Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

NAMA has entered into many long-term leasing arrangements with local authorities and housing associations. How does that sit with its lifespan? How does that sit with the dividend that is to be returned to the State? When is it expected there will be an interim dividend? When is NAMA's lifespan due to end and what dividend can the State expect? While I respect and acknowledge that the legislation governing NAMA's set-up was of course one of a commercial mandate, there was also mention of a social mandate.

Perhaps NAMA will be deemed profitable at the end of the day and the social mandate will accrue to the State at that stage, and the funding associated with any profitability will be used for the purpose of addressing the crisis and emergency that we have at present. It is incumbent on the State, and those with authority within the State, to ensure the funding is accessible and used for the right purposes from our perspective.

My next question is on the lending rates that NAMA may be charging developers. What are they on average? How do they compare with the open market? How do they compare with what is charged by the mezzanine funds in which the State is involved in some instances? This may address the answer Mr. Daly just gave, when he spoke about the State having a role to play in the freeing up of 100,000 units. The State has a role to play in charging appropriate rates if it is involved in making available strategic investment funding. Such rates should be competitive and real and should yield a dividend for those partaking in the development. At present, funding cannot be obtained, and what funding can be obtained is at exorbitant rates. In some instances, only 60% of funding is being provided, at exorbitant rates, and more exorbitant rates are charged by mezzanine funds to make up the difference that exists.

With regard to Project Arrow, Mr. Daly mentioned that 425 units were taken out due to the potential for a social dividend. What percentage of the entire residential portfolio did this entail? With regard to the 20,000 units NAMA hopes to build by 2020, what obligation has the State placed on NAMA in legislation to provide social units? Is it 10% or 20%? The previous Government reduced the obligation under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 from 20% to 10%. I did not expressly agree with this, but I know where it was coming from; it could have freed up ways and means for development to take place while allowing the 20% obligation to remain in place. I refer again to the 100,000 units that are not being provided and the reasons they are not being provided. Will Mr. Daly enlighten us on the obligations placed upon NAMA, if any, in this regard?