Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 2015

Vol. 893 No. 3

National Asset Management Agency: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

The following motion was moved by Deputy Michael McGrath on Tuesday, 20 October 2015:
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.
Debate resumed on 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."
- (Minister for Finance)

I ask the Technical Group to resume. There are ten minutes remaining in the slot. Deputies Catherine Murphy, Clare Daly, Shane Ross, Thomas Pringle and Joan Collins are sharing time, with two minutes each. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The aspect of Project Eagle with which I have the most difficulty is the way the assets have been bundled. A possible reason is that the Government has shortened the life span during which the assets should be disposed of. It may well that something is driving this. Unfortunately, a self-selecting group will be the only ones free to make a bid. By treating the assets that way, it is very difficult to see how the benefit of the assets will be fully retrieved for the people who are carrying the can, namely, the citizens of the State.

There has to be an inquiry. The number of issues identified have caused a real loss of public confidence, even though there was not much confidence in the first place due to the controversies involved. Project Arrow needs to be halted, not least because on the one hand the Government said NAMA will produce a large number of houses in the next few years while at the same time the assets have been bundled in order to be sold. They can then have the advantage of driving up rents if they are sold to a small exclusive group. There are serious problems and the calls for a public inquiry or a commission of investigation are well made.

An attempt has been made to say that this is a Northern problem; it is not. Yesterday, we read reports in the newspapers about NAMA bragging about yielding profits of €473 million when we know it realised and acquired these loans at a massive discount in the first place. It handed them over to individuals who flipped them and profited from them at the expense of Irish taxpayers.

The Government might think it has dodged this issue and will vote the motion down, but it has to ask itself what is the rationale for the sale of Project Arrow. The project has a book value of €6.3 billion, but NAMA will not get €1 billion for it although half of the portfolio comprises residential property in the South. The Government has teed up a done deal. The property portfolio will be sold to Cerberus, a US vulture fund, at less than €100,000 per residential unit at a time when the State has a housing crisis. It is treachery of the highest order and the Government has to join the dots. There is no way it can dodge the issue.

There will be a commission of investigation into NAMA. I do not have the confidence that it will be done under this Government, but it will be done. Project Arrow is not the subject of a competitive tender. Project Eagle was not either. We had the mythical Fortress remaining in the bid, but everybody knows when bundles are packaged in huge parcels which only US vulture funds can acquire that is not a competitive process. The Government's failure to deal with this issue will come back to haunt it in a very serious way. The myth that it is any different from the crowd that went before it has been truly blown.

The Government line on this is that this happened across the Border, it was nothing to do with the sales process and that any of the problems lie with the buyers. PIMCO approached NAMA, said it had been asked to provide payments to third parties and had been advised by Brown Rudnick and Tughans. NAMA said it talked it out of the process but PIMCO said it left it voluntarily.

Along came Cerberus which, low and behold, had been advised by the same advisers, namely, Brown Rudnick and Tughans. We heard that £7 million was paid into an Isle of Man bank account after the sale went through. In my mind, there is a very clear conflict of interest. It is for NAMA in Dublin to answer why it did not pick up on it. Why did it not set alarm bells ringing in Dublin and the head office of NAMA that one group withdrew from the sale and along came another looking to buy, with the exact same advisers and fixers that put the process in place?

NAMA said it was nothing to do with it and that it was not involved in the process. That in itself is grounds enough for an investigation. We now hear that Cerberus is tendering for Project Arrow in the South and the same process is taking place. The Government has to insist that there is a commission of investigation into NAMA to tease out all of these issues and, at the very least, the sale of Project Arrow should be cancelled until after that investigation takes place. Something is definitely very rotten in both states.

I support the motion tabled by Fianna Fáil. There are a series of questions regarding the sale of 850 properties in Northern Ireland and other issues to be addressed. That is why investigations are taking place by the US Department of Justice, the National Crime Agency in the UK, the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Law Society. All of the jurisdictions involved are investigating the very serious issues raised with one exception, this jurisdiction.

It is quite amazing and bizarre that this jurisdiction is not taking a much more investigative approach to Project Eagle. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, said there is no need for an investigation as there is no alleged wrongdoing by NAMA, which is a very broad statement to make. We know there are serious questions about the role of Frank Cushnahan, who was appointed to the Northern Ireland advisory committee by the then Minister of Finance, Brian Lenihan. It was a sub-committee of NAMA, its members were appointed by the then Minister for Finance and it was chaired by Frank Daly, head of NAMA.

The Northern Ireland advisory committee, while it functioned, was part of NAMA and, therefore, questions over the role of a former member in the Project Eagle sale are a matter for NAMA and should be a matter of concern to the Government. PIMCO, the US company which was interested in buying NAMA's Northern portfolio, claimed it was asked for a £15 million fee to be shared by Brown Rudnick, Tughans and Frank Cushnahan. The question is how much was Frank Cushnahan to receive from the £15 million fee and for what. Given his history with NAMA, was he being paid for insider knowledge? What was his relationship, if any, with Tughans? Who was to benefit from the £7 million in the Isle of Man bank account and to what end? They are very serious questions and they need to be answered and investigated.

The fact that we now have Project Arrow, when, as the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government said, we are in the middle of one of the largest humanitarian crises ever and are selling off large residential property portfolios in Ireland to vulture capitalism is crazy. It is a stark example of how capitalism works and how investors and big business are protected by states. The questions I have raised, along with what is happening with Project Arrow, are relevant for NAMA and reasons that a commission of investigation into Project Eagle is needed.

There is a large apartment block in Lansdowne Valley. The rents increased from €1,100 to €1,600 when it was bought by a vulture capital fund. Families have contacted us to ask us what we can do because they cannot afford the rents and will be forced out of their accommodation.

They cannot look for money from the State because they are working on low wages which have been cut over the period of austerity. We are allowing this to happen by fire-selling these properties to vulture capitalists. Whatever control we may have had with Irish investors and developers, we have none over these people in any shape or form.

The next 30-minute speaking slot will be shared by Deputies Anthony Lawlor, Áine Collins and Jerry Buttimer, and I propose seven and a half minutes for each speaker. Is that agreed? Agreed.

This is an opportunity to speak not only on the sale but on the whole of NAMA. Deputy Michael McGrath is fully aware of the reasons NAMA was established. If NAMA had not been established there would have been a fire sale of the loan books of some of the major banks, particularly Anglo Irish Bank, and they would have been sold off for whatever, whether to vulture capitalists or to individuals. We must look at where we started. At the time, a Dublin wit said we should have the inquiry first before we get going on NAMA, and this is what Deputy McGrath has called for, specifically on a particular sale, but perhaps there should be an inquiry into all of the sales if this is what he is seeking. The Dublin wit was quite correct.

As part of this sale we must look at the type of market that existed. We are always dealing with the periphery. As Deputy McGrath indicated in his speech, 50% of the portfolio consisted of Northern-Ireland-based properties. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2013 stated that property prices in Northern Ireland could take a decade to recover and a report in 2014 said the exact same thing. Did this mean NAMA was to hold on to these properties for the next ten years, given that most of them were based in Northern Ireland? What would the Irish people have said about NAMA? What would have been the role of the Government, which would be looking for funds to provide housing in the South? What would have happened? The Opposition would have been clamouring up and down asking why we were not selling the properties in the North of Ireland. As I have indicated, the market up there was in a disturbed state. The forecast growth for the North of Ireland at that period was the lowest in the UK. It had the second-highest level of unemployment in the UK, particularly long-term unemployment, and there was negative equity throughout the private property sector. I will not comment on who was, or is, in charge of Northern Ireland. These stark figures relate to the management of the economy there. Around that time, property prices continued to fall. The objective of NAMA is to make a return for the Irish taxpayer. Should it have held on, hoping that a price rise would come, or should it have sold in a falling market? Sometimes it is important to sell.

Deputy Daly mentioned that the portfolio should have been broken up and sold off individually. I am sure Deputy Wallace, who is from Wexford, has been to Enniscorthy mart, where he would have seen pens of sheep. Usually a pen of sheep is a mixed bag, with good sheep, bad sheep and middling sheep. The whole lot are sold and if they average out at €50 that is good. If they had been sold individually the top sheep would have made a lot more than this, but one would have been bringing home those at the bottom end in the trailer because one would not have a market for them. The objective of selling them all together is to gather up the good and the bad.

As has been highlighted, I would much prefer to have seen some of the assets being sold off individually. I would also like to see NAMA, in its wisdom, selling off some assets locally in certain areas, because I fear if they are sold to venture capitalists the bad sheep in the pack will be left there to rot, waiting until something happens. As I have indicated, in the North of Ireland, according to two reports by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the market was not going to rise for ten years. Perhaps NAMA got the best deal available at the time, irrespective of whom it was going to sell to. There are additional benefits. People have commented that some of the choice properties in the portfolio were bought and rolled over within a short period of time, but the State made money on this also because there was a capital gain and, as everyone knows, capital gains are taxed at 33% and bring revenue to the State.

While I welcome the debate, we must have an overall look at NAMA. Some of it is not good. People say it has become a secretive organisation. In fairness, the Government has opened up the freedom of information legislation, not as far as some of us would like, but it certainly has done this. We must look at the conditions in which this group of assets was sold. They were sold into a falling market in a dysfunctional economy in an area in which property prices were not going to rise for ten years.

I was one of those who was not all that enthused about NAMA when it was first set up, but the situation that prevailed at the time was an emergency. The chips were falling on a daily basis, values were depreciating at a rapid rate and instability became endemic. It was determined by the then Government, rightly or wrongly, that this was the answer. Suggestions have been made on whether NAMA is being administered as it should be. To be fair to the chairman and those who operate NAMA, they are entitled to their say. One should not presume that just because there appears to be a problem it is the problem we suspect it to be. I strongly suggest to those concerned about this, as has been said by the Taoiseach in the House, that they go through the committee with ultimate responsibility for dealing with such matters, which is the Committee of Public Accounts, and make the case there and have answers given on what is causing concern. This is the obvious way to go. The Chairman of the committee is in the House and I know he is fully capable of dealing with the situation in the course of the committee's considerations.

Everybody wants an inquiry into everything that happens, usually in the year in the run-up to an election. I remember saying in the House that there were good grounds for a permanent sitting of the High Court to ensure everything was done in accordance with the wishes of everybody in the House, and it would take a permanent sitting of the High Court to do so. This was approximately 20 years ago, and things have not changed in the meantime. With regard to the allegations of wrongdoing by NAMA - which are denied, I must emphasise - the place to start is in the Committee of Public Accounts, where it can be dealt with, the issues can be examined and there is an opportunity for both sides to make their case, and let the axe fall where it will at that stage. This is the obvious way to do it.

NAMA is seen as, and can be, an answer to some of the housing problems that exist in this country, but I warn people against the supposition that the housing issues that have developed in this country have done so overnight. They are almost 20 years in the making. Houses cannot be built overnight. People get really emotionally upset when they see homelessness, and understandably so, but now is not resolution time. To resolve the housing issue one must start on time, and if one does so and addresses the issues one will not have the type of housing situation that has developed and become obvious to us all in recent years.

Incidentally, I am on record as having raised this issue consistently in the House for approximately ten years. I told the heads of certain well-known charitable institutions 15 years ago that we were coming towards a housing crisis the like of which we had never seen before, but nobody wanted to hear about it. We had changed the system and there was no worthwhile local authority building programme. It was shifted away and major responsibility was given to voluntary organisations, which have expertise in particular types of housing.

The Members opposite will know well that with sheltered housing and special needs, voluntary organisations are way ahead of anything the local authority could do and are well capable of dealing with the issues. Unfortunately, it was decided to move in a different direction and give responsibility for the entire system to voluntary agencies, to the detriment of local authorities. That was a sad mistake and we paid the price for it. That goes to explain the housing problem that now exists, which is undoubtedly an absolute emergency.

NAMA can help in some, though not all, areas. We should not forget that some housing estates throughout the country have not been built in accordance with regulations, for want of a better description. One or two of the estates, in particular, made headlines but they are not the only problem estates. There will be others, and some will undoubtedly be held by NAMA as well. There is no use in having substandard houses and pretending to hand them out as the State would have to spend more money on them for improvements. That is not something we can afford and we should not do it in any case. We would be far better off buying system-built houses to meet the needs of those who currently require homes. That can be done quickly and effectively in an urgent process.

The solution to the housing crisis is not NAMA alone, although the agency be used to defuse part of the problem and address some of the issues. There is no use in us pretending it will solve it all. With respect to NAMA's administration, in my time in this House over the years, Members usually did not make allegations about malfeasance or misfeasance in the House against people who worked in administration in the public arena. Deputies would have been very slow to do it in the past but it has now, sadly, become common practice. That is why people in the public arena have become reluctant to do anything; there seems to be a constant danger of being accused of something. The people in question may or may not be guilty but until there is incontrovertible evidence to this end, we should not presume that anybody is guilty. I hope that arising from all the confusion we have seen, there will be a clear and lucid explanation of what is required by and from NAMA so we can get some benefit in tackling the housing issue.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. NAMA was set up under the NAMA Act 2009, which was an answer at the time to the failed boom and bust economics delivered by the previous Government. It was set up to take loans in Irish banks under much stress. We were all aware of that and we are still dealing with those effects. NAMA paid €32 billion for €74 billion in loans, with the object being to sell the loans and get a return to the State over ten years. The legislation laid down very strict codes of practice for how NAMA would behave and to whom it would answer. At the time, the agency only answered to the Minister for Finance, but as Deputy Anthony Lawlor mentioned, it is now a little more transparent, although not as much as we would like. We appreciate the sensitivity and complexity of the information it handles because of commercial reasons. The agency responds to the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Chairman of the committee is sitting opposite this evening. Representatives of NAMA were in recently to answer questions about various projects mentioned across the House. Deputy Wallace did not attend the meeting, although he was invited to participate.

From what NAMA has stated about Project Eagle, there was an open bidding process and all the data was available in a data room. Anybody interested in bidding was given access to the data room. There was a granular format and Lazard, a very well-known loan sale adviser, advised NAMA on the sale. Based on the evidence given on the day and some information I read in the public domain, it seems that there have been issues around various "fixers" - I use the term lightly because it is not a term with which I am familiar - and people being paid different sums of money, although that is outside the NAMA remit. NAMA's job was to sell different portfolios of assets, package them and sell them for the best price available on the market before returning the money to the State. In doing so, the agency sometimes packaged assets and portfolios of assets so it would not sell all the good options and leave the weak options behind.

There is evidence that the Project Eagle sale was only 25% of the market value. We cannot look at this on an average value because some of the portfolio was at 50% of market value and some was as low as 5%. We all know Cerberus went on to sell it to the original developer; under NAMA legislation, it was not allowed to sell a portfolio of assets to the original holder of the loan. Cerberus operates outside that legislation and can do as it wishes in selling the assets. I was very happy that representatives of NAMA came before the Committee of Public Accounts. The Chairman is sitting opposite and I am sure he will speak on this later. Those witnesses were very open and gave a very detailed description of how this was put up for sale, how people made bids, various due diligence and a final bid. It was valued by Lazard at the time at €1.24 billion and it was sold for €1.241 billion, which is what the market suggested as its worth.

I fail to see why we would go any further in setting up a commission of investigation when the Comptroller and Auditor General has stated that the sales were openly marketed. For its third special report on NAMA, published in May 2014, the Comptroller and Auditor General examined 144 individual transactions, with gross proceeds of €1.1 billion, finding evidence of open marketing in all but 26 of the 144 sales, with fully explained reasons for the other 26 cases. Some of them were sold back to the State or state bodies in Great Britain.

I am more concerned that when the NAMA representatives were before the Committee of Public Accounts a couple of weeks ago, they stated that the agency asked various local authorities in Dublin to buy back some houses to provide social housing. They offered 2,500 of these to various local authorities and only approximately 800 were taken up. There is a job to be done in investigating why some of the houses that NAMA wanted to give to local authorities in various parts of Ireland have not been taken up. Part of the remit of local authorities is to ensure they can provide adequate social housing. I know we are all very concerned about this, and we have been for a number of years. The issue came about because at a time when we needed 25,000 houses per year, we built 90,000 houses per year, and now we still need 25,000 houses per year but we have only been building 7,000 per year for the past number of years. We must examine the issue.

In County Cork alone, there are 130 ghost estates. They are not all owned by NAMA, as some are owned by various receivers, etc. We should consider why councils are not looking to buy these ghost estates, fitting them out and trying to house people when we know there is such a great need. I appreciate there is a greater need in Dublin and other urban areas but if we cannot provide for those immediately, perhaps we should look at reassigning people who might be interested in moving from urban areas to more rural areas. As somebody who lives in rural Ireland, I can vouch that it is a very nice way to live; it is not "beyond the Pale", so to speak. There are options that should be examined and I call on NAMA to make some housing available. The local authorities should certainly look to work with the agency to the greater benefit of all of us. Local authorities should look to finish ghost estates as quickly as possible, as it would benefit all of our communities.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion but I do not agree with it. We should not be looking at an investigation into Project Eagle. Resources are available to people who have issues and they should be looked at first. There is the Committee of Public Accounts. In addition, the Minister for Finance has made his Department available for any questions from the Northern Ireland advisory committee and the Department has sent it a great deal of information.

I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for moving the motion. It is extraordinary that we have had one of the best budgets in modern times and the Opposition Members cannot table a Private Members' motion on that.

This was meant to be debated last Thursday. It was postponed because of the garda's funeral.

The concept of NAMA was created by the Members opposite. It is the legacy of Fianna Fáil's period in office and of the financial and property crisis this country had to endure. Many of us in this House wish we did not have NAMA at all. It is a stark reminder of a country that was in turmoil and in the midst of uncertainty. That dark period has changed, despite what some of the Opposition might say and are articulating. Thankfully, we have left that country behind us. If one speaks to developers and people in the construction industry, there are signs of recovery and that things are beginning to look up. Undoubtedly, and I made the point on local radio on Monday, we need a construction industry that is incentivised. We need land to be made available to construct both private and social housing. The example I will give is in my city of Cork where there is One Albert Quay, the development in Mahon Gate and there are people like Michael O'Flynn willing to invest, along with many others. That is what we need: people willing to become part of the recovery of our country. I am sure Deputy McGrath will join me in hoping that with the development of the events centre in Cork, we will see a vibrancy returning to Cork city.

This is about our country in terms of economic growth and how we are working as a Government to create new jobs. Equally, because of this changed economic climate, we now have NAMA selling off its loans and, one hopes, winding down. In saying that, I believe NAMA must do its work in a transparent and open way and must continue to show us, the Members of the House, that it operates in the wider interests of society and not just on behalf of a chosen few. Deputy McGuinness, the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts is present and NAMA must come before his committee to demonstrate this. In his contribution to the debate, the Minister for Finance confirmed that as part of the upcoming review of NAMA under section 226 of the NAMA Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General will perform a value for money review of NAMA sales. All of us in this House recognise the independence of that office and its importance in carrying out this review. It will involve an evaluation of the sale of the Northern Ireland loan portfolio as a matter of priority. I agree that the Comptroller and Auditor General is best positioned to review this transaction independently from a value for money perspective.

I have heard the contributions of others in this House on the issue before us. If Members of the House have information, I do not see anything wrong with them going to the Committee of Public Accounts and making their case there. It is the appropriate forum. I may at times disagree with the model Deputy McGuinness operates in the committee in terms of issues that are not under its remit but I respect and value his stewardship and his chairmanship of the committee. He is an independent Chairman who performs his role to the highest of standards. I have no difficulty with any Member of the House going before him. We all look forward to the Comptroller and Auditor General's preliminary report and I hope this will be published as soon as possible. I believe this will provide certainty and clarity to what has become a very confused issue. If one speaks to people from all sides and all parts of life, it is an issue that confuses people. It appears that allegations of wrongdoing on one side of a transaction are being blamed on another party. It is in the interests of everyone involved that we get this cleared up as soon as possible, that certainty is brought to the matter and that we have an outcome that is in the best interests of wider society. I am confident and believe that an independent office such as the Comptroller and Auditor General is best placed to do this.

As a Member of Seanad Éireann and of this House, I have raised questions about NAMA, how it was set up, how it operates and the oversight of its functions. As a politician elected to this House to represent the people, I believe we have a duty, an obligation and a right to ask questions of NAMA, but we are not the ones who should be investigating wrongdoing. There are appropriate authorities for this and allegations must be referred to these groups. A number of years ago, I raised with the Minister my concerns about NAMA's guidelines regarding the sale of assets. Back then, the Minister confirmed to me that NAMA issued guidelines to be followed by its debtors and receivers when disposing of assets. As part of these guidelines it is required that, wherever feasible, their sale should be on the open market and should be publicly advertised. Since then, NAMA and the Comptroller and Auditor General have confirmed that wherever feasible this has been the case. It is very important that this reassurance about how NAMA operates is put on the public record. However, it is also important that NAMA, through its chair or chief executive, answers the questions asked of it.

There have been calls for future sales by NAMA to stop pending clarification of the issues being discussed. Given that there have been no specific allegations of wrongdoing against NAMA, this would seem a strange approach. Project Arrow has been mentioned in this House. This is a portfolio of loans that comprise approximately 300 debtor connections with par debt loans of €6.2 billion secured on a large number of regionally located assets. Its sale could significantly contribute to NAMA's debt redemption targets and its obligation to achieve the maximum return to the State. I understand from my own research that this portfolio has been openly marketed and that the NAMA board is now assessing final bids which are in line with NAMA's pricing expectations.

For most people, what I have just said might seem abstract and stopping the sale might seem to be inconsequential. Where I come from in Cork city, however, on Hawkes Road in Bishopstown just off the Curraheen Road, I have been in contact with the receivers about properties that have not been developed and are eyesores for local communities. I am aware of one property at Hawkes Road in Bishopstown that forms part of the Project Arrow portfolio. It is an absolute disgrace and an embarrassment that NAMA has not moved on the site and there has been no action on it. Neighbours have been left to look at a site that is derelict and that is ripe for development. It would enhance an area of the city that is populated with private housing and would make an ideal location for any type of activity, whether residential care or private housing development. It beggars belief that this project in this location has not yet been developed. I will use this Chamber to call on NAMA to expedite this project as a matter of urgency. It can help in the alleviation of the housing needs in the city of Cork. It can provide social or private housing. It could be an ideal location for care of the elderly in a residential setting, something we spoke about last week in the Private Members' motion,. As a result of what has happened, no plan or strategy has been put in place to deal with the property. If we are not going to sell it or do anything with it, funding is required to erect new hoardings in order that neighbours do not have to endure the eyesore and in order that we can address the issue of vermin in the site. I met neighbours and residents in that area who are unhappy, to put it mildly. It is an example of a site, like many throughout the country, that we need to see developed. We are all aware of unused projects and properties that can be put to use.

I call on NAMA to look critically at how it can, as the Minister stated in the budget last week, move on sites that can be developed and look towards solving issues of housing need, particularly with regard to the care of the elderly.

The oversight by the Comptroller and Auditor General has shown that value was achieved. I look forward to his report, but in the meantime, NAMA must continue to fulfil its duty to society. Any allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated by the appropriate authority, but should not be used for political grandstanding, which is what is happening in some cases.

I wish to share time with Deputies Calleary and Kelleher.

In response to Deputy Buttimer, I do not determine the style of the Committee of Public Accounts. The members of that committee work diligently and to their own style. They raise their own set of questions and they have worked well together as a team with the Comptroller and Auditor General. In this case, I have complete confidence in the Comptroller and Auditor General and in the members to question NAMA and get the necessary details to fill in the gaps of information that exist in the public domain regarding the sale of Project Eagle. As I stated in this House previously - and I have spoken directly to Deputy Wallace - it would be helpful if he came forward and gave evidence to the committee so that all of what he has said here can then be investigated at the Committee of Public Accounts and, indeed, can be helpful to the Comptroller and Auditor General as he sets about creating a special report into NAMA and particularly Project Eagle.

What concerns me about the work of the Committee of Public Accounts is that this issue involves another jurisdiction, and maybe the investigation being suggested tonight would lead us to a better understanding and better co-operation because of the fact that there are two different jurisdictions. It is complicated, too, by the fact that NAMA, for some reason, has decided not to send representatives to attend the hearings in Northern Ireland. That is regrettable. It has been stated directly to NAMA by some members of the Committee of Public Accounts that it should attend. There are questions to be answered and there is information it has that might be useful in co-operating with the inquiry in Northern Ireland.

Let us look at the sale of Project Eagle. Sixty-eight percent of that property was in Northern Ireland, 18% in southern Ireland, 12% in Great Britain and 2% elsewhere. Our interest is in what the taxpayer has received at the end of all of this, and some of the information that Members have put on the public record this evening is simply incorrect. The par value of those loans - that is, what the borrowers owed NAMA at one time - was €5.7 billion. NAMA paid the banks €2.2 billion, and the remaining €3.5 billion, 61% of the par value, was the discount on the price paid by NAMA. When they went on through the process and sold the assets, the loss in general, as NAMA reported to the Committee of Public Accounts, was somewhere in the region of €200 million to €250 million. In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General has stated that the loss on the sale, even after all the haircuts on the way down to the final sale, was €783 million.

I have said to NAMA that one of its biggest problems is the arrogance that it displays when answering any question, and the fact that it appears to deliberately delay answering some of the questions until a particular date is past, at which time the answer is of no value to anyone because the horse has bolted. That is the problem with NAMA. In this particular case, the same thing happened.

One of the questions that was raised was about the sale of the property. I hold that NAMA should not have gone ahead with the sale of the property. Once PIMCO gave it the information that questions had been raised, with NAMA's understanding of Northern Ireland politics and what was going on, it should have withdrawn from the process.

There are issues such as the memorandum of understanding, whereby the personal guarantees were to be written off and forgotten about, and that was being suggested from the Northern Ireland Assembly offices. Why was that going on? Why was there such interference that someone would feel confident enough within the political system of Northern Ireland to say to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, that that was what should happen - freeing all those who had the loans of personal guarantees? We all would like that.

Earlier it was stated here that the property market in the North was more or less on the floor and was not going anywhere. At a meeting of the Northern Ireland advisory committee held on 7 October 2013, which was attended by the chairman and other representatives from NAMA, NAMA was told that, as with Dublin, there was a demand for, and shortage of, grade A office space in Belfast city and the shortage presented a corollary need for landlords to refurbish existing stock. It was also told that rent and yield forecasts across the commercial property sector were predominantly stabilising or strengthening. That is what NAMA was told before the sale of Project Eagle. That, alongside the fixer's fee and how this money ended up in another account, was notified to them, and there were questions about NAMA's representative in Northern Ireland, Frank Cushnahan. At that stage, when all of these questions were being asked, and when it was dealing with a difficult market, politically and otherwise, NAMA should have withdrawn.

We have a situation in which accusations and allegations are being made in Northern Ireland, but the problem is that we do not have access to that. We have the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness MLA, asking to attend the Committee of Public Accounts because he wants to clarify some issues that were raised by the Minister for Finance about his activities. There is a need for a single overarching body to investigate thoroughly what happened in this regard.

With regard to Project Jewel, the questions that have been raised about that particular property portfolio, dating back to a contract entered into by the local authority in Dublin in 2004, have not been answered. In fact, some of the councillors will tell you that they know nothing about this contract. If Members have any pride in our history, which they talk about in this House, and if the Members, including the Taoiseach, who have gone to visit that site in Moore Lane and Moore Street understand the case being made by the representatives of the families of those who fought in 1916, they would ensure that the site in its entirety, as a battlefield, is protected. When we were visiting that site only yesterday, the number of people on guided tours was impressive, despite the fact that the area has not much to offer except dated plaques on walls. The history they are hearing about, and in which they are interested, is turning into euros for the economy. Therefore, in terms of its future development, there is an absolute need for that sale to be halted until such time as clarification is received for those who have asked questions in relation to the submission made at the last PAC meeting, which I gave to NAMA and which it has not yet answered. These are simple questions. Does NAMA agree with the National Museum's analysis of that battlefield? Did NAMA itself have the site assessed? What has been the expenditure to date in terms of the planning application by Chartered Land on the historic site? Has the ownership of the national monument at Nos. 14 to 17, Moore Street been transferred to the State? I understand that it has, but then there are the 1916 buildings that have been identified, and that are part of the development, which now need to be saved. Lastly, there is the question of the €5 million set aside by NAMA for that site and how it was to be spent. What is the status of that? When those simple questions are asked and when representatives of a project such as Project Jewel make a legitimate attempt to engage with NAMA and get nowhere, that is what causes suspicion. It is that inaction that causes them to ask the questions that are being asked.

The same is being applied in a much more commercial way to this property portfolio in Northern Ireland, and it is not good enough that we would just debate it here, sign it off and state that it is merely something that the Opposition is doing.

It is not. These questions are being asked of all of us in the House and there is a concern and a suspicion that must be dealt with. There are questions in the public domain that deserve to be answered and if this debate does anything, it should draw attention to Project Jewel and Project Eagle. The Minister should intervene immediately, stop what is happening with Project Jewel and ensure the appropriate forum is put in place so all the questions being asked can be answered and dealt with comprehensively.

I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for giving us the opportunity to raise this issue and pay tribute to Deputy Wallace for having the courage to stand up and throw the ball into play on the very first occasion. The manner in which he, and anyone who raises questions around the issue, have been treated clearly demonstrates that something is afoot. The manner in which people are running for cover and declining to answer questions also demonstrates that something is afoot. All we are seeking is answers and a mechanism, a commission of inquiry, that will allow people to give evidence in a protected manner so we can find the answers.

Deputy McGuinness has put the figure for the loss on this portion alone at €783 million. It is a huge amount. It is the amount that will go into the health service between now and the end of the year. It could do so much. Even if one accepted the Government’s figures, which are considerably less but still in the hundreds of millions of euro, it is taxpayers' money that the State could do with. The Oireachtas has a duty to ask questions and get answers, which we are not getting. The fact that another jurisdiction is involved is being used to muddy the process. However, a Government agency with responsibility to raise capital for the State has questions to answer. If we could establish cross-Border inquiries before, such as the Smithwick tribunal and others, surely we can do it in this case to get evidence from all sides.

There are so many questions which Deputies have gone through. Since Cerberus acquired the portfolio, it has collected €100 million in developer loans and has used the structure for its Irish-registered companies. On a combined turnover of all its various operations of €224 million last year, it paid €10,320 in tax. This is why our corporation tax regime has a bad name. Our corporate tax regime exists to support very good employment and very good employees; the best in the world. However, when companies such as this use it in this manner, it explains why we must defend our regime all over the world and why the State is getting such a bad reputation.

NAMA initially identified 6,500 properties in its portfolio that it believed would be suitable for social housing and it engaged with the various local authorities. At the end of September, the figure of 6,500 had been reduced. More than 4,000 were deemed to be no longer under consideration, 1,500 had been sold before they had the chance to be used for social housing and 2,469 were deemed unsuitable or no tenants were found for them. NAMA has finalised only 1,600 residential properties for delivery to social housing, even though tonight 1,500 children are in emergency accommodation. A body that once prided itself on being described as the biggest property developer in Europe has a social responsibility to provide housing, given that it has a stock available to it. It has a responsibility to put roofs over the heads of people who are otherwise in hotels or who may not even have a roof over their heads but are sleeping on the streets of this city and elsewhere tonight. A body that sees fit to treat the weakest in our community in this manner needs to answer questions.

The difficulty in asking questions is the walls that go up when one tries to get information. While NAMA has fulfilled its mandate in terms of profit and return to the State, there are questions to be asked as to how it did so and whether the profit is much lower than it could have been had other avenues been adopted. This is all we need. We just need questions to be answered and we need everybody involved to ask questions. As late as last week, the other bidder, PIMCO, was still raising questions about its role and raising objections to NAMA's account that PIMCO withdrew its bid in Project Eagle. Last week, its chief legal officer wrote to the Northern Ireland Assembly saying PIMCO voluntarily told NAMA of the fee deal and left the process. He stated that the decision demonstrated "the emphasis we place on conduct of our business, the high standards we expect of counterparties and the importance we place on protecting our reputation". This is a statement of no confidence in the manner in which NAMA handled this portfolio sale. Although it is from an underbidder, it must be dealt with. This is a company of international spread and if this is the reputation NAMA has, what reputation does Ireland Inc. have?

Many Deputies have raised local issues and concerns around NAMA. Although when local concerns are brought to NAMA, it engages, it drops the bigger balls in terms of public perception of it. I have raised an issue that is very live to us, namely, Westport House. Westport House, a strategic tourism attraction and an economic part of County Mayo, is involved in a current portfolio sale. Westport House is well known to the Acting Chairman, Deputy Durkan. Some 162,000 people visited it in 2014 resulting in €1.7 million in direct expenditure back to the Exchequer, which is funding NAMA. It employs 47 full-time staff. There is a case to be made for Westport House to be returned to the ownership of the State, acknowledging the major contribution the Browne family has made in its time. If Killarney can have Muckross House, which is in the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, surely there is an economic argument to be made for similar treatment to be given to Westport House. Mayo County Council has put forward a case for buying it out of the process. There is no sense in this national asset being allowed to go to some unknown entity that sees itself as unanswerable to this Parliament in the same way that many NAMA properties have gone to other organisations.

We cannot let this drag into the next Dáil. We must bring an end to the swirl of allegations that surround NAMA. The Government can do this by establishing a commission of inquiry. Why is the Government so reluctant to do it? Why is the Government unwilling to deal with the allegations and provide a forum to deal with them? We can only surmise that there must be something to hide and the Government does not want to shine a light on the truth. If there is nothing to hide, the Government should proceed with the investigation, give it the all clear and move on.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue, which has been raised a number of times in the Dáil. I congratulate Deputy Michael McGrath on consistently pursuing it. At stake here is the integrity of the State. The integrity of the State is being called into question. We have consistently been trying to highlight the need for an independent investigation established by the Houses of the Oireachtas, which established NAMA, to ensure the integrity of NAMA and the sales process but, more importantly, the integrity of the State, is vindicated. The idea that we can sit on our hands and pretend that there is not, at least, concern regarding the disposal of Project Eagle assets in Northern Ireland is untenable. The idea that £7 million could be in a bank account in the Isle of Man as a fixer's fee and that the vendor is not overly concerned does not stack up. It does not have credibility.

If we are serious about insisting on the highest standards in the State and its agencies, a commission of investigation is essential to ensure there is a full investigation with sweeping powers of access to documentation which can ensure the sales process for Project Eagle was not compromised, to say the very least. I know no other situation in which a fixer's fee is found in a bank account destined for people who were involved at the periphery in putting together organisations that were expressing an interest in assets owned by NAMA in Northern Ireland.

Some 850 properties from approximately 55 borrowers were bundled together. This bundle would have had a face value of approximately €5 billion. By the time discounts and everything flowing from them were taken into account, NAMA was able to purchase the bundle for €2 billion. It ended up selling it for approximately €1.6 billion. By any stretch of the imagination, very few people, entities or organisations would have the capacity or capability to bid for such a large portfolio. I am gravely concerned because in my view, leaving aside the discovery of £7 million in a bank account in the Isle of Man, this certainly calls into question the integrity of the process. It is not acceptable to me that we would lump the whole lot into a single portfolio and expect that bidders would come from all over to purchase it. NAMA, which has a bit of form in this regard, would applaud itself. Indeed, the Government parties would applaud it even though they initially opposed it. When we were establishing NAMA, the current Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, was apoplectic with rage. She nearly fell over the barriers in here from time to time. She said during the campaign that if she was elected and put in a position of responsibility, she would put manners on NAMA by disbanding it. I suggest that the Minister of State and his colleagues have developed Stockholm syndrome. They have been captured.

The Deputy's party set it up.

They are afraid to initiate an investigation for fear that something may be unearthed. The corollary of the point I am making is that if there is no concern, why would the Government be afraid to initiate some form of independent investigation? I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind that investigations are going on. The Stormont finance committee, the UK National Crime Agency and authorities in the United States are investigating these matters. Even though NAMA was established by the Dáil, no concern is being expressed by the Government here. There is a pretence that everything is fine, but I assure the Minister of State that everything is not fine. The Government needs to accept that it has a responsibility in this regard.

The Minister for Finance is passing this off by saying that NAMA is independent. While I accept that NAMA is independent in terms of how it conducts its affairs on a daily basis, I remind the House that section 14 of the legislation under which NAMA was established clearly and explicitly gives the Minister for Finance the power to direct NAMA in exceptional circumstances. I thought the discovery of a fixers' fee of £7 million in a bank account somewhere would qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Equally, I would have thought that the bundling of 850 properties in Northern Ireland and elsewhere as a single portfolio would surely limit the capital value of those assets. How many people or entities were capable of bidding for this portfolio? We ended up with just three bidders. PIMCO pulled out, or was instructed to pull out. We then had two bidders and Cerberus ended up as the preferred bidder. With all due respect, having three people expressing interest in something and ending up with one of them purchasing it does not constitute a very competitive tendering process, to say the least. The bundling was too large. It should have been subdivided to include more entities that would have had the capability of raising the number of millions of euro needed to purchase part of the portfolio.

It is madness that NAMA is in such a hurry to commit hara-kiri and wind itself up in advance of the general election to show that it is creating profit. Its motivation is to be seen to finish out as quickly as possible. I am in no hurry for NAMA to wind up. Equally, I do not want it to stay around forever. I want it to capitalise the best value for taxpayers. That does not simply involve NAMA showing a profit on the loans it is disposing of, especially given that it purchased them at a huge discount. If it makes a profit, that does not mean the taxpayer is off the hook for the gaping holes that were left in balance sheets elsewhere. NAMA, in its headlong rush to wind itself up, is applauding itself and saying it has made a profit. It made a profit on something that was already discounted. I suggest that if the Project Eagle assets had been subdivided into smaller groupings, more entities would have been interested in portions of it. Any suggestion to the contrary is unacceptable to me. When we talk about value for money for the taxpayer and about NAMA disposing of assets and realising their value, we must always ensure that integrity is at the heart of the decisions that are made. Surely concern must be raised at some level on foot of the allegations made by Deputy Wallace and subsequently by others.

It seems that NAMA, which was established in this House, is not co-operating with an investigation into its sales process that is taking place elsewhere - I refer to what is happening in Northern Ireland before the Stormont finance committee and the UK National Crime Agency - because the authorities here in the Republic have decided to wash their hands of the need to see whether the sales process or the purchasing process was compromised. Either way, it is incumbent on us here to insist that we delve into the murky area that seems to have been exposed by the allegations that have been made. If the Minister of State has time, he should tell the Minister for Finance to read section 14 of the NAMA Act, which gives the Minister the power to deal with this issue rather than washing his hands of it. He can instruct NAMA to co-operate with the investigations in Northern Ireland. Mr. Daly and Mr. McDonagh could get on a train heading north and co-operate, just as they have appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts. We need to state honestly that a commission of investigation with substantial powers of inquiry and investigation is required to get to the heart of the matter. That would deal with the idea that it is acceptable to hide behind commercial sensitivity. I refer to the manner in which those who appear before the Committee of Public Accounts on behalf of NAMA start by saying they cannot discuss this issue because it is commercially sensitive. A commission of investigation could hear evidence in private to overcome the issue of commercial sensitivity and could issue findings on the question of whether this purchasing process was compromised.

The motion before the House should be taken on board and embraced. The Government should not try to hide behind the falsehood that the Minister does not have the power to instruct NAMA to co-operate with investigations in the North. More importantly from our perspective here, we should set up a commission of investigation to ensure NAMA has no option other than to co-operate with that commission and with other agencies inside and outside this State. We should be upfront about this issue. We cannot ignore the possibility that the taxpayer could be left on the hook at the end of the day because this process was not as robust as NAMA said it was, or as the Government thinks it may have been. We simply do not know whether that is the case. A proper commission of investigation may or may not find out, but at least we will know we did our duty in this Chamber to ensure the integrity of the process was upheld. During the debate on the establishment of NAMA, those who told us that it was a bailout for builders and bankers said that if they were elected, they would put manners on NAMA. Some of them stood next to posters saying that they would get rid of NAMA. The Tánaiste was photographed next to posters suggesting that NAMA would be disbanded. What has happened subsequently? Nothing. Not one dot or comma has been removed from the NAMA Act. No effort has been made by this Government to make NAMA more accountable. It is pretending that section 14 of the NAMA Act, which is quite explicit, does not exist. The Minister for Finance waltzed into this House and said he is unable to instruct NAMA, even though it is in the Act that he can. More importantly, he should instruct NAMA.

If there is not a section already in the Act, the Minister should introduce an amendment to ensure that he can instruct NAMA because this deserves scrutiny. We must ensure that when assets that are owned by the taxpayers of this country are sold, the integrity of that sales process cannot be called into question. The Government must do the honest thing and set up a commission of investigation that has the power to investigate without being inhibited by commercial sensitivities and client confidentiality. The people deserve to know that when assets are being disposed of on their behalf, the sales process is not compromised and that they are getting full value for money. I commend the motion and urge Government Members to read the Act and accept that they have the power to investigate or if they do not, that they have the moral responsibility and duty to change the law and to insist that an investigation is carried out.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. It has been helpful to have this debate because very serious allegations have been made about the activities on the purchaser side of this sale. It is unfortunate that a number of Deputies have decided to conflate the purchaser side with the NAMA side. A number of investigations are under way regarding these allegations as the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, outlined last night.

This debate has also provided an opportunity to set out the factual position in relation to the sales process conducted by NAMA. Let me reiterate the comments made by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, last night regarding the role of NAMA and the oversight of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts. 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 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. It is by design that NAMA is held accountable to these objectives by the Oireachtas through the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General, which oversee the work of NAMA.

I welcome that as part of its upcoming third triennial review of NAMA under section 226 of the NAMA Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General will perform a value for money review of 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 independently review this transaction from a value for money perspective. Deputies have spoken about independence and the Comptroller and Auditor General is an independent, constitutional office. I would rather not play the role of Comptroller and Auditor General because I respect the independence of that office, which is a constitutional office, and I do not understand why others cannot do likewise.

The Minister of State is being misleading.

Deputies should let the Comptroller and Auditor General carry out his review and show their trust and faith in the independence and the competence of his office. We will all accept the outcome of his review.

Value for money is the only focus.

It has been acknowledged, interestingly, by those calling for a commission of investigation that there is no allegation of wrongdoing directed against NAMA. Deputy Kelleher read out a very impressive list of investigations but I am sure that he will acknowledge that none of them is investigating NAMA - not one is investigating NAMA. I also recognise that Deputy Wallace has brought his concerns to the attention of An Garda Síochána. I incorrectly said in various media that he had not done so but I acknowledge that he has and correct myself in that regard. I welcome the fact that those allegations are with An Garda Síochána, who have a duty to investigate serious allegations, but they are allegations of wrongdoing against people on the purchaser side, yet the calls for a commission of investigation have proceeded nonetheless.

The debate focused on vague allusions to "questions hanging over the sale", "the integrity of the transaction" and the need to "exonerate NAMA". With no allegation against NAMA and no question of its integrity, it is not clear to me of what Deputies want to exonerate NAMA. People are coming into this House and are throwing phrases around like "fixers fee" in the hope that if they say it enough times, somehow they will link it to NAMA. There was no fixers fee linked to NAMA. It did not pay or receive fixers fees. Just because Deputies keep standing up, saying "fixers fees" and pointing their finger does not mean that NAMA had anything to do with fixers fees.

We never said that it did.

That does not mean that it can wash its hands of it either.

There are a number of allegations surrounding fixers fees but Deputies must let the investigations take their course and allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to do his job.

What exactly would this commission investigate if Deputies concede that there is no allegation of wrongdoing against NAMA?

It can investigate the transaction.

Deputy Wallace was perhaps the most honest in admitting that his motivation is to halt Project Arrow. I accept his honesty in that regard but the question must be asked as to who benefits from such a move. I cannot address all the matters raised across this debate, so I will focus on the issues that relate to the motion being discussed. However, I wish to close the debate by clarifying a number of points raised as there appears to be some confusion.

Allegations of wrongdoing against individuals in Northern Ireland, such as those concerning £7 million in an Isle of Man bank account, have been brought up ad nauseam. Deputies in this House are fully aware that these monies did not emanate from the sales proceeds-----

Nobody ever said that they had.

-----or from any payment by NAMA and that these allegations are being investigated by the UK National Crime Agency.

The issue is the transaction. The money is connected to the transaction.

Why are Deputies calling for an investigation into NAMA? I cannot see what role or jurisdiction a commission of investigation would have regarding these allegations.

The Minister of State is deliberately misrepresenting what we said.

Please allow the Minister of State to continue.

The minute of the 7 October 2013 Northern Ireland advisory committee meeting, published by NAMA, has been championed as some sort of contradiction of the fact that the committee did not have access to confidential information. I encourage Deputies to read this minute. Discussions at that meeting were of a general and strategic nature and were entirely appropriate for that forum. One of the purposes of that forum was to consider strategic market opportunities for NAMA in Northern Ireland. If a third party approach for the Northern Ireland loan portfolio from a major global investment company is not a strategic opportunity, then I do not know what is such an opportunity.

There also seems to be some serious misrepresentation or genuine misunderstanding of the principle of loan valuation versus original borrowed amounts. People are quoting the €5.7 billion figure and inferring that it was in some way recoverable. My colleagues on the Opposition benches will know that if that was recoverable then we would not have had the banking crisis and financial collapse that we had.

To sum up, I again ask that Members consider that calls for a commission of investigation cannot change the following simple facts. First, after all the confusion and conflation, there remains no allegation of wrongdoing against NAMA. Second, the serious allegations against third parties in Northern Ireland and the US are, appropriately, being investigated by authorities in those jurisdictions and we welcome that. Finally, the value for money achieved in the sale, which is of importance to the taxpayer, will be addressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, the proposed amendment places confidence in the Comptroller and Auditor General and will allow him to carry out his review with the full support of this House.

The Minister of State should break free of the shackles and the constraints.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. In Ireland today, many families and citizens are facing high mortgage arrears, negative equity and paying excessive interest on their variable rate mortgages. Some struggle on while others face losing their homes, but many are looking at how NAMA disposes of land. Recently in my constituency of Longford Westmeath, NAMA disposed of 400 acres of prime agricultural land but never once was this sale advertised locally or nationally. Still, the sale managed to go through and we do not know how many people competed for that land. Does that seem right and proper? No, it certainly does not. Many people are looking now, thanks to Deputy Wallace and my own party leader, who have pursed this in recent weeks, at how Project Eagle properties were disposed of and are absolutely amazed. A portfolio of loans with a face value of €5.4 billion, for which NAMA only paid €2 billion, as the Minister of State rightly pointed out, was subsequently sold for €1.6 billion, which is a savage write down by any stretch of the imagination. We have learned about the legal advisers who were advising PIMCO, a company which was ruled out of order because of its fee structure under which large sums of money would be paid to former NAMA advisers. We also learned that £7 million sterling was found in an offshore account which was in some way related to NAMA and Project Eagle assets. It has subsequently been revealed that commercial property prices across a large part of Project Eagle loans in Belfast soared by up to 20% since the NAMA deal was signed off. Across the broader Northern commercial property market, growth has been recorded of somewhere in the region of 11% in 2014.

The Taoiseach famously said in this Chamber that Paddy wants to know.

Paddy wants to know that NAMA, which was established to acquire distressed borrowings and release the assets underpinning them to a recovering market, is obtaining the best value for taxpayers' investment. At the behest of the Minister, in excess of 800 properties are being lumped together in a single portfolio that is of such a high value that it restricts the number of potential bidders, thereby reducing competition and diminishing the value that can be achieved in the sale.

The Fianna Fáil Party has been criticised by many backbench Government party Deputies for raising this issue. It seems we should have acted instead as cheerleaders for last week's budget. Deputies have a duty and obligation to those who elected them to ensure taxpayers' money is well spent. Large numbers of senior citizens have been waiting for more than two years for knee and hip replacement operations and cataract removal procedures while others must wait for months on end to secure personal home help hours. Only this week, a woman chained herself to the gates outside the Department of Education and Skills in an effort to secure a home tuition grant for her autistic son that would enable him to avail of early education services.

It is right and proper to remove all doubt and ambiguity surrounding the Project Eagle sale. A full, independent commission of investigation that can investigate matters on both sides of the Border, North and South, is needed to determine whether everything was done above board and value for money was achieved on behalf of Paddy the taxpayer, the person who ultimately picks up the tab. A commission of investigation is the only way to achieve this.

I join my colleagues in commending Deputy Michael McGrath on tabling the motion and shining a spotlight on this matter. The allegations that have been made required a proper airing and debate in the House as they have not been adequately debated in the cold light of day since they were made. Unfortunately, taxpayers have lost a great deal as a result of the recession and the wallop taken by the banks. The State had to intervene to finance the banks and underwrite the hit that was taken when the National Asset Management Agency acquired loans from the banks. It is exceptionally unfortunate that this was followed by another mistake in terms of the manner in which NAMA has been rolling out the sale of its loans.

The Minister of State asked us all to stand back and have faith in the Comptroller and Auditor General who, according to the text of the Government amendment, has been asked to carry out a value for money review of the various NAMA sales transactions. The Project Eagle sale is to be the first of these value for money reviews. The Government has only now decided to request the Comptroller and Auditor General to perform this task. The Minister for Finance has been pressing NAMA to proceed promptly with the sale of various tranches of its loan book with a view to completing its work. The Minister of State asked the House to have confidence in the expertise of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General to assess the Project Eagle portfolio and determine whether the sale constituted value for money. While the Comptroller and Auditor General has an exceptional track record in assessing the way in which public money is spent, his office does not have expertise in the area in which it is being asked to work.

With regard to the scale of the work being done by the National Asset Management Agency, the loans transferred to NAMA had a face value of €68 billion. Including rolled up interest of €9 billion, the overall figure amounted to €77 billion or more than 1.5 times the annual budget of the State in recent years. When one considers the degree of oversight, assessment and review applied to these loans of €77 billion, even if NAMA paid much less than that figure for them, it bears no resemblance to the degree of oversight the Oireachtas exercises in respect of the annual budget which is teased out in committees, this Chamber and with various oversight bodies. NAMA was established for a specific purpose and, as such, did not have a track record. It was given a task, independent of significant Oireachtas oversight, of bundling up loans and selling them on to investors. Many of these loans were sold in massive bundles, of which Project Eagle was the largest, which only very significant international investors were in a position to purchase. Given that the only reason for buying these loans would be to sell them on subsequently, it is hardly a surprise that a number of agents engaged in negotiations to identify which parties might be interested in purchasing them.

Deputy Troy noted that the value of commercial property in the Belfast region alone has increased by 20% in the past year. Despite selling on the loans in large bundles, the middle men, international investors and whoever else they may have engaged are making a killing while taxpayers here are having to pick up the tab by paying the difference between the face value and sale value of the loans.

It is long past time the Government adopted a straightforward approach and established a thorough investigation into Project Eagle. Too many question marks surround the project and the Government has been running and hiding and ducking and diving on the issue for too long. I commend the motion.

I thank all Deputies who spoke in this debate. Having listened very carefully to all the contributions, I more convinced than ever that a full commission of investigation into Project Eagle is required. The Minister of State and the Minister consistently made the point that no allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the National Asset Management Agency. They also asked why my party is calling for an investigation into NAMA. We are not calling for an investigation into NAMA but into a transaction to which NAMA was a key party, namely, Project Eagle. That is the fundamental difference.

I commend the Committee of Public Accounts on the work it is doing under the leadership of Deputy John McGuinness. The committee cannot get to the bottom of this issue because it can only go so far. A full statutory commission of investigation with extensive powers is required. This issue will run and run because the underbidders in the Project Eagle sale may well take legal action. Criminal investigations are under way in Northern Ireland. If issues are identified that need to be dealt with, the House and the Government will regret not taking the opportunity to hold a full commission of investigation. The Government is hiding behind the Comptroller and Auditor General's value for money review of Project Eagle, the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the transaction delivered value for money. That is not the full picture, however, because the questions go far beyond value for money. Questions also arise regarding the entire governance arrangements in place for the transaction, the integrity of the transaction, the appropriateness of the relationships between the people involved in it and the decision-making process. It is not only about value for money or the sale of loans for a fraction of their book value of more than €5 billion. These are not the issues. The issue is the way in which the transaction was conducted and the decision-making process involved.

I listened to the Minister, Deputy Noonan, say last night that he was determined that politicians would not be involved in decisions around and the operations of NAMA. Politicians were crawling all over this transaction and Project Eagle. There were phone calls, meetings and letters, particularly in Northern Ireland. That is very clear. The suggestion that politicians had no involvement whatsoever is utter nonsense. It is not supported by the facts. In his evidence to the Stormont finance committee, the First Minister, Peter Robinson, said that he attended a meeting with PIMCO in May 2013 which he believes was organised by either Mr. Cushnahan or Mr. Coulter. Certainly, Mr. Cushnahan attended that meeting in May 2013 while still a member of the Northern Ireland advisory board to NAMA. He remained a member of the board for a further six months. NAMA says it knew nothing about that meeting. Subsequently, it emerged from PIMCO that Mr. Cushnahan was seeking a £5 million success fee if that company was successful in purchasing Project Eagle. Does that not set the alarm bells ringing in the minds of Government Deputies and Ministers that this issue warrants much greater investigation than currently has happened? The PAC will not be able to deal with it and the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General is too narrow in respect of the full breadth of the issue.
NAMA should attend the inquiry in Stormont if it has nothing to hide. It would be in a purely voluntary capacity and that is acknowledged. Why will it not go, take questions from the MLAs there and answer them to the best of its ability? We are talking about an all-island economy and co-operation between North and South. There is a perfect opportunity for that to be demonstrated by NAMA co-operating with the inquiry. We have a situation where we know the Stormont Executive was involved in drafting a memorandum of understanding, as Deputy John McGuinness said, which would involve releasing the debtors involved in Project Eagle from any personal guarantees. The notion that the transaction was beyond politics, entirely independent and without inappropriate involvement is something I do not accept. We will regret the day that we vote down the motion and fail to set up a commission of investigation into Project Eagle.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 39.

  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Joe Carey and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Michael McGrath and Dara Calleary.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 40.

  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Connaughton, Paul J..
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J..
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Broughan, Thomas P..
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Joe Carey and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Michael McGrath and Dara Calleary.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.20 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 October 2015.
Top
Share