Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 22 January 2019
108. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Finance if he has examined the possibility of the State acquiring and using a location (details supplied) in Dublin 8 as a site for public, affordable and cost-rental housing units supported by central funding and the involvement of Dublin City Council and approved housing bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2524/19]
View answer109. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Finance if his Department had meetings or discussions with NAMA officials about a location (details supplied) in Dublin 8; if so, the details of the meetings; if his attention has been drawn to the NAMA-appointed receiver's appeal to have the location removed from the vacant site register; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2525/19]
View answer110. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Finance if he has had discussions with NAMA officials about a location (details supplied) in Dublin 8; if the use of this site for the provision of social, public and affordable homes by the local authority and approved housing bodies will be supported; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2526/19]
View answer111. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Finance if NAMA has considered offering a location (details supplied) in Dublin 8 to the local authority or an approved housing body for the provision of public and affordable housing; and if NAMA will be instructed to prepare a report on the feasibility of such action. [2527/19]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 108 to 111, inclusive, together.
I am advised by NAMA that it no longer has any involvement with the Player Wills site. The loans attaching to the site were fully repaid at par value by the borrower in late December 2018 and NAMA accordingly was obliged to release its legal charge over the site.
It is important to note that NAMA does not own or control property; rather NAMA owns loans for which the properties act as security. If a property owner repays the value of their loan, as occurred in this case, then NAMA no longer holds any security over the owner’s property. Thereafter, it is entirely a matter for the owner, in conjunction with the planning authorities, to determine how the property should be utilised.
Even in cases where the property owner has not repaid the value of their loan, NAMA cannot force a borrower to take action which would reduce his or her repayment capacity, such as providing a property for social or public housing where that is not the financially optimal course of actions for the borrower. To do so would compromise a borrower's capacity to repay his or her debts to NAMA and would constitute a direct breach of the borrower's property rights, protected under Article 43 of the Constitution.
NAMA was established as an independent commercial body and I do not have a role in its operations or decisions, or in relation to the properties securing its loans. In that respect, neither I nor any official from my Department met with the former receiver of the Players Wills site in order to discuss any matter related to the property.
