Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Is there an obligation on NAMA to inquire as to the likely future use of a property following on disposal? In other words, would it not be wise and in the interests of NAMA and the taxpayer for NAMA to inquire as to what is likely to happen to a property, be that houses already built or potential development land, including, for example, whether a buyer intends to hold onto the property until such time as it appreciates in value, given current low interest rates and the possibility of a much lower dividend from the financial sector?

In regard to the local authorities' reluctance to take up offers from NAMA, were the properties concerned suitable for families or were they deemed by the local authorities to be unsuitable and to what extent, where a particular reason in that regard has been identified, has NAMA examined how best to make available properties to the local authorities into the future?

On the per square foot cost of building a house, in respect of which we have heard various projections in the past few days, has NAMA undertaken analysis in that regard, including in regard to the per square foot cost, the land value and the tax impact? Do the witnesses appreciate that it is virtually impossible for an average family with an average income to purchase a house on the market, bearing in mind the Central Bank requirements in regard to deposits and the necessity to ensure house property inflation remains low? In 1978, owing to rapidly increasing inflation in the housing sector, housing was removed from the consumer price index, CPI.

It appears there was huge inflation in house and property prices that was not visible before that.

I should mentioned that I am not in favour of selling to private or approved bodies. They have abysmally failed in delivering the housing requirement and nothing will change that unless and until local authorities take direct responsibility and are recognised as the most likely body to provide alternative housing from the private sector. With respect to local authorities, it appears from my investigations that the majority of options are for the private housing or approved housing bodies and not local authorities. It seems it was not possible for the local authorities to access it, given the balance sheet issue, so the witness may comment on that.

There is the hoarding issue and an inquiry into a purchaser who intends to hoard and for what purpose is required. Is NAMA aware that some of the lands and properties acquired over the past number of years in the downturn were the subject of multiple turnovers in ownership over a period, with each occasion inflating the price of the property hugely? In some cases, properties were turned over up to ten times, each time with a profit for the speculator. The question arising is whether adequate efforts are being made to ensure that properties are not disposed of to speculators. I have no difficulty with somebody making a profit but the profit has been made several times. We are now talking about a vital piece of national infrastructure, housing for people.

My next question relates to Kildare County Council, a body of which I was a member for more than a few years. There were 298 houses, I presume, made available. Why was it not able to take those houses? Were they unsuitable, as I have been informed, or in the wrong place, which is a possibility? Was there some other reason? Properties were purchased by NAMA, some at a large write-down of 40%, but in the context of the overall cost to the State, to what extent have those properties progressed in the interim? In other words, if NAMA paid €100 million for a group of properties, how would they have appreciated since? What is the profit range, taking into account how much was paid for the properties and how much they are now worth? Could NAMA be hoarding them?