has claimed that he devised a concept to sell all of NAMA's Northern loans in a single portfolio in a letter he drafted, which has been disclosed and reported publicly. Mr. Watters called his proposal Project Amani, which we know now became NAMA's Project Eagle. He brought in Mr. Frank Cushnahan, then a member of NAMA's Northern advisory committee, to work with him on the concept.

We also now know, through correspondence released by PIMCO to the North's Assembly inquiry, that Mr. Cushnahan was present at a meeting with them as a potential bidder on 22 July 2013. This meeting also involved First Minister Peter Robinson, Sammy Wilson, Ian Coulter, Tughans and Brown Rudnick. Mr. Cushnahan was at that time still an active member of the NAMA advisory committee and did not resign until November 2013. NAMA has since confirmed that he did not declare any conflict of interest.

Businessman Mr. Gareth Graham has testified that he possesses thousands of phone calls exposing inappropriate and possibly illegal contact. NAMA's chairman, Mr. Frank Daly, said he briefed the Minister, Deputy Noonan, in full, including the scandal, something the Minister conceded, of the £15 million fixers fee. Despite this, the Minister failed to suspend the Project Eagle sale process or inform the North's Offices of First and Deputy First Ministers.

It is crucially important that the role and responsibility of the Irish Government regarding this entire issue is transparent. That is the intention of the Sinn Féin amendment to the motion. It is also a fact that the shenanigans around this - it is now a matter of public record - are under criminal and parliamentary investigation by the Assembly, the British National Crime Agency, the US Department of Justice, the FBI, the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Law Society in the North. There is evidence, in all of these investigations at least, of the validity and importance of the concerns expressed by Sinn Féin.

The Irish Government continues to defend NAMA blindly and to deny there is any scandal whatsoever. It continues to refuse to establish a commission of investigation. NAMA is an arm of the State. The money is the people's money and NAMA should be accountable. It was established in the name of the taxpayer and it is the responsibility of the Oireachtas, particularly the Government, to ensure it does its work properly and commands the full public trust and the confidence of citizens in securing the best value for Irish taxpayers.

It was only today that the Minister came into the Dáil to make a statement. I missed the first part and am studying the rest. We may come back to the issue, but every week new details about NAMA and the sale of the Northern loan book emerge. It is obvious to anyone who follows this that the easy way to deal with it is to bring in independent investigators and have a commission of investigation conduct a full and proper examination of all the facts. I urge Deputies to support the Sinn Féin amendment and again call on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to establish a commission of investigation.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. We heard the allegations and concerns about the sale of the Northern Ireland loan book of NAMA. Major concerns have been expressed in the House and there have been allegations about people receiving payments from American companies which wish to acquire assets held by NAMA in the North.

In April 2014 Cerberus bought Project Eagle for £1.2 billion. It was the sale of the century. As part of that, it has been claimed that £7 million found its way into an Isle of Man account allegedly connected to a politician or political party in the North. The key point is that there has been 20% negative equity on property and a 30%, 40% or 50% drop in value, but a cut of 80% or 90% or even higher in the value of assets would be very unusual.

Deputy Twomey referred constantly to business people in the North of Ireland and stated it was a matter for the North. It is a matter for taxpayers in Ireland because the shortfall between what the properties cost the Irish taxpayer and what they were eventually sold for in one block has been met by the taxpayer. The fire sale is very much a matter for Irish taxpayers.

The Minister for Finance spoke about the best offer being taken up, but that misses the point. The point is that it was a fire sale of a complete portfolio. The fact is that NAMA has been established as a long-term project and I cannot for the life of me see why large property portfolios were not broken into smaller lots and dealt with more transparently. It is to be hoped some of this will be clarified during the course of the PSNI investigation into the allegations and other inquiries, including that being carried out by the Assembly committee, which is headed by Sinn Féin Assembly Member Daithí McKay. There are also committee hearings in the Oireachtas.

It is clear that the attempt to insinuate that there was some sinister knowledge on the part of Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness was an attempt to muddy the waters and score a political point against Sinn Féin, and there is nothing new there. The amendment we have tabled calls on NAMA and the Minister for Finance to attend the Assembly finance committee inquiry to give evidence on the matter, which should not be too difficult. It would be very easy for the Minister to drive a couple of hours up the road, attend the committee hearing and give his version of events.

We also want to see an independent commission of investigation established to conduct a full and proper examination of the facts surrounding the sales process of the Northern loan book portfolio, Project Eagle, for the Government to establish a deadline for the completion of the report by the commission of investigation into NAMA and for its findings be debated in the House within two weeks of the publication of the report. These things should not drag on forever. That is the only way we can get to the truth quickly and debate the matter here.

On the broader issue of NAMA, this affair highlights the fact that valuable assets which could have been used to much greater economic and social benefit have been sold off to what some would describe as vulture funds at less than what could have been achieved. That is not to deny the fact that property values fell. They had to because of the artificially inflated prices during the madness of the term of the previous Government and the bubble of the Celtic tiger.

In a recent Private Members' motion we tabled, we proposed that property and land held by NAMA be used to address the housing crisis, something we sincerely believe. We proposed that the empty buildings on NAMA's books be refurbished to provide emergency accommodation for those people who unfortunately find themselves forced into bed and breakfast accommodation and, in some cases, sleeping on the streets outside the Houses. I find that embarrassing and feel very bad about it as a Deputy. If one walks around any of the streets in the late evening one sees people lying in doorways. We are not doing enough to address that problem, but we have the opportunity to do so, using a publicly owned company which holds publicly owned property.

I am not convinced we are doing enough to turn some of this property into residential accommodation. Given that NAMA holds these assets and is, in effect, publically owned, there is no reason some of them cannot be utilised in such a manner, particularly given that some of them have lain empty for years without attracting any great interest up to now. It is also important to examine the issue of who is buying or likely to buy NAMA held property. We have seen examples where blocks of property, in particular blocks of apartments, have been sold at knockdown prices. One example is a block of apartments in Corrig Glen in Portarlington which are in NAMA. They have been sitting there for a long time. I recognise that not all of them are suitable for social housing, but some of them are suitable for downstairs social housing and duplex apartments could be used for affordable housing. If they are sold in bulk it could be for a very small amount of money. Everybody in here knows that if people on modest wages got an opportunity to buy them and were able to access a loan at good interest rates it would put them in a position of being able to acquire their own house and sort out their own housing solution, and some of the apartments could be used for social housing.

The important issue this evening is that of the Northern Ireland portfolio, but I ask that the overall thrust of what NAMA is being directed to do with regard to dealing with these property portfolios be examined, and that we take a more long-term view of how we utilise the properties we have, whether commercial or residential. There is significant demand for residential property and I ask the Government to review this and talk to NAMA about it again to ensure the property is being utilised for the best purposes with regard to taxpayers and those on the housing waiting lists.

I call on Deputies to support our amendment. We have tried to improve on the motion submitted by Fianna Fáil, and I hope Deputies throughout the House will support it. I cannot see why anybody would refuse to do so, or would be in any way weak willed about supporting the amendment. I hope the amendment is backed tomorrow evening.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Mick Wallace who has five minutes.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I would like 50 minutes but I will not get them. I will address several of the points which have been raised. Government speakers have stated that just because something had a par value of £4.5 billion and it ended up being sold for £1.241 billion, it does not mean it was sold for more than £3 billion too little, but the fact is that when NAMA was set up the argument was made at the time that the reason for doing so was so we would not fire-sale assets but wait for the market to recover and get value. Sadly, this rule was not kept. Property does have a value. It is worth what it cost to build, even if the land does not cost anything. If property is sold for less than it cost to build, in my opinion it is being sold for less than its value.

The point has been made that the parcels of land were so big that only a handful of companies on the planet could have bought these big portfolios. It was impossible for Irish business people to buy into this property area. When NAMA was set up, it was one of the biggest property companies on the planet. What has happened is that we have actually sold this property mostly to US vulture funds. We have sold a huge chunk of Ireland away to people who only care about the bottom line, which is profit. The Government seems to be content with the idea of Kennedy Wilson controlling the rental market in Dublin. I do not think this is such a good idea. If what we had before lacked regulation, this was something which should have been addressed, but we had landlords who owned two, five or ten houses and they will be wiped because of how things have gone. An apartment in Dominic Street has gone from €900 a month to €1,500 a month in the space of three years because a small group of players such as Kennedy Wilson has a major stranglehold on the rental market.

A number of Deputies have said no allegations have been made against NAMA itself. I am sorry, but I beg to differ. At present, 15 different investigations are being carried out by An Garda Síochána into the workings of NAMA, and this is just the reported stuff. Trust me, there is more coming down the tracks in terms of complaints about how NAMA has done its business. People have said enough investigations are going on, but it just so happens the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States are only interested in US companies. This is their remit under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. They can only look at the four US companies involved, namely, Brown Rudnick, Cerberus, PIMCO and Fortress. The National Crime Agency in Britain is looking at the Northern Ireland angle. In actual fact, we are still not getting any proper independent investigation into the workings of NAMA. If we go back through the answers the Committee of Public Accounts was given by NAMA, when Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked about the conflict of interest of Frank Cushnahan and the Project Eagle sale, she was told it was commercially sensitive and that another issue was personally sensitive. This is understandable and NAMA is within its rights to do this, but only a commission of inquiry will get the unredacted version, and only this way will we get to the truth of what is happening.

I argue that the process of the sale of Project Eagle was not competitive. Fortress bid less than £1.1 billion and the reserve was £1.24 billion. There was something amiss. Cerberus was the only live bidder left on the job. We probably have not heard the last of Fortress and there are problems with it.

As Deputy Michael McGrath said, there is a cloud over the workings of NAMA and it will remain there until there is an independent commission of inquiry of some nature. If the Government does not do it, we will probably get it after the election, but we will get one eventually and the sooner the better. Project Arrow should be frozen. It would be criminal if NAMA goes ahead and sells to a company under criminal investigation.

Debate adjourned.