Mr. Brendan McDonagh:

In regard to the 1,647 properties sold or leased, we have a live portfolio and our debtors are anxious to sell if they have an opportunity to do so at a good price. It is very hard to stop that happening. If they say they have kept properties vacant for three months and the local authority has not come back to them or the Housing Agency has not been in touch, they will just lease them again to the private sector. That is the nature of a live portfolio

The Deputy spoke about our leases being cumbersome. We do not accept that at all. We have established leases with almost all of the major approved housing bodies now and they are well used to our lease. There are no tricks in the lease as it is a standard format. We accept that, at the start, each housing body had its own form of lease and did not want to move away from that. However, we have said we would use our lease and they have come around and accepted it. I understand everybody finds it difficult to change, but we try to do it the same way for everybody.

The Deputy mentioned the various working groups established by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. We are not directly involved in that area. Members of my team are involved in some working groups which arose on foot of Construction 2020 and which are looking at various issues, including as infrastructure and planning. We are participating in that in so far as it is relevant. The Deputy suggested providing land free to local authorities. We cannot do that. Under section 10 of the Act, the receiver will insist that he gets market value for the land. However, we have facilitated the passing over of land to State bodies at market value where they have raised their hands and said they wanted it.

Deputy Ó Broin mentioned the Clonburris SDZ in terms of innovation. We are all for innovation. Some previous SDZs have not worked. One of the highest profile ones that did not work out was probably Cherrywood as there were issues around it. Another SDZ that has not worked out is Hansfield, Blanchardstown. We have a very good relationship with South Dublin County Council and its excellent manager, Mr. McLoughlin and in terms of our experience with SDZs, our planning team has engaged with him frequently in regard to SDZs and we are all for whatever will produce the best outcome.

The programme for Government mentions the surplus and whether the surplus can be cash or something else. This is provided for under section 60 of the NAMA Act. It provides that either cash or residual assets will be returned at the end. Therefore, if we have unsold assets, that can be done. In regard to information on house costs, we will come back to Deputy on those. Our internal quantity surveyors are looking at costs and we have examined them with our debtors also. There is no huge variation at this stage, which is the reason I raised the issue of the report of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI. Although industry bodies sometimes have their own agenda, I feel that the SCSI has produced a reasonable report.

Deputy Ó Broin mentioned infrastructural deficits such as roads, sewerage and water. Previously, in the good times, developers used to borrow from the banks and pay for the infrastructure. That day is gone and nobody, including NAMA, will provide all the money up-front as there may be no product at the end. We want product. The Chairman asked how many of the 48,000 housing units in Dublin that need this infrastructure are in NAMA and the answer is approximately 13,000 to 14,000. We are very anxious that local authorities will take on this work and we are engaged with the Department in informing it of the deficits and making it fully aware of them.

Mention was also made of the special purchase vehicle, SPV. This is a model that can be replicated and all that is required is funding. If the SPV has the funding capital to buy the housing stock, it can then lease to local authorities.

I do accept the Deputy's point that the local authorities are constrained, effectively because their capital budgets were taken away and they could not buy the houses. That is why we did the leasing model. We do recognise that the local authorities and the approved housing bodies do not have the capital to buy. However, I think one of the big points here is - if one looks at the UK model - there has been a move to merge a large number of approved housing bodies in the UK. When a merger was enforced among them it resulted in a lot of stock on their balance sheets which had been funded by capital grants over the years. The approved housing bodies then became municipal vehicles in that they can borrow money on the strength of existing stock on their balance sheets and use that to buy new stock. I would welcome this type of innovative model and it could be looked upon as a sensible way to leverage up.