Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. This is what I want to ask about. I suspect many people share my fear that the number of social housing units will be relatively paltry. I wonder whether the officials think that is a legitimate fear. In any case, the State will not gain from these units - the approved housing bodies will. Is it not the case that the net objective of NAMA is to get the money back and refloat the property market? Is it not the case that the result of NAMA will be to put many of those who got us into this mess back in business? That is what alarms me when I hear that NAMA is employing 62 of the biggest developers in the country who have helped to wreck the economy and paying them over €100,000 a year. It might be excusable for it to employ them if they have certain skills. Am I right to say we are paying them that money, even though, in most cases, they will regain ownership of their property portfolios at the end of this process? Is it not the case that NAMA is holding out to them the option of being back in business if they repay their loans? I find it problematic that we are paying them to help them to get back into business. Have I given a fair assessment of what NAMA is doing?

By contrast, the social dividend of NAMA's activities is minimal. Mr. Daly has said NAMA has provided approximately 1,100 social houses and has an objective of providing approximately 4,000 such houses. Will he clarify whether that is what we are getting? Given that there are over 100,000 people on the property waiting list, should we not be entitled to expect more than 1,100 social houses from NAMA? Does Mr. Daly think the State will get good value, given that the approved housing bodies which will be given responsibility for these social houses are private entities, or certainly not State entities? Much of the money they will be using to lease the property from NAMA will be State money, in effect, that comes through private bodies in the form of rent allowance payments.

As I understand it, the approved bodies are housing associations. Some of them are for-profit bodies, while some of them are not-for-profit bodies. They are not part of the State system. They will lease the properties. Mr. Daly has said NAMA will give them the option to buy them. Is that right? These properties could be used to give people social housing, with rental revenues coming back to the State in the long term, but the net effect will be the other way around. We will be handing over properties that we currently control. They will be out of our control. The rental revenue will go to these bodies rather than coming back to the State. I do not think that is good value for money from NAMA's point of view. It is definitely not good value from the point of view of the State and its citizens. If we keep the assets we have, a long-term rental revenue stream will come back to us. If it is good business for them, why is it not good business for us? Why are we disposing of them?

I will not go into the details of the Farrell case because Mr. Daly has explained it very well. It is obvious that he cannot elaborate on the investigation. It can be added to other similar instances such as the case of a former senior lending officer now working for a firm which bought loans from NAMA. As NAMA disposes of these assets to developers and property investors, is it not inevitable that it will create conditions that give rise to potential conflicts of interest and the possibility of corruption? If we kept the commercial and housing property in State hands, we would not have that problem. We could rationally organise the commercial property market in the interests of fostering enterprise and business, etc. We could use the residential properties to house the 100,000 people who are on waiting lists. Why can we not house more people? In what sense is it good for the State for us to be disposing of this property? It is going out of our hands. Private investors, rather than the State, will ultimately benefit from it. That is really the point.

I would like to comment on the issue raised with regard to the person who worked for NAMA but is now working for one of these purchasers. Should there not be a cooling off period of a minimum of two years before someone who has worked for NAMA is allowed to work for a company which has the potential to benefit from its engagement with NAMA? Such a person should not be allowed to take up a job with a private entity which could possibly benefit from his or her previous involvement with NAMA, or the knowledge that person might have taken with him or her for a minimum of two years. Would that not be a reasonable requirement?

I would like one of the representatives of NAMA to clarify some numbers. I understand 10,000 of NAMA's properties are rented and that 3,800 of its properties are being used for social housing. Is that it? How much more is there? Why is there not more? That is what I really want to know. Will the officials tell us how much residential property NAMA has in total? Does NAMA expect any more of its housing stock to be used as social housing? We have been told that NAMA has "identified approximately 3,800 units for social housing" and has "confirmed demand for 1,200 of these houses and apartments". Why is there a delay in meeting the demand that has been confirmed?