Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Sure. We can get the detail in writing.

I will work backwards, almost, through some of the points my colleagues have made. As regards the purposes of NAMA, Deputy Doherty was quite right in how he phrased his contribution, and they are in the legislation. Right below the line about "dealing expeditiously", which has been quoted extensively, is paragraph (c), which states that one of the purposes of NAMA is "protecting or otherwise enhancing the value of those assets, in the interests of the State". That is not getting as much as you can from the loan for how much you paid for it; it is "protecting or ... enhancing the value of those assets, in the interests of the State". The Act goes on to refer to obtaining "the best achievable financial return for the State". I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett and many others: I think NAMA could have been conceived in a more ambitious way, initially, whereby we look to what is actually the best value for money for the State, which is not necessarily always about the money return but about how we could have used this land in a way to plan for our collective future better. Nonetheless, within the legislation, it is extremely clear that the job was to make the best money, "the best achievable financial return". The job was to protect and enhance "the value of those assets, in the interests of the State". Frankly, in what we have heard today, that did not seem to be accepted as being the purpose of NAMA, but it is the purpose of NAMA as it was presented to the Oireachtas and in the legislation, in section 10. Sadly, NAMA does not seem to have delivered on that purpose because the choices that have been made have not always contributed to the protection or the enhancement of the value of the assets, the delivering of the best interests of the State or the delivery of "the best achievable financial return". That is either a matter of incompetence within NAMA or a matter of a misunderstanding. I was concerned that Mr. Carville mentioned at some point - and I do not want to directly quote him because I would have to look at the transcript - what sounded like something to the effect of allowing borrowers to move on. Borrowers were not the focus. The public interest, the public and the taxpayer - that is who NAMA was meant to serve. I see that there are many borrowers whose assets entered NAMA, and they seem to have come out very well from NAMA, but they were not the core purpose of the legislation. The public was meant to be those getting the delivery. We need to be really clear on the record. I was concerned that it was suggested that this was vague. It is there in the legislation. It is right alongside the question of "expeditiously". Since the word "expeditiously" has been invoked repeatedly, it is appropriate that protecting or enhancing the value of the assets should be properly examined.