Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Vol. 195 No. 12

National Asset Management Agency: Statements.

Senators will be very familiar with the context and background to today's debate. An unparalleled period of instability and loss of confidence in financial markets has been the driver of a broader global economic slowdown. Few countries have felt the impact of this downturn harder than our own. We have one of the most open economies in the world, largely dependent on international finance and unfortunately this international crisis has coincided with the bursting of a domestic property bubble.

It is important to set out, up front, the reason for the Government's interventions to date to stabilise the banking sector, including the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency. The banking system is unique. Its proper functioning is absolutely critical to the smooth running of the economy and therefore must be protected by Government. Our overriding objective is clear — to maintain a functioning banking system that will ensure a flow of credit to the real economy. To realise this objective, the banks must have strong balance sheets and solid capital buffers. NAMA is designed to do just that and I will explore the operation and impact of NAMA in more detail later.

Before getting into the details of the operation and establishment of NAMA, I would like to address what many commentators seem to be suggesting is an alternative to an asset management agency approach, that is the wholesale nationalisation of the State-guaranteed banks. The Government does not accept that nationalisation of the entire Irish banking system would be the short-term panacea that many envisage. The Government believes it is important, where at all possible, that the banking sector has a market presence and that it operates within market disciplines and constraints. The Government's objective is to ensure the lending needs of the real economy are met. A commercially focused banking system, which includes banks having a market presence, operating within market disciplines and constraints, is best equipped to achieve this aim.

No country is currently adopting a policy of wholesale bank nationalisation and there is no immediate reason for Ireland to adopt such a policy. If Ireland was uniquely to proceed down that route, it could, from an international point of view, be very damaging to Ireland's reputation and attractiveness to international investors, not only from the perspective of the provision of funding to the banking sector, but from the perspective of international investment more generally. Nationalisation will not in itself make the problems faced by the banks go away. Many of the difficulties relating to managing impaired loans, cleansing the balance sheets of the banks and dealing with legal challenges will also arise in the context of a nationalised banking system and perhaps even to a greater extent. Nationalisation is something we should avoid, if at all possible. This is not a position held no matter what the cost, but is rather a balanced approach to the existing situation. The Minister for Finance has also made it clear that if any further capital injections are required from the State for either of the two main banks, these will be in the form of equity capital, which would have the effect of increasing State ownership of these two banks.

The financial crisis has precipitated Government interventions across the developed world. Governments have provided guarantees to banks, injected capital into them and established short-term liquidity supports. Central banks have also intervened to support banks and banking systems. Initial government interventions focused on the liability side to ensure banks could access funds as necessary and the Irish guarantee scheme is a case in point. This allowed Irish banks to access funds from international markets during an unprecedented period of credit tightening.

The focus of Government interventions has recently shifted to the asset side of the banks' balance sheet. Markets are concerned that likely future losses will erode the capital of banks, undermining confidence in banks and banking systems. The matter has been discussed in detail at EU level and guidance has been issued by the Commission and the ECB. Guidance at EU level provides for flexibility in dealing with impaired assets. For example, in many countries banks hold structured financial products based on US sub-prime mortgages. The appropriate State intervention to deal with these types of assets may be quite different from that required to deal with property-based loans.

Concerns over asset quality in Irish banks relate to risky property-based exposures — mainly land and development loans. The economic downturn and sharp decrease in property prices has led to increasing impairment charges on these types of loans.

Following the advice of the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator and the NTMA, and from legal and financial advisors, the Government concluded that the establishment of an asset management agency was the most effective way to bring stability to the Irish banking system. The asset management model has been supported and recommended by banking experts across the globe and used successfully in many countries in the past, as part of the work-out process of problem loans. Done properly, investments in the banking system using this approach have eventually been recovered in full.

The objective of NAMA is to strengthen the banks' balance sheets which will considerably reduce uncertainty over bad debts and as a consequence ensure the flow of credit on a commercial basis to the real economy, to protect and increase employment, while also protecting the interest of taxpayers. The evidence from other countries shows that the longer bankers and developers are allowed to deny the reality of the losses they face, the greater the ultimate cost to the taxpayer and the economy more generally.

Transferring development loans to a State-owned asset management company protects taxpayers. Decisions about which development projects are viable and which are not should be made in the taxpayers' interest, not in the interests of developers and bankers. Managing distressed assets also requires expertise that rarely exists inside banks, but can be brought into a single asset management company with benefits of scale.

The potential book value of loans that will be transferred to NAMA is in the region of €80 billion to €90 billion, but the amount paid by the agency will be considerably less than this. It is important to emphasise that the State will not take all of the risk in the acquisition of such assets. The price of the assets will have regard to current and expected market value of the relevant assets and what is sustainable for the taxpayer. In the longer term, if the agency were to fall short of recouping all of the costs, the Government intends that a levy should be applied to recoup any shortfall incurred.

Significant further detailed work and extensive due diligence on the loans books will be needed to ensure the appropriate categories or portfolios of loans are transferred and that the banks are cleared of the identified riskiest loan portfolios. The riskiest loan category for banks in Ireland is "land and development" and the largest related aggregate exposures across the institutions. Entire portfolios of loans will be transferred to the agency.

It must be stressed, in this context, that developers will continue to be required to repay their loans in full. Where borrowers have made losses, they will need to recognise and take such losses and it will certainly not be the function of NAMA to "go easy" on them. NAMA will operate on a full commercial basis and will be determined to recover monies owed to it to the fullest extent possible. The stream of income from the assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of the underlying asset or the repayment of the loan will accrue to NAMA. This will be used to pay interest on the bonds issued to pay for the assets and eventually to repay these bonds.

NAMA will be developed and implemented within the common EU framework detailed in the European Commission guidance on the treatment of impaired assets, working closely with the European Commission to obtain prior state aid approval. By drawing on the best advice and experience available internationally, the Government is committed to ensuring that this very significant measure will be an example of best practice which meets all of the objectives the Government has set for it.

I would like to update Senators on recent developments with regard to NAMA. The initial preparations for NAMA are being managed by a steering group made up of representatives of the Department of Finance, the Office of the Attorney General and the NTMA. The steering group is overseeing the preparation of the legislation in parallel with the practical preparations for the establishment of NAMA.

An interim managing director has been appointed to drive the implementation process forward. Mr. Brendan McDonagh, a director with the NTMA, has been appointed to this position and will be assisted by an advisory committee, to be appointed shortly, which will provide him with a range of expert advice.

The Minister for Finance has also directed the National Treasury Management Agency to provide the necessary staffing and other facilities through its existing resourcing arrangements to support the interim operation of the National Asset Management Agency pending its establishment on a statutory basis. The NTMA is engaging experts to assist the interim managing director and, on their appointment, substantive work will commence on analysis of eligible assets, valuation methodology and management of engagements with the financial institutions.

Senators may have noted from media coverage that the National Treasury Management Agency issued a questionnaire to the banks last week seeking details of their loan books as a basis for the National Asset Management Agency's work in determining details of the assets. Yesterday was the deadline for the banks to provide a breakdown of their property loan portfolios to the NTMA. These details will inform the development of the NAMA business model and its staffing requirements.

The Department has also opened communications with the European Commission with a view to ensuring the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency on a statutory basis is consistent with European Union guidelines on the treatment of impaired assets and complies with state aid rules.

While substantial progress has been made since the Government's announcement in April to establish the National Asset Management Agency, clearly much more needs to be done. We cannot allow ourselves to rush the process as the impediments to be overcome are both complex and challenging. Nevertheless, practical arrangements for the operation of NAMA are progressing apace. The Minister for Finance will publish legislation in July which should allow sufficient time to get things right. I confirm that the Oireachtas will be given adequate time to debate the important issues in the legislation. I understand the intention is that the legislation will be debated in the House in September.

I alluded to the fact that there has been much discussion in recent times about the difficulties the National Asset Management Agency is likely to face in its operation. There is no doubt the establishment and ongoing operation of NAMA will entail logistical, legal and technical challenges. Previous examples internationally highlight the importance of a speedy and comprehensive approach to cleaning up the balance sheets of distressed banks. The Japanese banking crisis is an example of where Government procrastination and inability to take decisive action prolonged a banking crisis, hampering economic growth.

While the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency is an enormous task, it is necessary and appropriate to strengthen our banks and kick-start lending to the real economy. The Government, the Department of Finance and the National Treasury Management Agency have sought and taken the best advice available in their responses to the evolving financial crisis and will continue to do so in finalising the design of NAMA. The Government will draw on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General and commercial legal advisers, where appropriate, to ensure the legislative and operational model of NAMA is robust and can withstand all legal and constitutional scrutiny. It will also have regard to European Union state aid guidelines, particularly with regard to the valuation of impaired assets.

I reiterate that the rationale for the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency is to free the banks from their risky property assets so that they can lend again to the real economy, creating jobs, generating tax revenue and improving standards of living. Credit is the lifeblood of the economy and its flow is a prerequisite for economic recovery.

The establishment of NAMA is a decisive and comprehensive solution to deal with concern over asset quality in Irish banks. Getting the agency up and running effectively will be a major task which we must get right. While we recognise that there are practical difficulties to contend with, the Government is confident these will be overcome. This is the reason it is taking its time in doing the preparatory work with the banks and preparing legislation.

The Government's approach to the National Asset Management Agency builds upon all its previous actions in response to the financial crisis. At all stages, whether it was the initial announcement of the guarantee, the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank, the recapitalisation of the two main banks or the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency, the response has been structured and considered. The Government has consistently demonstrated its commitment to prevent the failure of any systemically important financial institution, at the same time having regard for the overarching principle of protecting the interests of the taxpayer.

I assure Senators that this same fundamental principle of protecting taxpayers' interests will also apply in the roll-out of the National Asset Management Agency. The Government is absolutely determined to meet the challenges that lie ahead and provide the necessary stability that will allow the banks to support the recovery of our economy, a recovery in which the Government is determined to play its part to the maximum and to the benefit of all Irish people.

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. While I was unable to attend today's meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, I understand the joint committee had a long debate on the National Asset Management Agency and that many issues of concern were discussed. Given the complexity of this issue, further questions will need to be asked in the months and years ahead.

The Minister of State described the Government's response to the financial crisis as "structured and considered". It has also been incredibly expensive. The combined personal debt held by every man, woman and child in the State amounts to more than €100 billion, while Government debt is set to increase to more than €70 billion by the end of the year. In addition, Government bonds will be issued to pay the costs incurred by the National Asset Management Agency, which the Minister acknowledges could reach €90 billion. The State is already bailing out banks and the final cost of this measure could reach €20 billion. Essentially, therefore, the State has acquired new debt of more than €100 billion since the previous general election and no end to the problem is in sight. Many people find this difficult to comprehend.

I sometimes believe that officials in the Department of Finance must feel as the crews of U-boats under attack must have felt during the Second World War. As they descended deeper and deeper in their efforts to avoid depth charges, the sailors had to listen to the hull of their vessels creaking and cracking and must have wondered whether they would manage to escape. Similarly, given the scale of our debts, departmental officials must wonder whether the whole edifice will collapse upon itself. We have not returned to the 1980s but we have entered a new era. We have not, since the foundation of the State, had similar levels of personal and Government debt. This issue must be discussed on an ongoing basis because we cannot assume things will happen.

The Minister of State indicated that developers will be held liable for their debts and will have to pay back their borrowings in full. He is engaging in a form of grand-standing because it is clear NAMA will not have a hope in hell of seeing much of the money. For example, if the value of a developer's assets and borrowings is €350 million and €1 billion, respectively, the difference will have vanished into thin air because land prices, especially prices for development land, house prices and the value of bank shares and stocks have gone through the floor. It is pointless, therefore, to argue that the Government will get back the money borrowed by developers because few developers will be in a position to pay it back.

The Minister of State referred to the imposition of a levy on the banks. How much will the banks pay under the new levy? Most of those with whom I spoke who have a better understanding of finance than I do have told me such a levy would not be workable. They argue it would be preferable to leave bad debts with the banks if the alternative is for the National Asset Management Agency to impose a levy in five or ten years' time because it has been unable to realise the value of the assets. Such a levy would hinder the operations of the banks for years.

In recent years, the banks have rolled over interest on many development loans and many developers have not paid interest on their loans. In some cases, they have not even made repayments on the capital they have loaned, yet the banks have not taken action. One does not read many reports about banks taking developers and builders to the courts. The banks appear to be happy to free-wheel along, building up debts and problems. The people who will pay for the problem in the long term are those who do business with the banks. This will be achieved through increased bank charges, fees and costs, including the cost of borrowing money.

Comments were made about fixed-term mortgages. If the Minister is serious, he must put the boot into the banks to ensure they run their businesses properly. Otherwise there is the perception of the three groups — the holy trinity — which are involved in this problem, the Government, the banks and developers. If the Government is as incompetent as the other two, I see nothing improving in the next couple of years. That is important when one considers the vast sums of money involved. NAMA will generate €90 billion of debt for the Irish people over night and one really needs a sense that the Government knows what it is doing here and that it is rapidly trying to transform this.

The economic situation is completely different from that from which this model came, that is, Sweden in the 1990s. When Sweden nationalised its banks and bought up all its toxic assets, it was still dealing with a growing global economy. We are dealing with a contracting global economy and there is no guarantee that these assets will have any greater value in two or three years' time. No matter what might happen in the overall economy, many of these assets will remain depressed. As nobody believes that his or her house will be worth next year, the year after or even in 2012 what it was worth in 2006, why should we believe that development land or commercial properties which the Government is taking into NAMA will have that value? It is the stuff of daydreams. The reality is that these are depressed assets. They are toxic assets and they will remain so for quite some time. The Government should speak of how it will make NAMA work in that way.

There are no experts in this. It would be great if it transpires that we are wrong and these assets become substantially valuable in a short time. That would mean we as a nation can do something about the approximate €300 billion national debt. However, it is far more likely that will not happen and we need to be realistic about how we plan our future finances on that basis — I get the impression the Government is not looking at it from that point of view.

I would like to know more about how NAMA will work. If we can see that the developers cannot pay for it and that the banks are not really in a position to deal with it, we need to know what is the superstructure and who are the persons involved. I pointed out previously that a big developer will have legal experts, property experts and financial experts managing his or her property portfolios and projects and that the banks will also have specialists working with these developers. When these projects move to NAMA there is a sense that some of that responsibility might go with it and I do not see the Government planning on taking on 600 to 700 persons to make NAMA function. There are only approximately 40 or 50 persons who are responsible for most of the mess we are in and if each of them employs between 30 and 40 people, there will be between 1,500 and 2,000 presently employed in trying to deal with this mess. Having a half dozen persons in the National Treasury Management Agency giving assistance to a new organisation called NAMA does not inspire the confidence needed if these are the figures being employed at present. We need to know whether this is merely an oversight role or will a large number of people be taken on by NAMA to manage this fund in the future? Those are the sorts of core questions the Government needs to answer to instill confidence that NAMA will work.

My fear always is that somehow it will be the poor taxpayer who will get lumbered with this, that the €90 billion will be written up as Government debt, given as bonds to the banks, eventually there will be a fire sale of these toxic assets and in a couple of years' time the ordinary citizens of the State will suddenly realise that the national debt has ballooned under the present Government and they are being more or less left with it. There is a serious risk of something like that happening no matter what the Minister of State tells us.

I ask the Minister of State to outline in his response whether the Government has looked at alternatives. I refer not to alternatives as big as NAMA but to alternatives that might not cost as much. For example, has the Government looked at directly forming property funds or property trusts? Has it looked at one of the solutions I put to it, namely, taking over Haven, which is an SPV of the EBS, and using that to rush money into the economy? Apparently, that has been dismissed by the Minister. How much research did the Government conduct on other solutions that were presented to it? These solutions would not have dealt with this crisis in the same way but they might have helped give those green shoots of the economy, about which everybody keeps speaking. I suppose the biggest fear is that when we come to the end of all this in two or three years' time we will have achieved nothing.

The Minister of State gave explanations about what happened to Japanese banking. What happened was a complete paralysis of both the banking sector and the political establishment in the way they dealt with this issue. Funnily enough, exports seemed to recover quite quickly in Japan, but banking and finance was totally paralysed. The circumstances there were different from those in which we find ourselves. This is new and the Government should not rigidly apply what worked in other countries in the expectation that it will work here because there is no guarantee of that.

When people read what the Minister of State said today they will be flabbergasted. The sums we will commit to sort out the banking crisis would pay for the educational sector for the next decade. It is a massive amount of money. Even the interest built up on that every two years would probably pay for one year's education in this country. We know the return we can get from a well resourced educational service, yet we are not really getting the clear answers from the Minister of State on what may happen with NAMA.

Another aspect the Minister of State did not point out are the substantial legal issues cropping up to do with NAMA. It is not merely that there are good developers who do not want to see their properties and portfolios taken over by NAMA. Many of the developers would have protected themselves when they were taking out these massive loans. Most of the developers when developing big sites would have treated each site as a new limited company where their exposure would be limited enough. It was surprising to find big developers with personal guarantees on some of these massive developments. I would say that a significant number of these developers did not make personal guarantees and may even have protected their good quality assets from some of these developments. If they have set up such limited companies on some of these big sites which have clearly become toxic, the Government is not in a position legally to go after those developers' other resources or funding. Legally, one cannot go after persons who may be involved in another capacity, for example, where a person might have a 10% or 15% share of a big development. The main shareholder may well need to go into NAMA, but these smaller individuals may feel that that is not necessary and that the Government is damaging the value of their property assets by pulling them into NAMA and letting them sit there for a number of years. These are the nitty-gritty matters about which we do not hear much from the Minister.

We all now understand the big picture as to the nature of NAMA but, as a former Taoiseach stated, it is the small details that trip one up.

Albert Reynolds.

The man whom the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, advised. It will be the same in this case. It will be in the small matters, when we are trying to get through the nitty-gritty of NAMA, that we will see the problems arise and I ask the Minister of State to discuss those as much as possible so that we can get a good sense of what is happening.

When the Minister speaks about this over the coming months one of the first points to clarify is the amount of property which is completely toxic. In other words, let us look at some of the half built housing estates and industrial estates on the edge of provincial towns that are closed up where the sites have been sealed off. In reality, one cannot see those houses being sold for a decade. This can be kept in an historical context. Senators from certain parts of the country know of half-derelict building sites and housing estates that were started during previous booms because people expected businesses to enter the areas or the towns had businesses. Some expected that areas were going to become the new Costa del Sol, so new chalets were built. The country used to be littered with such sites, but nothing on the current scale. Many half-built estates are of little or no value to anyone. What percentage of NAMA's assets will comprise such sites? Will the Minister of State address my concerns in his response?

I join others in welcoming the Minister of State. I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few points on the National Asset Management Agency. In recent weeks, many calls have been made for a debate on the issue and we are all happy with this opportunity to make a number of interim points. As I cautioned in response to a number of contributions on the Order of Business, NAMA is a work in progress and we will need further debates as more of the details become clear.

Due to other commitments, Senator Twomey was not in a position to attend this morning's meeting with NAMA's interim director, Mr. Brendan McDonagh, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and Dr. Bacon. It was extremely informative, lasted for four hours and, lest I was in any doubt, left me confident we are moving in the right direction, that we have engaged the correct personnel and that our approach is correct, notwithstanding that the international community has already adjudicated that we are moving in the right direction in terms of our policies, including not least this one, but also last week's issue of oversubscription of bonds, the NTMA issue and so on. Internationally, our approach so far has received a resounding thumbs up.

The purpose of NAMA's establishment, a major initiative, is to transfer key exposures from the financial institutions to NAMA to clean up banks' balance sheets and provide them with Government bonds, thus enabling the resumption of the flow of credit to the real economy. Key exposures identified by the market and the credit rating agencies include all the land and development loans of the eligible institutions, amounting to some €60 billion, and the commercial loans linked to land and development loans, estimated to be worth €20 billion or €40 billion. Therefore, NAMA will acquire performing and non-performing loans. In return, the institutions will receive Government bonds issued by the NTMA. These may be used as collateral to avail of European Central Bank, ECB, funding. It is envisaged that the interest payable on the bonds will be offset by interest flows from performing loans acquired by NAMA.

While NAMA will initially deal with the management of transferred loans, there is little doubt that a large part of its work may become the management of a portfolio of underlying property assets. In managing these loans and assets, NAMA will have a commercial mandate, the aim of which will be to ensure over its projected lifespan of ten to 15 years the optimal outcome of the realised value of the assets transferred to it. The Government and the Minister of State have stated that NAMA will have a categoric and clear mandate to ensure taxpayers do not pay for the over-exuberant lending practices of the past decade. In the event of there being a shortfall, the Government has signalled the money will be recouped from the financial institutions via levies, which were mentioned in the last budget.

Senator Twomey suggested we buy up loans and assets, give Government bonds and have a fire sale of the assets. I am sure the Senator saw last weekend's coverage of the situation in the United States of America in the 1980s, namely, the savings and loans debacle. As Senator Quinn said, the Resolution Trust Corporation was established with some 8,000 or 9,000 employees, took in assets valued at approximately $450 billion and closed after six years with a loss of approximately $90 billion. This morning, the Minister for Finance alluded to a part of the reason for this, namely, that there was a fire sale. However, a fire sale is not the intention behind NAMA. Rather, its purpose is to take on board and manage the assets and to pursue workouts to the fullest extent possible and to the taxpayers' benefit. There will be no fire sale.

As will inevitably be the case when a number of developers default on their obligations, assets must be secured. However, NAMA has no automatic intention to dispose of those assets at the earliest possible convenience. It has an obligation to ensure it gets the maximum return, but this does not mean it must have a fire sale or auction the following week of whatever landbank or property may be at stake. As was confirmed to us this morning, it will have the ability to bank land to be brought to market at the optimum time. This is to be welcomed.

Those developers who find themselves marginally outside in terms of their ability to react to the changing times in which we find ourselves will be happy to hear that every loan will be treated individually after the valuation methodology has been worked out, an ongoing process. No blanket approach will be taken whereby all development loans will be cut by X percentage. This is also to be welcomed because situations can differ greatly. While Dr. Bacon mentioned a broad blanket approach in his initial recommendations, it considered six types of asset. The methodology will be even more detailed and will examine each loan to assess its value. Any objective observer could be pleased about this.

Senator Twomey asked whether NAMA will take on many employees and what the consequential cost implications would be. The Resolution Trust Corporation in the US had many employees, but it is envisaged NAMA will have few, perhaps 30 or 40. Over the coming months, some experts might be contracted in on a short-term basis to ensure NAMA has the optimum and correct form of legislation before being tabled before the Houses. We will be prepared to sit in July or whenever. The Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, have stated the Houses will be recalled if necessary. We could use the existing banks to administer the loan books on their behalf and under strict criteria.

This morning, I raised my preference for an Indonesian approach. When Indonesia faced a similar situation, its banks were incentivised to get the maximum possible return for the assets. Our banks will not just focus on the lower valuation paid by NAMA. Instead, they will be incentivised to recover the maximum amount and may receive a return for doing so. Since examining the Indonesian example would be of benefit, I am glad to report that NAMA's interim director, Mr. McDonagh, stated it is being considered as an option. There would be nothing worse than using personnel within the banking system to administer the recovery of debts, only to have the banks collect €85 million out of every €100 million paid by NAMA before moving on to more profitable business. As that would be regrettable, we must consider some level of incentivisation.

The heads of a Bill are being worked on. As it is appropriate that we get this right, I am pleased that some time is being taken. I have often heard it said on many sides of the House that rushed legislation normally tends to be bad legislation. I am pleased that the appropriate time is being taken and that the appropriate expertise is being brought into play. I hope towards the end of July, we can see the heads of a Bill and, if necessary, throughout August or September we will be brought back here to pass it through the Houses.

I am informed that following the enactment of the Bill, NAMA could be up and running, in terms of taking loans under its control, within eight weeks, and I welcome that. I asked a question at a committee this morning and it is a shame more members of the Seanad could not make it to the debate, because I am sure some very important questions could have been put to the witnesses attending and Dr. Bacon.

I am pleased we are moving in the right direction. As the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, mentioned, the questionnaire to be returned by all the financial institutions to the interim director last evening indicated some 1,200 borrowers have borrowings in excess of €10 million and quite a few have borrowings in excess of €500 million. Taking into account all six institutions, some have borrowed in excess of €1 billion. As we look to the future, notwithstanding the challenges we currently face, there are lessons we can learn.

As the Minister of State mentioned, the project is being managed by the steering group, made up of senior officials from the Department of Finance, the Attorney General and the NTMA. One point Senator Twomey mentioned, which was a major issue from the Fine Gael perspective, was how one can charge a levy at a late date on the basis that I bought X from someone today at €100, have only been paid €80, am down €20, and, therefore, another person must now pay me €20. It was a valid point, but by using the Finance Act as a vehicle, the Government can levy the banks for, effectively, whatever it wants.

The point was made by myself and others this morning that the legislation introduced to set up NAMA would signal the agreement of the financial institutions covered by it that that would be the case and would happen so we could avoid potential legal challenges when the time would come. It is well down the road, so one is in a position to say what would be recovered for what assets, if appropriately managed over the eight or ten-year period.

The witnesses before the committee this morning also informed us lands were bought at speculative rates, on the assumption they might be rezoned or valuable from a development point of view at some stage in the future. Such lands are worth no more than agricultural values today. It is envisaged by those involved in NAMA that no more than agricultural prices should be paid for such land to date. There will be losses. There are other lands which they feel, if appropriately managed, can produce a reasonable dividend over five to 15 years. That is positive and it is not all bad news.

The comments of Dr. Somers, which left us all a little confused last week, identified many of the practical difficulties associated with a project as large as NAMA. All of us agree with that. The Government and its advisors, including the NTMA, are aware of these difficulties. Those who were at the committee this morning heard some of those issues being teased out. They had an indication aspects of it cannot be discussed at this stage, because it is still very much a work in progress, and as soon as they can be, they will be. Senator Quinn, who was at the committee for four hours, along with myself, agree we were given a clear indication and some confidence that these issues are in hand. Mr. Brendan McDonagh, in particular, was impressive.

Establishing NAMA and drafting the legislative framework within which it will operate is very complex. There are, as Dr. Somers pointed out, considerable potential legal and practical difficulties. The Minister of State met Dr. Somers and he has confirmed to him he is supportive of the NAMA proposal and sees no other solution to the issues that arise in the banking system.

The NTMA has, at all stages of the development of the NAMA proposal, been a key policy advisor to the Minister and Government on the banking crisis. We have seen some coverage over the last number of weeks, as Senator Quinn will bear out, that what the Government was pursuing was not remotely in line with what was proposed by Dr. Bacon and others. At today's meeting, one was left in no doubt that Dr. Bacon felt everybody was in agreement that what he had suggested was completely at one with what the Government was pursuing.

There are difficulties and major complexities to be teased out. I am much more confident today than I was last week, having heard the contribution of Dr. Somers. For those who could not attend the meeting, perhaps they could check the records of it. It was very positive indeed. This is the first of a number of debates on NAMA and I look forward to participating in future ones.

I wish to share time with Senator David Norris.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh. It is very tough to stand up and speak after Senator MacSharry, who spent four hours with me at the committee meeting today, because he has given a full report of it. I am delighted I attended the meeting.

I went to it feeling doubtful, questioning and unsure whether this was the right thing to do. I was influenced by the amount of media reports and the number of academics who said this was the wrong thing to do. I was very impressed with Dr. Bacon and the words he used. I was also impressed with Mr. Brendan McDonagh and the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who, we were told, had to leave at 1 o'clock and was still there when I left at 3.45 p.m.

The one thing I learned from the meeting was there is no silver bullet or easy answer to this problem. I understand why there is questioning from both sides. Whatever solution we come up with will have its supporters, detractors and critics. The impaired loans are clogging up the banking system and the onus is on the State to facilitate a solution. If the banking system is to begin to work again, we must overcome that problem.

The objective must be to establish a banking system that will ensure a flow of credit to the economy to enable trade and industry to go about their business. I am not just talking about SMEs, but about industry, trade and large businesses. The decision to establish NAMA is aimed at that particular objective, that is, to buy property and development loans from the banks at, I understand, a large discount, through the issue of Government loans to the banks.

There are a number of benefits to establishing NAMA. The first is transferring development loans to a State-owned asset management company. It protects the taxpayer, which is a major query people had. It seemed those who objected to the project asked why it was being done to help the banks. However, that is not the objective. The objective is to ensure we get the banking system working again. Transferring development loans to a State-owned asset management company protects taxpayers.

Dr. Alan Ahearne said the evidence from property bursts in other countries showed the longer bankers and developers are allowed to deny the reality of the losses they face, the greater the ultimate cost to the taxpayer and economy in general. He also said troubled developers should not be allowed to use taxpayers' funds to gamble on resurrection. He has a great way with words and I agree with him entirely.

Managing distressed assets needs expertise and the belief is the NTMA can source this expertise, even if it does not have it already. At the meeting today, which Senator MacSharry touched on already, I asked about the timeframe. I understood the Resolution Trust Corporation, created in the United States in 1989, lasted until 1995, which was a short period. Mr. McDonagh, the chief executive of NAMA, referred to the fact he expected NAMA would be in place for ten to 15 years. Given that we have a tradition in this country of not being able to stick to our budgets, timeframes and schedules I wonder whether we are wise to set out a ten to 15 year timeframe for the agency. It looks as though NAMA will be in place forever. The timespan for the Resolution Trust Corporation, RTC, in the United States turned out to be only five and a half years. The Minister gave me a competent answer to the effect the rush to get things done within five and a half years was the reason for the $90 billion loss that the RTC made. I hope nothing like that will happen with NAMA.

Another query I had was about where we would find people with the expertise to work with NAMA. The chief executive of NAMA gave an efficient reply to the effect the agency sees itself using the support of the banks and that it will employ only approximately 30 to 40 people. That gives me some confidence we will not end up employing a corresponding figure to the 9,000 that were employed in RTC in the United States.

On the other hand, given the restriction we have placed on the amount bankers can earn, I am concerned about the ability to employ suitable people. The restriction is understandable but my query is whether we are likely to get the required expertise. I am not sure we will be capable of doing so. Sometimes one has to pay to get the right help. We should be careful not to place restrictions on those who will work in NAMA if we want to achieve the right results.

Clearing the bank balance sheets will allow bank management to concentrate on its core business, namely, lending to small and medium-sized businesses, as well as to large businesses. We must consider what has been done in other countries. A different problem is evident in Germany where a bad bank was created. Property was not the problem there, it was financial tools. Germany may well be able to solve that with a bad bank as opposed to what we are doing.

Senator MacSharry referred to the example of Indonesia. The International Monetary Fund, IMF, pointed out that it approves of the way we are going about things and setting up NAMA. It said that is the sort of action that was taken in Indonesia, which had a much bigger problem, but it solved it on the same basis as we are doing with NAMA. Mr. Seelig of the IMF approves of NAMA. He compared it with what was achieved in Indonesia in 1997.

The German approach of setting up a bad bank would not suit this country, as the German problem is different to ours. It is due to toxic financial products, not property loans. The other banking crisis was in Japan in the early 1990s and the government there did not do anything at first. The crisis did not get resolved and the country went from having a healthy economy to ten years or more of stagnation before it introduced a NAMA-type organisation. However, it was too late in the day to achieve its aims.

We discussed the Ombudsman and freedom of information in the previous debate. I mentioned to the Minister of State that there was a great air of transparency about what was done in Finland and Sweden. We do not seem to have that here because the freedom of information legislation does not apply to this issue. The Minister of State said he would give it serious consideration. We will see whether there is a benefit to be had from that and whether he will do it.

Earlier today I was still doubtful about whether setting up NAMA was the right way to go. I am now of the opinion that the Government is going in the correct direction. It is following the clear, concise and articulate explanation of Dr. Peter Bacon's suggestion on the setting up of NAMA. He was supported in that by Professor Alan Ahearne. Those two men, along with their team, were able to combat the long list of academics who had written to the newspapers to say it was the wrong way to go.

I wish to inform Senator Coghlan of the Fine Gael Party that I was also impressed by Deputy Bruton who attended the committee meeting this morning. He said he wanted to query the setting up of NAMA but he did so in a positive manner. He outlined the alternatives.

He is always constructive.

He is. He was very positive. He talked about the alternatives but he seemed to support the Government's approach. He did not necessarily say he supported it, but he said he understood what the Minister was doing and asked about it in a logical way.

There is a widespread view that NAMA will estimate the long-term value of the banks at €90 billion worth of development loans and that it will value them at somewhere between €60 billion to €70 billion. Under this scheme NAMA would pay €63 billion for the loans with the banks able to get back the €7 billion difference if it turns out that the loans have value. Much thought has gone into NAMA and many questions have been asked about it. I am not sure why it is taking so long to set it up. Dr. Michael Somers had queries last week that must have sent shivers up those who listened to him. I am now supportive of NAMA. The Minister seemed to have an open mind today about taking suggestions into account to ensure it is even better controlled than it might otherwise have been.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, despite the fact it is perfectly clear the action is elsewhere. The fact has already been referred to that there was an important committee meeting earlier today. Although I completely accept that the Minister of State is a highly intelligent and gifted contributor, both as a Senator and as a Minister of State, even though he is almost as irritating as I am——

That would not be possible.

——the real action and decision making will be done by the Minister and advisers such as Dr. Peter Bacon. I was unable to attend this morning's meeting but I corresponded a little with Dr. Bacon. I asked him when the idea of setting up NAMA first arose. He said the report was submitted to the Minister on 20 March 2009. I mooted the idea of a somewhat similar agency, the national property management agency, on 10 February 2009. One can note the etymological closeness of the two agencies. I returned to the idea on 5 March and 9 April without attracting any great interest. My proposal was considerably more radical than what is currently being set up. I suggested we need to be much more radical. We need to be less obsessed with the market. The Minister of State referred to market forces, as did Professor Ahearne. I will return to that matter.

I am not an economist. Perhaps my ideas are all over the place — I do not know — but in broad outline they might attract some interest and could be considered. My expertise was analysing language. In an article in The Irish Times on 25 April Professor Ahearne referred to the dangers of nationalising banks. A cluster of language occurs in the centre of his article around the word “market”. That word appears six times in two short paragraphs. The Minister has a similar swarm but it is not quite as intense. This obsession with the markets is incorrect, in particular because the Government is never prepared to let the market operate anyway. The Government protects the banks against the operation of the markets. The banks are out of the marketplace as they have made a comprehensive balls of it. They invested in the Irish National Insurance Company. There was the Rusnak affair. The banks overcharged clients and defrauded them. They advised clients to take immoral decisions involving tax evasion. The minute the market clamps down, the banks may clamp down on private householders but as sure as blazes they will not be allowed to clamp down on the market because the minute market forces operate, banks are not allowed go to the wall. The biggest mistake the Yanks made was not to let Lehman Brothers go down. We would not have suffered everything we have suffered if they had let it go, yet they paid for it.

I am interested that there is not a single figure from beginning to end in what the Minister of State said. We simply do not know what we are going to pay. In a previous debate I referred to this as flubber, namely, that volatile, uncontrollable green stuff from a film of the same name. The banks seem to be full of it. I was suggesting that the banks be nationalised. The whole lot of them should be nationalised and put into one bank called "The Bank of Ireland". That would solve a certain number of problems. We should not worry about the international market response, because it could not possibly be worse. Our banks are valued at virtually nothing. They have had a huge collapse in their value. What are we rescuing? We own most of them anyway. We should collapse them altogether. We can drain out the toxic assets and put them into a bad bank if we want a second bank.

The Minister of State spoke about an asset management agency approach. We should sequester the tangible assets, by which I mean the land, and manage them in the interests of the people of Ireland. People have recently been stating that property speculators will gang up together and take legal advice, but I say "to hell with them". I do not believe they stand a chance in the courts, although they might waste money. It is always possible to do that. The Constitution may vindicate the rights of private property and we have heard that again with regard to religious orders. Nobody seems to have taken on either of these corrupt institutions, despite the fact that the governing clause deals with the public interest.

Let us send the National Asset Management Agency Bill to the President. We only need two thirds of the Seanad to do so and we can then get it proofed against any challenge by having her refer it to the constitutional court. That will save a lot of money on lawyers' fees. I do not accept that is a difficulty. The Minister of State talks about an asset management agency, but a toxic debt is not an asset.

The Senator's time is just up.

It is nearly up, but not quite.

We are not protecting the taxpayer. The Minister of State has given us no indication on the situation regarding the money. There has been a great number of tragedies and repossessions. The chief executive officer of Aer Arann, Pádraig Ó Céidigh, was on my radio programme on Newstalk at the weekend. He has a turnover of €100 million, and after all the money that has already been pumped into the banks to prop them up, he told me he cannot get €100 from them.

I spoke about physical assets such as property and land banks. We should complete the half finished buildings, get the workforce back out there to work on them in a spirit of co-operation and provide homes for people who need them. We should also provide allotments for people who are out of work to grow vegetables and do something positive and constructive with their lives. That is my radical suggestion. We should nationalise the banks, create one bank with a decent reputation and have a national property management agency to manage land banks rather than toxic assets.

I support the proposal on the National Asset Management Agency. I am conscious of the fact that the media will allow a view to be represented that the Government is going to bail out the banks, and will mention five or seven different areas where money is vitally needed. Do they really think that the Government, with so many political minds, has had collective amnesia? I admire some people for their political nous and their instinct to see around corners. Do we really think that if it was not absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of our banking system, the Government would have taken the course of action that it did? The €7 billion was necessary and it meant that other necessary projects had to be forgone. Those projects forgone included positive developments in the constituencies of the representatives involved.

No matter what Government was in power, there was no doubt but that money had to be put into the banking sector. The banking sector is similar to the human body. It needs a blood supply and that is credit. That was completely drying up because confidence was gone and there were non-performing assets, and the world situation made it more difficult to borrow. The Government has ensured, through the National Asset Management Agency, an orderly development of Ireland's current situation. It has ensured that the banks will have liquidity. There have been and still are difficulties with that liquidity, but, notwithstanding that, without the absolutely necessary course that the Government took, our banks would be in a very difficult situation at the moment.

Further analysis shows that there is a probability that this asset agency can take the long view, something which the banks cannot do. It can watch for developments that can take place within the property sector over the next ten or 15 years. The Government is not without resources. Once we have taken control of the assets, would it not be prudent for the Government, as a major holder of property in the State, to reduce the tax on the purchase of property? If it is reduced to 2%, it could stimulate that sector. The Government will also have the ability, when the world economy picks up, to increase mortgage interest relief, possibly even doubling it at top marginal rates. As we have become a major holder of property, we now have a vested interest in ensuring that the orderly disposal of that property is aided by what the Government is in a position to do at any particular time.

The Indonesian model has been mentioned as an ideal model for the Irish situation. That may well be the case, but I would also refer to the Swedish model. The director general of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, who was previously Secretary of State at the Swedish Ministry for Finance, has given us some indicators of what we should do. He is in favour of the National Asset Management Agency. He stated that if an economy is hit by a financial crisis, the most important step is to maintain liquidity in the banking system and to prevent the system from collapsing.

The prompt and transparent handling of the banking sector problem is also important. Terms for recapitalisation should be such as to avoid moral hazard problems. Such problems have been avoided because, despite what the Opposition has stated and despite the undermining of the Government's work, the National Asset Management Agency was not put in place to bail out friends of Fianna Fáil or anybody in that category. However, those statements did us harm internationally. The reality is that it was an absolutely necessary step at that time and it remains necessary.

The director general of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise also mentioned that a government's budget and monetary conditions can help to mitigate the economy's tendencies. In other words, we must make sure that we do not go into a deeper recession. I suggest that it is now down to looking at how the National Asset Management Agency will operate. It appears that the banks will use Government bonds issued by the NTMA as collateral for the purchase of the assets, some of which are toxic. The important point is that not all assets purchased will be toxic.

It appears that management of the loans, which is an important portfolio, will be undertaken by the banks. This is prudent because the loans were originally undertaken by the banks. As well as this, staff at the banks will be rotated to ensure people who issued the loans will not deal with management of the securitised assets.

A total of €90 billion before writedown is expected. It is important to point out that there is to be an extensive writedown to real value. The point has been made that this is likely to result in a further draw from the banks, but that makes prudent sense. Were we to find in ten years' time that the banks had substantially regained their strength and were profitable but the Government in the form of the National Asset Management Agency found itself short, it would be correct for the legislation to allow us to revisit the banks to ensure we obtained recompense for any balance outstanding. We are assured at every stage of a strong possibility of getting a return. In light of the experience of the Swedish model, it is distinctly possible, with world trends, that a profit will be made. I look forward to the day that happens. It appears that the loan books of the banks are such that many of the loans are of the bespoke variety. Each of these loans will have to be examined to ensure fair value is achieved. There may be a substantial readjustment of the underlying agreement in the asset value. This will take time.

The National Asset Management Agency has requested assistance and advice on how to proceed. I believe it has received 600 applications of financial advice, including from the international sector, which is welcome. The agency will have a workforce of between 30 and 40 people, including senior managers, asset managers, corporate finance and legal staff and a supervisory panel. It will be run tightly and cost-effectively.

The National Asset Management Agency will be a good and properly constructed subsidiary of the successful National Treasury Management Agency, ensuring it operates within strict guidelines, to the highest standard and is provided by a minimum number of people. This agency will not become a major industry, rather it will be maintained as a cottage industry with the majority of gains accruing to the State. Based on the Indonesian and Swedish models it is reasonable to assume we will see a profit from this venture at some stage.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, to the House and wish him well in his Ministry. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, and to hear the progress the Government has made on it. I did not hear the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, but, like Senator MacSharry, I attended part of the informative meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service today. I regret I could not attend the full meeting.

We are greatly concerned that our banking system is not functioning properly because it is clogged with impaired property loans. Until this is resolved, we will not have a functioning banking system to ensure a proper flow of credit to the economy, the lack of which is impeding our recovery. The banks urgently need a clean bill of health. Their balance sheets must be strengthened and uncertainty about bad debts must be removed. While Fine Gael's approach differs from that of Government, we are equally concerned that whatever model is provided for in legislation succeeds in the national interest. It is intended that the NAMA model will allow the agency to buy from the banks at a significant discount through the issue of Government bonds. Our primary concern is that the transfer of these development related loans to NAMA will protect taxpayers' interests. All decisions on development projects and lands for which these loans were made available must be made not in the interests of developers or bankers but in the best interests of taxpayers.

It was good to hear at the committee meeting that the National Treasury Management Agency has moved to acquire professional advice in all the fields in which it will be required. It is hoped once bank balance sheets have been cleaned, banks will be able to refocus their efforts and operations on lending to small and medium sized businesses and home owners.

Many commentators are fond of attaching the word "toxic" to bank debt. Our problem relates to impaired property loans, not sub-prime financial products and other mortgage-like securities and so on. It is hoped the NAMA legislation will be ready quickly to provide for a speedy restoration of normal banking activity. I understand the guaranteed banks will be asked to establish subsidiary companies to administer the transfer of their property loans to NAMA and that NAMA will have a staff of between 20 and 40 people.

It was disturbing that Dr. Michael Somers, when he was before the Committee of Public Accounts last week, had occasion to express negative sentiments about NAMA, which comments were discussed previously in the House. Presumably, these difficulties have been or are being worked through. The National Treasury Management Agency will house the National Asset Management Agency. It is important these two agencies speak with one voice.

I am informed that approximately 5,000 bank staff across the various institutions are dealing with the management of these loans. It is hoped they will continue to be available to engage in this work, perhaps on rotation, subject to direction by NAMA. As mentioned by another speaker, rotation of staff will be important given the intimate knowledge of some officials of the individuals to whom the loans were given. It is understood the Bank of Ireland has assigned staff to a separate company to manage its development loan book and associated borrowings in readiness for transfer to NAMA, which will deal first with Allied Irish Banks followed by Bank of Ireland and the Educational Building Society.

A major issue is the charge banks will be able to levy on NAMA by way of administration fee for the daily management of these loans. We need to hear more of the range of discounts provided for in the European Commission guidelines on impaired assets. The land and development loans of the guaranteed institutions is estimated to be of the order of €60 billion with inter-linked land and development loans estimated to be an estimated additional €20 billion to €30 billion. We are told these include performing and non-performing loans. Government bonds will be issued for these which the banks may use as collateral to avail of European Central Bank funding.

NAMA, rather than a bank, will be a company managing property assets for best return to the taxpayer and Exchequer. NAMA's advantage in managing this asset portfolio will be that it can take a ten to 15-year view to ensure optimal return in terms of realised value of the assets. Many questions arise in this regard, one of which is, if NAMA is to rely on existing bank staff, which makes sense, is it necessary to transfer such a sizeable loan book when NAMA will have the safety net of being able to recoup by way of levy on the financial institutions?

We are led to believe the development of NAMA is proceeding well in parallel with the preparation of the necessary legislation and that the covered institutions are co-operating fully. The steering group is meeting on a regular basis to address the various legislative issues and we learned this morning the draft heads of a Bill will be ready in two to three weeks, with publication planned for July. We welcome the Government's decision to recall the Houses to deal with the legislation expeditiously.

One of the difficulties with the borrowers whose loans are to be transferred is that many are involved with several institutions, some of which are outside the scope of NAMA. Again, however, we are assured everything will be done on a properly commercial basis to protect the interest of taxpayers. NAMA will liaise with the uncovered financial institutions in regard to these borrowers.

The valuation method and discounts applied to the loans will be difficult to calculate. The level of discount to be applied is not known at present. The European Commission requires that each loan is assessed and valued individually. Our property market has undergone a substantial readjustment and may yet fall further. The Commission requires that valuations are conducted on the basis of current market value where possible but in our present circumstances it is not possible to arrive at a meaningful market value. The Commission has indicated it is prepared to accept a transfer value which reflects the longer term economic value of assets as an acceptable benchmark. This is one of the most basic issues to be decided by the steering group and I understood it is in discussions with the Commission on this and other important matters. We are told the steering group must ensure its proposals are totally consistent with EU rules on state aid and the treatment of impaired assets.

Regardless of our differences over methods and models, I welcome that NAMA will be able to choose among the options of proceeding by early disposal, holding for market improvements or developing projects to enhance returns. If necessary, it will be able to enter into joint ventures, partnerships and special purpose vehicles. This flexibility will be important to achieving the objectives of optimising returns to taxpayers and securing the interests of the Exchequer. While banks will administer the loans, all key decisions will be made centrally by NAMA. It is vitally important it maintains control at all times because we can no longer afford — I hesitate to use the word — cronyism. I wish the new body well if it is the way to proceed.

I welcome the Minister of State. It is important we introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to get NAMA up and running. We all agree our banks are not functioning properly. Complaints are made by every sector of business about the unavailability of credit and we cannot sustain further delay in this regard. I am glad the Seanad will return over the summer to deal with this legislation.

However, we must also be prudent in ensuring we are careful in preparing the complex legislation required for NAMA. The Labour Party and other commentators have proposed nationalising the banks, thereby putting taxpayers at greater risk. I do not understand where they are coming from because nationalising banks will require taxpayers to assume all the risks. What about the people who invested in banks to fund their pensions? The Government also has a responsibility to these people. It is important, therefore, that we do not nationalise the banks. It is fair to say that nationalised banks do not work well.

The Government's investments in the banks have recouped €1 billion in profits in the past week alone. I do not think anybody has picked that up. It will recoup a further €500 million from the bank guarantee scheme. The Government has made wise investments in this regard.

In ensuring NAMA works for the benefit of the country, we must ensure it does not put people out of business. Its function is to take non-performing loans from the banks to allow them to do what they do best. Once it is established, it will have to ensure these non-performing debts are made to work. One of the better ways of doing this is by working with those who have invested in the properties concerned. It is a given that some developers will be unable to remain in business but if we want development in this country to continue, we will have to work closely with them. It is not the function of NAMA or the Government to put people out of business. On the contrary, it is vital we keep them in operation.

Previous speakers have referred to land values. Land will always remain a valuable commodity. It is a particularly scarce resource in urban areas. It is important to bear in mind that 30% of the land in question is located overseas. I recently spoke with a UK based businessman who is familiar with property matters. He is of the opinion the property business has started to move significantly. That is an encouraging sign in terms of NAMA's potential for making profits. Even though land may be cheaper, the cost to build per square foot is not much lower. A company might build a 2,000 sq. ft. house a little cheaper but the cost of materials has not reduced substantially, which is an important issue.

As we become land holders, Senator Hanafin is correct that we must examine the stamp duty implications. It is important to do so to encourage investment and demand. Many people are staying out of the property market and not even changing houses, as they normally would for many reasons such as increase in the size of the family or the house becoming too big for them, leading them to trade down. However, 2% of something is worth more than 100% of nothing. The market is not performing and it must be encouraged to grow again.

The agency must be careful when writing down the toxic and bad loans. If they are evaluated carefully, it will go a long way to ensure NAMA's success in the future. Before the agency is set up, will the Minister ensure monthly reports are issued by the Government-nominated directors on the boards of banks regarding lending to small and medium-sized businesses? They are being squeezed and while taking two or three months to enact the relevant legislation may not seem long to us, it will probably be the difference between a company staying in business and going out of business. If that is not taken into consideration, many more people will be on the dole, which is not the Government's function. Our function is to create jobs and NAMA represents an opportunity to ensure our land bank works for us for the future.

I commend the Minister's proposal. Senator MacSharry provided an extremely good outline of where we are going with NAMA. I did not have an opportunity to attend the meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service earlier but he is convinced it is the way forward. Senator Quinn, who is a respected businessman with a great deal of experience, is also convinced this is the correct way to go.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I pushed hard for the debate because at the time I thought there was a need for discussion of the different views put forward, particularly by Fine Gael, the Labour Party and consultants outside the House. I listened with some fascination to the entire proceedings of the joint committee and the debate was exactly what should have taken place a month ago. It was a superb meeting. It was a classic example of how joint committees should work and how they can give added value to politics. The meeting highlighted the confidence and knowledge base on which the proposal is built and people with worries should have gained a great deal of reassurance.

However, the Government seems to shoot itself in the foot every time it turns around. A list of frequently asked questions relating to NAMA should be put together and made available on the Department of Finance's website to deal with much of the nonsense uttered recently about the proposal. I welcomed the idea of us owning the land at the beginning because, like Senator Butler, I would like to feel at the end of the day that we owned it, but I pointed out there were issues I did not understand. I could not understand them because they were not explained.

Many important issues were clarified this morning. A steering group was set up and Dr. Bacon stated on a number of occasions that on a daily basis he is in contact formally and informally with the NTMA, NAMA and the Central Bank regarding the financial side. That is important in light of the way many Members responded to the comments of Dr. Michael J. Somers at a recent meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. Issues still need to be clarified but there seems to be a lack of communication between the bodies concerned. I pay tribute to the solid performance of the Fine Gael team at the meeting. They put questions, dealt with issues and engaged with the witnesses. Deputy Richard Bruton was very impressive.

It is crucial that we examine what kind of banks we want in the future. I acknowledge that is difficult to do now as we try to sort out the current structure but a number of fail-safe measures should be built into the system. Banks should not be allowed to become so large that they can hold the country to ransom or stifle the country's development by not allowing cash to flow or whatever. It must be ensured they operate as banks. Even if they take on insurance arms and so on, they should be regulated as banks.

We have had long discussions in this House. It is easy to look down on the regulators and comment on how bad they were etc. They were as good as we allowed or wanted them to be because the minute they got in the way of people doing their business or created more paperwork, there was huge opposition to them. When the Central Bank increased the tier 1 capital requirement of financial institutions in January 2008, the banks, in particular, Anglo Irish Bank, kicked up about it, stating that it would create difficulties.

The Minister must examine new ways to capitalise banks. Instead of setting a figure for the capital a bank must have as an asset base to cover its loans, it must be recognised the figure can fluctuate. It can go down in good times and up in bad times. How can good and bad times be measured? The level of risk attaching to loans can be measured in a simple way. If one runs a business, builds up debt and does not repay it on time, one can sell it to a debt collector or through various different financial instruments. The market measurement of one's risk is what one pays for it. The same mechanism applied to the Government's sale of bonds last week. The State has to pay a higher price than Germany for borrrowings, which is a measure of the risk of the country. The banks can do the same. On that basis, the regulator should be in a position to demand additional capital. If the bank does not provide it, the regulator should have the opportunity to take over the bank, which would happen at an earlier stage. That is what we have to look at in future.

How will valuation work? I do not know but I heard additional information to the effect that it will be measured on the basis of current value and predicted value. I know this is the length of a piece of string but that is not the point. This is thinking in the right direction to the effect that if results do not meet the predictions, a clawback from the banks will be sought.

Senator Butler commented on building costs, which are a crucial part of valuation. If an auctioneer 30 years ago wanted to value a bungalow a mile outside a town or work out how much it would cost to build one, he or she knew pretty well the cost of a half-acre site and would go within 15% either way of that. He or she knew the cost of the building materials, the point made by Senator Butler, and the cost of building, which is the cost to pay people to turn the materials into a house and the profits on top of that. In those simple days of old it was one third, one third and one third. If one multiplied the price of a site by three, that was more or less the cost of a house in those days.

This has changed but one factor that is still quite solid is the cost of the materials. We can consider various aspects of a building in Ballsbridge but we could work out a two-thirds valuation of it because we know how much it would cost to build it and we know the cost of materials used to build it. It is interesting that a figure is beginning to emerge without anybody saying it for the cost of the €80 billion, €85 billion or €90 billion of between one half and two-thirds. It may not come to that but it is not a bad starting point and is sensible. This is what emerged from what was said by the Minister, Mr. McDonagh and Mr. Bacon at the meeting of the joint committee today, from what the Minister said on "The Week In Politics" over the weekend and from what the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, said in this debate.

Will constitutional issues arise from building in a clawback? I do not see it as long as it is included as a condition now. Let us remember the discussion we had earlier on the deal with the congregations in 2002 and allow flexibility to deal with what the Americans would call a "known unknown". We would sign off in the knowledge that were an unknown value not to reach a certain level, a clawback would come into play. There is no constitutional problem if we enter into it on that basis.

Whereas NAMA will not be in the business of liquidating the assets and selling them off in car boot sales or fire sales, it will none the less take control of them and the collateral assets that have been put in place. This is a relief. Ordinary people do not realise what is going on and this is why the Government has a job to do. It needs to explain to people that this is not handing money to the banks but about taking control of the debts and managing them properly and sensibly that will not cost too much or more than is necessary and will allow us to claw back so we do not lose anything.

Through all the various criticisms that have been made of the Government I have said consistently that I am watching closely and do not think the Government has made more mistakes than any other Government and, in fact, has spent and risked less. The US Government has put $1 trillion into its banking system and has made no progress. Our plans are in a more solid position than the US economy. I would be more confident, secure and comfortable with what we propose to do than what has been done in the United States so far.

It seems Senator O'Toole will be voting for Fianna Fáil's return to Government very shortly and not only do we have a challenge to——

No, I think Fianna Fáil needs a bit of a rest.

Senator Daly should not hold his breath.

Not only do we have to explain to the citizens and taxpayers how NAMA will work but the Irish Independent of 19 May tells us that we will also have to explain it to Deputy Eamon Gilmore——

I will let Senator Daly play the politics.

——because for the past few months he has been unaware we were to take over the good loans the banks had as well as the bad loans. He stated it was astonishing that the Taoiseach told the House that NAMA, which was originally set up to take over distressed loans, would include performing loans. This was a revelation.

Once they come within the category.

He did not know that and he has been giving out about NAMA and the Government's policy over recent months since we introduced the concept. When one discusses the Labour Party as the alternative government along with Fine Gael, it is well to be aware that not only are its members not reading the fine print, they are not reading the big print either.

NAMA has come about because of the situation with the banks and we have to be aware that originally the Labour Party, which is led by Deputy Gilmore, did not want us to guarantee the money of deposit holders. It did not want us to introduce the legislation and voted against it. Fine Gael's policy is diametrically opposed to that of the Labour Party, which many authorities, financial observers, economists and the European Union stated would have led to us paying quite enormous sums because of our borrowing requirements from the EU and bond holders.

When we are considering leadership, Senator O'Toole has been gracious enough to acknowledge that the Government has taken enormous risks on whether we would guarantee the deposit holders. Initially it was up to €100,000 and then it was all deposits. That was a bold step criticised by many and was eventually followed by the Germans. Even though Chancellor Angela Merkel criticised us on the Tuesday she was doing it herself within a wet week.

There is precedent for how NAMA will work. It has been done in Sweden and in the United States. While we would like to extract vengeance on the developers who took out enormous loans and are now unable to pay——

What about the bankers who advanced it to them?

One could take vengeance on them too but ultimately the taxpayer will end up paying because——

We are looking for cures, not vengeance.

What we have to consider is how best to maximise the assets we will acquire. If we force the developers out of existence those half-finished projects will never see completion.

NAMA can complete them.

Often we have seen that the private sector can do a job more efficiently than the Office of Public Works. That is an issue that arose in the United States when it faced a similar problem a number of years ago where initially rather than taking down——

NAMA can enter joint ventures and partnerships.

Senator Coghlan and I can have a discussion about it in the bar afterwards.

I would hate to see Senator Daly go off course.

Initially, rather than taking down the developers, which people wanted to do, they had to work with the developers to maximise the value.

Senator O'Toole touched on another issue, and I will declare an interest because I am a former auctioneer. I am sure Senator Coghlan has done so already.

I did not but they know I am.

The valuation will be a key issue and we will have to be more than transparent. If it is seen that we are giving too much, the cry will go out from the media that we are trying to give money to the developers when we should be giving them less. There are a number of valuation methods on which I am sure Senator Coghlan could educate the House far more than I. The comparison method is no longer viable because land is not selling. Retail property sales do not count. We do not have any comparison valuations to go on because the last real sales were a number of years ago.

I touched on the subject but I have a methodology.

Senator Daly, without interruption.

The residual valuation method is another way to proceed or the rental value, which would be another——

There are European Commission guidelines.

There are guidelines but do we employ an army of valuers to go around the country trying to value these properties? We cannot give a "one size fits all" valuation because the valuation for undeveloped development land will not be the same as for commercial property on Grafton Street but we must come up with some method because we cannot afford to spend millions of euro on valuers' fees and go property by property, house by house, land parcel by land parcel, and development land by development land until we have all these reports.

As Senators Coghlan and MacSharry are aware, auctioneering and valuations is an art form as opposed to a science and if the method is not entirely transparent accusations will be made that we are trying to bail out developers. Labour has said we are bailing out the developers, but we are not bailing out anybody. As Senator O'Toole pointed out, we are taking over the assets. We will give money in exchange for that but when we realise the value of those assets and we subsequently get money for those, if there is a difference between what we have given the developer or the bank in the first instance and what we have realised, we will claw back the difference from the bank.

The objective is to get NAMA to work properly by giving correct and accurate valuations because we can then get the banks to work properly. In the event that there is a shortfall to the taxpayer in terms of what we initially give the banks, we will make up for that shortfall by going back to the banks and either getting shares, as the Minister pointed out, or realising it in cash.

In a real sense NAMA is a consequence of what happened to the banks, but Labour was against guaranteeing the loans. Labour is against the formation of NAMA. Labour is against everything. It does not appear to be for anything. It is never positive. It talks about job losses but it does not have any plan. All its Members are probably out canvassing because their voting record is fairly poor too, as Senator Coghlan is well aware.

Our main issue is getting the banks to work. They are not working and NAMA is a huge step in the right direction. It is a risk, as Senator O'Toole pointed out. Other countries have taken the risks and have profited, but it takes years. We will not see profit from many of the assets we will acquire in the next 12 months, 24 months or even five years. It might take ten years or more but in that time our banks will be back working and as a result our economy will be back working and we will get our people back to work.

As there is no other Senator offering I call the Minister of State to reply.

I thank Senators for their contributions on this most important policy initiative for the banking sector. I welcome the fact that Senators have generally been very positive in their comments, with many benefiting from discussions this morning in the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, with the interim managing director, Brendan McDonagh, Dr. Peter Bacon and the Minister for Finance.

I assure Senators that the extensive preparatory work required, both legislative and practical, is progressing well and will be completed before NAMA is formally established on a statutory basis.

I would like to address a number of the points made by Senators throughout the course of the debate. First I reiterate in the strongest possible terms that the Government has at all stages in the process based its decisions on advice from the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator and the National Treasury Management Agency. The Government has also received technical, legal and financial advice as required.

The core concern has been the destabilising effect of risky assets on the balance sheets of Irish banks. The Government commissioned Dr. Peter Bacon to examine the potential approaches available to it in dealing with those risky assets. Following receipt of Dr. Bacon's report, the consensus among all stakeholders and advisers was that the establishment of an asset management agency was the most effective method of dealing with risky assets and ensuring the flow of credit to the real economy.

The State's primary interest is not to meet the needs of distressed developers or bankers but to ensure that householders can access credit for home loans and consumer credit, that small and medium sized businesses can fund their enterprises, that deposit holders have confidence that their money is secure and protected and that international investors are satisfied about the stability of our banking system. That objective is best served by dealing quickly and comprehensively with the risky assets that are weighing down the balance sheets of our banks.

Senators queried the progress being made on the legislation necessary to establish NAMA and govern its operation. I noted in my opening contribution that a steering group had been established comprising the NTMA, the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office. The group meets up to twice weekly to consider a range of issues that will need to be addressed as part of the draft National Asset Management Agency Bill. It is expected the draft heads of the Bill will be ready in the coming weeks and that the Bill, subject to Government approval, will be published in July.

The Bill will necessarily be complex, not least because of the potential difficulties that will need to be addressed from operational, legal and constitutional perspectives, but as has been emphasised by the Minister for Finance on a number of occasions, we will take the necessary time in our preparation stage to get it right.

Senator Twomey mentioned the number of staff that might be required by NAMA. This matter was dealt with by some of the other speakers but it is an important issue. Mr. McDonagh, the interim managing director of NAMA, is giving initial consideration to the proposal that NAMA should be a division within the NTMA of about 30 to 40 staff, possibly based around a core of senior managers supervising panels of external service providers. The core staff would include property asset managers whose job it would be to make recommendations as to disposal or development of any properties that NAMA ends up with. Their advice on how to achieve the optimal return on NAMA loan and property assets would be based on well informed knowledge of the markets.

The question of the valuation of transferred assets has also been discussed and there was much discussion on the discount, or haircut, to be applied to the book value of such loans when they are transferred to NAMA. Senators should note that it is not possible at this stage to determine what that discount will be as it is dependent on such a wide range of factors and the fact that each loan will have to be assessed and valued individually. It is also expected that many of the loans will be distinctive, with differing legal documentation. Furthermore, European Commission requirements will have to be met.

An immediate priority for the steering group is to ensure that its proposals in regard to not only valuation methodology but also eligibility criteria for institutions and asset classes are consistent with EU rules. The Department of Finance continues to maintain a close dialogue with the European Commission.

Recruiting the necessary expertise for the NAMA project represents an important challenge to the steering group and the NAMA interim management. Senators may be aware that the NTMA recently tendered for banking and advisory services during the preparatory phase pending the establishment of NAMA on a statutory basis. There was a huge level of interest in this tender with over 600 expressions of interest. The NTMA will now assess the applicants and will have expert support in place in early June. Having the necessary expertise is a critical success factor for NAMA, ensuring that it meets its goal of ensuring a maximum return for the taxpayer.

Some speakers also referred to developers and borrowers and their likely treatment by NAMA. The Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach made clear on a number of occasions that borrowers will have to continue to meet their obligations as normal. Borrowers will owe NAMA the full amount they originally borrowed from the banks and there is no question of a bailout for any borrower. NAMA will work constructively and professionally with all parties and stakeholders to achieve its objective of ensuring the optimal return for the Exchequer. However, those unwilling to co-operate for whatever reason will face the full legal consequences available to NAMA to protect its interests.

None of us would wish to be in the unprecedented situation in which we now find ourselves. Failure to recognise and deal with the problems in our banking system is too costly to contemplate for this and future generations. The Government's response to the banking crisis has been structured and decisive. It is committed to taking whatever further steps are required to sustain the banking system and support economic recovery. The task is challenging but with borrowers, lenders, the Government and NAMA working in a spirit of co-operation and in a committed, commercial and professional manner, it is a task in which we are confident we can succeed.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Barr
Roinn