Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

The function of the valuation panel is to valuate assets, and the qualification requirements in respect of potential appointees reflect that. There is no reason that people with the qualifications listed cannot also have a social policy perspective. The valuation panel will be appointed by the Minister for Finance, not by Fianna Fáil, as Deputy Burton suggested. This endeavour is far too important for anybody to be appointed solely or mainly on the basis of political connections. I completely reject the charge of potential cronyism in that regard.

The issue of appointments to the valuation panel, including the question of a role for an Oireachtas committee in the appointment process, was debated extensively in the Dáil. Arising from those discussions, the Minister amended the provisions relating to the valuation panel in the Seanad in order to set out the qualifications required of appointees. It should be noted that the panel will act as an appeals board in the event that the participating institution and NAMA disagree on the value of the assets to be transferred. While there are several conditions surrounding such appeals, the essence is that an institution may appeal only if it considers that the total market value of its assets is greater than the value proposed by NAMA, including the long-term economic value. Appointments to this type of appeals panel are an executive rather a legislative matter and, as such, it is proper for the Minister to make them. Moreover, appointments to the valuation panel are not conducive to a lengthy process. Consequently, I cannot accept the Deputy's proposed amendment to amendment No. 9.

It can be taken as given that NAMA's valuations will be cautious. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that the success of NAMA is not dependent on a return to bubble prices. Based on provisional estimates and taking into account a risk-sharing mechanism, NAMA requires only a 10% increase in property prices over ten years to break even. Only the banks can dispute the valuation; debtors have no role in the matter. The transaction is between the bank or building society and NAMA. As I said, the institutions can only dispute the total valuation of their assets, not that of individual properties. This means the maximum number of appeals is the same as the number of institutions in the system. Only the market value can be disputed; the long-term economic value is not reassessed by the valuation tribunal. The Minister may ask the valuation panel to look again at a valuation only where the panel finds that the institution in question has been paid too little. Therefore, the Minister's role is very limited and should not be exaggerated.

See this speech in context