Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is quite a bit to the report. I have gone through the report and I do not expect the committee to go through all 20 pages in public session. I will highlight the key points and if members would like clarification about certain matters, that can be done subsequently. I would like to clear this today. There are one or two points that invite follow up.

We received this 20-page document before our previous meeting. I will explain and put it in context. Our report included chapters on the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, the President's establishment, Teagasc, the Office of Public Works, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Higher Education Authority, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. We made recommendations in each chapter and the Minister has responded to the committee having consulted the various Departments as to whether our recommendations are accepted. Practically all of the recommendations were accepted and only one or two were rejected. We want to deal with those issues.

Our first recommendation dealt with NAMA. The agency's lack of systematic and routine verification of declarations under section 172 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 was unacceptable and we recommended that NAMA put in place a system to verify these declarations for the remainder of its operation. This was one of the most discussed recommendations. The Minister of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform rejects this recommendation and has set out his reasons for doing so. We noted that we were conscious that NAMA had published its annual accounts recently and 95% of its work had been completed. We noted it was expecting a surplus at the end of its operation in the order of €4 billion and that we were making our recommendation for the remainder of NAMA's work. The reason given by the Minister for rejecting the recommendation is that providing purchaser compliance with the section 172 agreement would necessitate a comprehensive asset search of every purchaser of NAMA secured assets and would be time-consuming. He stated the delay could jeopardise any purchase sales and that the process would involve a comprehensive verification of purchaser confirmations and would appear to imply that NAMA does not regard purchaser's written confirmations as having much standing. He stated the recommendation operates a presumption that many purchasers of NAMA secured assets are willfully breaking the law on this issue. The committee will write to NAMA about that. Before Deputy Catherine Murphy speaks about it, I will give my own view on the matter. By asking for a verification, the committee did not at any stage suggest that NAMA-secured clients were wilfully breaking the law. That is attributing to us an assumption that we never made. The Chairman of NAMA was a former chairman of the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue has a self-assessment system in place and does spot checks now and again. That does not mean there is a presumption that all taxpayers are wilfully breaking the law. We were only suggesting some verification. We never suggested that everyone was wilfully breaking the law and I reject the implication to that effect that the Minister has thrown back at this committee.

The Minister goes on to say that NAMA is taking steps on this matter, in particular to ensure that the purchaser is the same party that executed the contract for sale. The party executing a contract for sale might not be the same party that completed the purchase agreement. It was NAMA which spotted that. The document also notes that NAMA expects new regulations to be in place under the European Union (Anti-Money Laundering: Beneficial Ownership of Corporate Entities) Regulations 2019 on 22 November. A central register of beneficial ownership of companies and industrial and provident societies will be publicly available at that stage. Even at EU level, there is acceptance of the need for some verification but that will not happen until the end of November when NAMA will be nearly finished its work.

I want to counter any suggestion that has been attributed to this committee by NAMA that we were even remotely making a presumption that people were wilfully breaking the law. We never made any such presumption.