Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have received no apologies.

Is mian liom na riachtanais bhunreachtúla seo a leanas a mheabhrú do chomhaltaí agus páirt á nglacadh acu i gcruinnithe poiblí. Caithfidh comhaltaí a bheith i láthair go fisiciúil laistigh de theorainneacha shuíomh Theach Laighean. Ní cheadóidh mé do chomhaltaí páirt a ghlacadh i gcruinnithe poiblí nuair nach bhfuil siad ag cloí leis an riachtanas bunreachtúil seo. Mar sin, má dhéanann aon chomhalta iarracht páirt a ghlacadh ó lasmuigh den suíomh, iarrfaidh mé orthu an cruinniú a fhágáil. Maidir leis seo, iarraim ar chomhaltaí a dheimhniú go bhfuil siad i láthair laistigh de phurlán Theach Laighean sula ndéanann siad aon ionchur sa chruinniú ar Microsoft Teams.

Fiafraítear de chomhaltaí cleachtadh parlaiminte a urramú nár chóir, más féidir, daoine nó eintiteas a cháineadh ná líomhaintí a dhéanamh ina n-aghaidh ná tuairimí a thabhairt maidir leo ina ainm, ina hainm nó ina n-ainmneacha nó ar shlí a bhféadfaí iad a aithint. Chomh maith leis sin, fiafraítear díobh gan aon rud a rá a d’fhéadfaí breathnú air mar ábhar díobhálach do dhea-chlú aon duine nó eintiteas. Mar sin, dá bhféadfadh a ráitis a bheith clúmhillteach do dhuine nó d'eintiteas aitheanta, ordóidh mé dóibh éirí as an ráiteas láithreach. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go ngéillfidís don ordú sin láithreach.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to that constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach meets today to consider the National Treasury Management Agency (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, to make his opening statement.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a brief opening statement. This Bill provides for the orderly wind-down of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, and the special liquidation of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, by transferring residual matters to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. It dissolves NAMA, enables the transfer of outstanding IBRC matters and equips the NTMA with the necessary powers to manage and conclude these residual activities, ensuring continuity and legal certainty. The Bill reflects the fact that the substantial work of both NAMA and the IBRC special liquidators is now largely complete. It provides a streamlined structure to bring these remaining matters to final conclusion.

I acknowledge the report of the joint committee following its pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme and the recommendations it made, which have been considered and responded to by the Tánaiste. I expect that a number of these matters may arise in the course of our discussion today. I also indicate to the House that I intend to bring forward a technical amendment on Report Stage.

Before hearing from the members, I would like to make a brief remark on perception, which is something, as we all know, that differs around these buildings depending on the lens through which we look. NAMA was and will be up until its dissolution a bad bank. It had to be so. It is the organisation that will be synonymous with the financial crash in this country as history is written. It was a policy decision at the time and many will argue today about how it went about its business, but it achieved its mandate. It delivered for the Exchequer and while we might not want to say it, given the period of history to which it relates, it delivered for the country. It made a lifetime contribution of €5.6 billion to the Exchequer, comprising €4.7 billion in cash, more than €450 million in corporation tax and the transfer of assets valued at €425 million to the Land Development Agency, LDA, for retention in State ownership. It facilitated the delivery of more than 45,500 homes, including approximately 3,000 social homes. It provided for the regeneration of the Dublin docklands strategic development zone, SDZ, supporting the delivery of over 4.2 million sq. ft of commercial space and more than 2,000 homes. It also transferred to the LDA the national asset residual property service portfolio of social homes, as well as two large development sites which the LDA believes can deliver more than 7,000 homes. Give my current brief in the Department of Finance, I would like to highlight the contribution to the Dublin docklands, in particular. That area supports 40,000 jobs and 500 firms, including half of the top banks and insurance companies in the world. It is the epicentre for sectors which deliver a huge amount for Ireland.

My point is that good can come from bad. What is important now is that we resolve the legacy issues of NAMA and the IBRC, wind them down in the best possible way and put this chapter to bed with an acknowledgement of the decisions that can generate good outcomes. I look forward to engaging with colleagues on the detail of the Bill.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State outlined that people will have contested views in relation to NAMA. He is accurate in that regard. I would not say that NAMA has been a success. The Minister of State's predecessor talked about recovering all moneys that were owed on these loans. That did not happen, as we know. Tens of billions have not been recovered for the taxpayer and NAMA sold its assets instead of managing them at a time when it did not seek to get value for them. I put that on the record, just as the Minister of State has put on the record the idea that NAMA somehow was a success story.

Given that it crystalised losses of over €30 billion, that is not a success for anybody.

To return to the legislation and section 1, the Bill refers to dissolution day. It was originally intended that it would be passed in order to facilitate the conclusion of the special liquidation of the IBRC and the dissolution of NAMA by the end of 2025. My understanding was that on 25 July 2019, the European Commission approved, under EU state aid rules, a limited extension to NAMA until 2025. Was there a need to re-engage with the Commission to seek a further extension, given the fact the Government had not reached its target of having this legislation passed by the end of last year?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am informed that officials have engaged with the Commission and there was no need to seek formal approval because it was content NAMA would have been operationally wound down by the end of 2025 and there was no requirement to seek further state aid extension, pending enactment of the necessary legislation to legally dissolve the agency.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the ongoing court proceedings, how many cases are ongoing and what is the likely timescale? They will now be transferred as well so what number are we talking about here? What is the estimated cost of dealing with these cases at this stage?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Six NAMA cases and two IBRC cases are before the courts. The timescale in relation to how they will be delivered-----

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I did not hear the numbers.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are six cases and two cases.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two cases are currently pending before the courts?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is all the cases pending.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Essentially, the NTMA will be substituted for NAMA and the IBRC.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the timescale for those?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is subject to the courts. I cannot give a timescale for how those cases will be wound down. I am advised the expectation is that they will be finished within two years. The Deputy knows himself that when court cases start-----

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the cases about loans or particular properties?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In relation to the IBRC, in both cases the IBRC is taking the cases. In relation to the six NAMA cases, three cases have been taken by NAMA and three cases have been taken by the debtors as plaintiffs.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are six cases pending. Is that correct?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are eight cases in total. Six cases relate to NAMA and two cases relate to the IBRC.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were they initiated by NAMA or are they defence cases?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of the six NAMA cases, three were initiated by NAMA and three were initiated by the debtors. The two IBRC cases were initiated by the IBRC.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 4 deals with repealing amendments. This is a substantive part of the legislation as it repeals the NAMA Act 2009 and sections of eight other Acts. As we know, the NAMA Act, in particular, but also other legislation, have reshaped the banking landscape in Ireland for the last number of years. Can we be given an assurance as regards whether the repeal of this Act will have any impact on banking governance in the State? For example, even when I am engaging with the Minister for Finance on the banking levy, we refer to NAMA-participating banks. That is the language we use. Can the Minister of State assure the committee that repealing this Act and eight sections of other legislation will have no implications for the banking levy, bankers' bonuses and the reporting requirements and so on that already exist?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no impact. Where necessary, the NTMA has been substituted for the orderly wind-down. There will be no impact in terms of the general line of direction Deputy Doherty outlined.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be no impact on the banking levy, bankers' bonuses or reporting requirements as a result of the repealing of the different sections?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 6 deals with the definitions. To focus on the definition of assets in this legislation - there is a further definition later of bank assets - the definition of the assets of NAMA specifically states they include "bank assets". Will the Minister of State elaborate on that definition? We know from section 9 of the Bill that there is land. Bank assets are defined later on as a credit facility and we know what normal bank assets are. NAMA's assets are obviously wider than that. Will the Minister of State elaborate on that?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am informed they are non-exhaustive. The definitions mirror what was in the NAMA Act. It is a continuation. Whatever was defined as an asset in the NAMA Act will continue to be defined as an asset in the NTMA. It covers absolutely everything that NAMA has.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Out of curiosity, why does the definition of assets provide that it includes "bank assets"?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It mirrors exactly what was in the NAMA Act. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is simply a carry-through of what is already in the NAMA Act. It mirrors what is already there.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment involves the creation of a new section. Amendment No. 1 is in the name of an Teachta Doherty and amendment No. 2 is in the name of an Teachta O'Callaghan. Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on NAMA performance

7. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the performance of NAMA including specific analysis on the potential for higher returns to the State if the property portfolio had been managed for a longer period rather than sold off.”.

This amendment proposes to insert in the legislation a piece of text to provide that there be a report on NAMA's performance. This is appropriate given that NAMA is being wound up and its assets and staff are being transferred to the NTMA, along with other engagements or guarantees it has entered into. The amendment would require that the Minister shall, within six months of the passing of the Act, lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the performance of NAMA, including specific analysis on the potential for higher returns to the State if the property portfolio had been managed for a longer period rather than sold off.

It is important that that has happened. Whatever about politicians trying to cover themselves with the idea that it is not what happened and, therefore, that we lost billions of euro, it is important that when we bring this sorry saga to an end, the Irish public are fully aware of what was and what could have been in relation to NAMA.

We are therefore calling for a report into the performance of NAMA, specifically looking at how it could have been different if the assets had been managed and held longer. Section 227 of the original Act gives the Minister the power at any time to require NAMA to report to him or her on progress with regard to the achievement of NAMA's purposes. That was to happen every five years. The most recent report under that section was in 2023 and recommended the winding up of NAMA. Section 226 set the Comptroller and Auditor General the task of reporting on NAMA's progress towards achieving its overall objectives. In the C and AG's last report, in 2024, it concluded that "NAMA did not achieve the residential output target" by the end of 2021. It had delivered 11,049 units on site in which it had an interest, and that represented a delivery of 55% of the target a year later than originally projected. That is a poor performance in the middle of a housing crisis.

NAMA also failed on housing delivery. In the report, the C and AG states:

NAMA estimated that sites sold by NAMA debtors/receivers by end 2024 had the potential to deliver 105,000 residential units. By end 2024, an estimated 27,108 units had been constructed on sites sold. This level of delivery represents just 26% of the estimated overall capacity of the residential development sites sold by NAMA debtors/receivers to end 2024.

That is another appalling indictment of NAMA's performance in relation to the sale of land that was available to build properties. We see that the delivery of that was a fraction of the potential. NAMA, as the Minister of State mentioned, paid €31.8 billion to banks to purchase loans in respect of which the borrowers owed €74.4 billion. His predecessor promised that every penny would still be owed. The banks incurred losses of €42.6 billion, precipitating their requirement for recapitalisation, or a bailout, at the time. At the end of 2025, NAMA's projected €5.2 billion surplus, including the €400 million in corporation tax it paid, would be transferred to the Exchequer.

It is difficult to understand how NAMA managed such poor outturns, given that it was handed a portfolio of assets at the bottom of the market. There was a huge reduction in the carrying value, a 57% decrease. We see the complete recovery of the market and even a deepening of the housing crisis in residential property. NAMA got the portfolio at rock bottom and the market has fully covered, yet the agency has not in any way made the recovery of the asset value that underpins these loans. NAMA, in my view, sold off assets to vulture funds at rock-bottom prices. I think that was partly driven by the policy of the Minister at the time, who argued quite openly that he wanted to find the bottom of the market. It was the wrong policy.

We need a full and frank analysis. This is the Irish people's money. It is not the Government's money, Fine Gael's money or Fianna Fáil's money. It is Irish taxpayers who are on the hook for this money, and they deserve the truth about the dismal performance of NAMA in a market that has fully recovered. It did not do what it said on the tin to manage the assets to receive the value that was there. We need that full analysis.

The work of the C and AG is beyond reproach, but he is limited in the analysis he can give. The other report was carried out by NAMA itself. Given, as was said, that NAMA was a result of the crashing of this economy, the unbridled gambling that was taking place within the banking sector and the developers and the culture that the Minister of State's party oversaw in terms of light-touch, and indeed no-touch, regulation, as well as the cosiness between politicians, bankers and regulators, I would argue strongly, now that this part of the story has been brought to an end, that the people deserve the truth. This report should be furnished and published. Let everybody see what could have been and what was, warts and all.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These two amendments are very important and are very much in the public interest. We are talking about public money here. To give one example, when I was a councillor - and this was not in the area I represented but it involves the council I was a member of - NAMA had in Balbriggan a portfolio of 42 homes that were effectively finished. They were sold at rock-bottom prices. Then the entity that bought them secured a long-term lease with the council for the next 20 years on those 42 homes, giving it a guaranteed income. On foot of that long-term lease, it then flipped the 42 homes within a matter of months at a massive profit because their value from that long-term lease was guaranteed, with the rental income for the subsequent years. One arm of the State was selling these homes at a rock-bottom price and another arm of the State was coming in and guaranteeing that the mortgage would be paid back for the new buyer on this development over the next 20 years. That was guaranteed with the rental income. Then the entity that bought at the rock-bottom prices got an absolute windfall. If this amendment is passed and the Minister does this, we need to know the different examples of this across the country in order that there is transparency around what happened and who profited from it.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Theachta Timmins, you had indicated earlier.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to make a general comment. I do not know the specifics of the cases that-----

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The discussion is on the amendments, Deputy. You can talk about the section afterwards if you wish.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have a comment on the amendment, just a comment on comments the two previous speakers have made.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The way it works is that the discussion is now on the amendments, then it will be on the section and then you will have a chance to speak on the Bill.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In that case, I do not wish to speak on this amendment.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak in support of the amendments. Reference was made to the necessity to undertake exercises of this nature in the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report. This would be an important exercise in public accountability. If we reflect back less than a generation ago, this was a sorry chapter in the history of the State. There has been little real accountability, notwithstanding the work of the finance committee a number of years ago and the banking inquiry, and very little clarity about what happened, why it happened, who was responsible and so on. Any review is not to apportion blame; it is to have clear evidence.

This is a contested space, and I made reference to that in my Second Stage speech, as to whether or not the values realised on certain properties reflected market value at the time. We tend to look at these things, I accept, in retrospect, with the benefit of hindsight and with information that might not have been available at the time. All these things are open questions. Reviews have been done before. From what I can recall, Professor John FitzGerald had initiated a review of sorts at one point. I cannot quite recollect the general findings of that review, but now that NAMA has been given, for the want of a better description, a decent burial and the dust has settled on that chapter of recent Irish history, it is time we had a proper interrogation of what happened and an objective analysis of how NAMA performed. It would be a useful exercise in accountability and something we can learn from in the event that initiatives like this are considered or have to be considered in the future. Let us hope they do not because we are still dealing with the outworkings of the economic crash now, most evidently in the precarious nature of our dysfunctional housing system.

I support the amendments.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to put some balance on it, my recollection is that the CEO, Mr. Brendan McDonagh, when he appeared before the committee, disputed many of the arguments we have just heard. He said that many assets sold were sold successfully. There are swings and roundabouts. Mr. McDonagh, who had more knowledge than anyone in this room, gave a much more balanced interpretation of the success, or otherwise, of NAMA.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, we brought him forward in relation to this.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, I just wanted to remind the committee of that.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Aire Stáit like to comment on amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which are related and being discussed together? They would insert new sections 7 and 10.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for proposed amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which together seek to require the Minister to lay before the Houses reports on NAMA's performance, including analysis of whether higher returns could potentially have been achieved by retaining assets for longer, and a comparison of disposal values with subsequent valuations. I acknowledge the intentions underlying these proposals. Scrutiny of NAMA's performance and of the value delivered to the taxpayer is both appropriate and important. This matter has already been considered in some detail, including during pre-legislative scrutiny, when a comprehensive response was provided by the Tánaiste. It was also discussed on Second Stage. I will set out why the amendments are neither necessary nor practical.

First, NAMA's performance has already been subject to extensive reporting and ongoing scrutiny over its lifetime. NAMA produced quarterly and annual accounts, laid before the Oireachtas and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Department of Finance conducted statutory five-year reviews examining progress against its objectives. These reports were also published. The Comptroller and Auditor General also conducted independent statutory reviews, including the most recent report published earlier this month. NAMA has been subject to parliamentary questions and committee appearances over its lifetime, which has provided additional information and insight into its operations and performance. Taken together, these provide a comprehensive and independent evidence base on NAMA's performance over time.

Second, the available evidence indicates that NAMA has met, and in some respects exceeded, its original objectives. The Comptroller and Auditor General estimates a lifetime return of approximately 6.8% compared with an original expectation of 5%. NAMA delivered a lifetime contribution of €5.6 billion to the State and eliminated a significant contingent liability through early redemption of its senior debt. More broadly, it is widely regarded internationally as a successful example of a State-backed asset management agency.

Turning to the specific proposals in the amendments, there are significant practical and legal limitations. It is important to recall that NAMA did not acquire property assets. It acquired and managed loans secured on property, with the underlying assets remaining in the ownership of debtors or receivers. Once those loans were resolved, or the underlying assets were disposed of, they left the NAMA system.

It is also important to recall that NAMA operated within a statutory mandate set by the Oireachtas and a binding EU state aid framework, under which it was required to report regularly to the European Commission on progress towards completing its mandate. Together, these frameworks required NAMA to manage and dispose of its portfolio expeditiously rather than retain assets indefinitely. We can argue about whether that was right or wrong but that was the mandate set for it. NAMA was not established as a long-term asset holder. It would not have been appropriate for the agency to engage in speculative behaviour by retaining its portfolio in the hope of future price increases.

As a recent report by Professor John FitzGerald found, the Irish Government was under external pressure to persuade NAMA to sell off its assets more rapidly. The report concluded that, in resisting these pressures, continuing to adhere to its preferred disposal strategy and taking adequate time to realise the full value of the assets, the right approach was taken. The report also notes that it did not make sense for NAMA to begin a substantial programme of asset sales in Ireland in 2011 or 2012. The recovery in the Irish economy from 2013 played a vital role in allowing NAMA to obtain a better return from the assets it acquired.

The report also recognised, as Professor John FitzGerald observed, that there will have been cases where holding assets for longer would have realised a higher profit. However, there are also cases where the price achieved by NAMA exceeded the current value of those assets. It is important to recognise that, as with any lender, where debtors were in a position to refinance or repay their loans as market conditions improved, these loans exited the NAMA system. NAMA could not, and should not, prevent borrowers from refinancing and moving on where they were able to do so. I accept that this was not always the case. What I have outlined reflects the normal functioning of a recovering financial system. As a result, NAMA does not systematically retain or control information on subsequent resale values or updated values. Constructing such a database retrospectively would require assembling information from a wide range of third-party sources, many of which may not be publicly available or could be commercially sensitive.

More fundamentally, the proposal to assess whether higher returns could have been achieved by holding assets for longer is inherently counterfactual. It relies on assumptions about market conditions, financing costs and risks that cannot be robustly reconstructed. Subsequent valuations do not provide a reliable basis for assessing decisions taken at the time, based on the information then available. In many cases, assets were further developed, restructured or invested in after disposal, and any uplift in value reflects those subsequent actions rather than the position at the time of sale. This is not unique to NAMA. It reflects the normal operation of property and asset markets, where value evolves over time in response to investment, development and changing market conditions. No person or entity other than the property owner would have information on funds invested after the sale, whether capital or operating expenses, which would be required to form a robust comparison of asset values over time. This is key information that cannot be obtained, even by the Department of Finance. Without this, any such analysis would be incomplete and potentially misleading. There are also strict statutory confidentiality obligations, with limited disclosure of debtor-specific and commercially sensitive information, and these obligations continue after NAMA's dissolution.

It is also important to situate this discussion in the context of NAMA's overall outcome. NAMA has delivered a financial return to the State, repaid the debt in full and substantially completed its mandate. The evidence demonstrates that it achieved its core objective in managing a complex and high-risk portfolio.

Again, NAMA was established to manage a portfolio of impaired loans, not to hold assets indefinitely in expectation of higher future values. It operated within a clear statutory and state aid framework which required it to manage and dispose of assets over time in a manner that supported financial stability. An approach based on retaining assets on a speculative basis would not only have exposed the State to ongoing market risk, delayed deleveraging and potentially hindered the recovery of the wider financial system but it would also have been inconsistent with, and potentially in contravention of, the European state aid decision governing NAMA. In that context, comparisons with later market values do not provide a meaningful basis for assessing decisions taken at the time. The central premise underlying these amendments, that NAMA's performance can be assessed by comparing disposal values with subsequent valuations, or by assuming assets could simply have been held for longer, is not well founded. Such comparisons do not provide a meaningful basis for assessing NAMA's performance and would not yield robust insights. More broadly, NAMA's overall performance has already been subject to extensive reporting, auditing and independent review over the many years since its establishment, providing a comprehensive evidence base on its outcome. For that reason, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not surprised by what the Minister of State has read out, because I do not think he would like the public to see the truth in relation to what happened with NAMA.

That is all we are asking for here. We are asking for the report to be carried out, as NAMA has been wound up, to let the public see - warts and all - how an agency took on €74 billion in loans and ended up recovering less than half of that. That is the reality; it recovered €37 billion out of €74.4 billion in book value on the loans. That has happened at a time when the market has fully recovered.

I am not naive enough to think there were not parcels of that portfolio in land, for example, that were way overvalued; I know they existed in places in Donegal and elsewhere. However, to recover less than half of the book value in a market that is now fully recovered, is problematic, but it is not just that. It sold land that was available for housing development in the middle of a housing emergency that had only one in four houses built on it, according to the C and AG. The social housing targets it had were missed by nearly 50% - off by a country mile - and the Government continues to parrot the idea that NAMA has been a success story. It has not been a success story; that is the reality of it.

Deputy Timmins came in here to protect the blushes of the Government, stating the CEO of NAMA made this comment and that comment. Of course, the CEO of NAMA would say that. They are the people who did the fire sale of these loans. I was quoting the Comptroller and Auditor General, who stated that NAMA has failed to meet its own targets on social housing and land disposal. The reality is, if I turned around to anybody and said, "Here is €70 billion in loans; give me whatever, €30 billion, for it and the loans will recover in ten or 12 years", and they told me they had still only recovered half the value of it, that would be a failure, folks. This is a failure.

We could argue about the raison d'êtreof NAMA. The Minister of State has argued at length that it was not supposed to hold on in the long term and all the rest, but that was a policy decision that happened after the fact. That was Michael Noonan's decision. He wanted to find a floor on the property market, and he invited in the vulture funds which then wreaked havoc on people's lives. That is what he did, and that is why NAMA started to sell its properties from 2013 onwards. The actual Act is very clear in relation to what NAMA was supposed to do. It refers to:

(c) the holding, managing and realising of those assets by that Agency (including the collection of interest and capital due, the taking or taking over of collateral where necessary and the provision of funds where appropriate),

(d) the taking by that Agency of all steps necessary or expedient to protect, enhance and better realise the value of assets transferred to it.

At no stage in the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 does it say that NAMA needed to start selling properties to satisfy an agenda of Fine Gael which was about inviting and rolling out the red carpet for the vulture funds. That is what happened here. We are demanding here that the public be given the full truth. They deserve the truth because €30 billion of their money has gone up in smoke. As we bring an end to this sorry saga by dissolving NAMA, we bring the curtain down on that. However, we must also make it very clear that the commitments that were made at the time - that all loans would be pursued and all money would be paid - have not been realised.

I have a simple question for the Minister of State. Why does he fear a report, if he is so convinced that NAMA has done a great job and has met its targets? Surely that report would be a glowing reference to the handling of this issue by his Government and previous Governments and indeed by NAMA itself. Alternatively, is it the case that the Minister of State fears this report because he knows it will show very clearly that if this agency had managed the assets for a longer period, billions of euro more would be in the coffers of the Irish taxpayer instead of going up in smoke?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments are about transparency and accountability. We have nothing to fear from having as much transparency as possible on this. I do not think the reasons the Minister of State put forward regarding the challenges of setting out this information sufficiently outweigh the public interest in doing so. I accept that any compilation of information on this scale involves a lot of work.

As I said on Second Stage, this was a massive missed opportunity to ensure much more affordable housing for people; for example, through the land banks that were sold on. The Minister of State talked about assets, but we are also talking about people's homes and about how land banks should have been developed for people's homes. This could have been done at a more affordable rate.

The Minister of State also talked about the various reasons that values would have increased, but he did not acknowledge the example I gave, whereby in some instances the value increased because there were State-backed long-term leases secured. That is a matter of public interest. Why was one arm of the State increasing the value of homes that had been sold off at a rock-bottom price by another arm of the State? Why was there not a joined-up approach when housing was going to go into long-term lease for social housing anyway? Why was it not sold to the local authority at a rock-bottom price? Why was it sold to a private entity? The cost for the State and the local authority over the next 20 years was magnified because of the way those sales were done. That was a massive cost to the taxpayer. For what was and is being spent on those long-term leases, the homes could have been bought at a better price and held by the State for perpetuity. Instead, the State has ended up putting a very expensive deal together and getting a poor price for 20 years of social housing. It would have been more cost-effective to get them at a rock-bottom price, or at least at a better price, and for them to be held in State or local authority ownership for good.

None of those issues were addressed by the Minister of State, and I certainly want to press my amendment.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reject Deputy Doherty's cheap shot.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should really be about the Minister of State, but I will allow it because the Deputy's name was mentioned. He may go ahead.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A personal attack was made on me. I completely reject that claim that I would come in here "to protect the blushes of the Government". It is a cheap shot. That kind of commentary does not do this committee any favours. It debases politics in here. I come in here to do my best, to be objective and to provide balance. That kind of commentary does not help the operation of this committee. I reject that cheap shot.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the matter of these amendments, there is an impression being given that there has been no accountability in respect of the disposal of properties. It is important to realise that when you have property that you are in control of, you also have to manage it.

In 2008 and 2009, you could not give away property. You could not physically give away houses at the time. We had a 15% unemployment rate, which everyone is forgetting about. When a programme was launched in 2012 to create 100,000 jobs, people scoffed at it. Instead, 1 million jobs have been created. That process has turned around the economy and the demand for housing. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, people were not able to borrow money to buy houses. The developers who were there were all in financial trouble. There were no new people coming in. To suggest that we gave away property is wrong. If you hold onto property, there is a cost factor in managing it. This factor was far greater than what you could achieve long-term.

The Deputy highlighted that there was over €70 billion in borrowings, but that is the kind of property we are talking about. There was a huge volume of property that had to be managed, and there was no economic forecast that the number of jobs that have been created over the past 12 or 13 years were going to be created.

There was no economic forecast that we would have a pick-up in the economy and a surplus rather than a deficit. We have to take that into account when dealing with this. We have accountability all along the way, both to the Department, and from the Department to Oireachtas Members and the Minister, and therefore we are now doing a winding-up of this sad situation that occurred as a result of the banks throwing money at people. There were practices which were totally outrageous, with the way that money was freely thrown at people buying a house. For example, they were asked about including in a 25-year mortgage the cost of buying a new car. That was going on. The banks were giving out 110% of the cost of houses that were being bought. That drove the price.

I came across a situation where someone had built up a lot of property over a period. They borrowed €4.6 million from a bank to develop the property, which was going to cost €3 million, but the other €1.5 million was to buy bank shares from the bank that was giving out the loan. They were the kind of outrageous things that were happening in the period prior to the collapse. It is about getting back and building up confidence in the economy and in investment. It was well into 2017 or 2018 before that confidence was rebuilt.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think it is fair to say that there has been no transparency or scrutiny over the lifetime of NAMA, which is a charge that some seem to be making here today. The fact is that NAMA produced quarterly and annual accounts. Those accounts were laid before the Oireachtas and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In his contribution, Deputy Doherty acknowledged the good work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and even referenced some of the points that they made in the negative in relation to social housing provision figures. He accepts some of what the Comptroller and Auditor General is saying when it suits the narrative that he wants to make, but in the same breath he is suggesting we need somebody else to watch over the work they have done.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, not at all.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let the Minister of State respond.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department of Finance conducted five-year reviews. It examined progress against its objectives. These reports were published. The Comptroller and Auditor General has also conducted independent statutory reviews. The most recent report was published earlier this year. Going back to the principle of what NAMA was established for, to be fair, no party opposite supported the establishment of NAMA at the time. It was debated in the Oireachtas and they voted against it, but it was established with a mandate set by the Oireachtas. It had a binding EU state aid framework under which it was required to report to the European Commission on the progress towards completing its mandate.

Section 10 of the Act required it to deal expeditiously with assets acquired. It is very hard to compare valuations of maybe two or three years after, or even a decade after a loan was sold, and to say that was undersold. It takes no account of potential investments that could have been made. Some of these properties and assets were unfinished. It was sold to bring it to a completion. The Deputy quite rightly referred to land that was overvalued at the very beginning. Enhanced value was achieved for other lands, maybe through obtaining planning permission, and it was subsequently sold, so there could be land that was valued at a certain amount one day and, 12 months later, with the benefit of full planning permission, was infinitely more valuable than it was on the first day. I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. The fundamental point is that in terms of accountability, scrutiny, and transparency, the reports are there. For that reason, it is not intended to accept these amendments.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take indications. I ask people to stick to the premise of the amendment and not to speak about each other, as we do not want an over and back as we deal with a Bill.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move this to a vote now if that is okay. I accept Deputy Timmins's role on this committee and I hope he will side with me on this vote. I am encouraging him. As the Minister of State reminded us, we were all on the same side when NAMA was established.

Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a democratic committee.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I try my best.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are different views on this. This amendment is about transparency and having an understanding of what would have been possible if NAMA had managed the assets for a longer period. That is what my amendment is about. I reject what the Minister of State said. I did not in any way say I chose bits of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that I supported and poured cold water on other bits. I did not do that. I will put on the record what I did say. I said that the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General is beyond reproach, but he is limited in the analysis that he can give. He cannot do what we are asking here. He has a mandate to do what he is doing. Of course the accounts are audited and that is before the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is not what we are asking here. We are not suggesting that there is something hokey in the accounts or that the Comptroller and Auditor General missed something. What we are asking is that there is a report about what could have been if NAMA actually held the assets. We know that NAMA came under political pressure to sell the assets at that time, which I described. I do not think we are going to meet minds on this. I am going to push this amendment to a vote.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, I was not for a minute suggesting that Deputy Doherty was being disrespectful to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but was just saying that that office has done good work. I think we can agree on that.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, after line 34, to insert the following: “Report on value of NAMA managed properties

10. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas that provides a table outlining the value of NAMA managed properties at time of their sale, compared to their current or most recent valuation.”.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If this section deals with the employment contracts, does it cover the transfer of staff to the NTMA? If it does not, what section deals with it in the legislation?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No section deals with the transfer of staff. There does not need to be a section because they are all existing members of the NTMA.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The heads of Bill we dealt with did have a section dealing with this, and it has now gone. We know that when the CEO of NAMA was before this committee, he said he would not be keeping his current salary but he is returning to the NTMA, and the CEO of the NTMA actually refused to answer the PAC as to what would happen with that salary. Given there is now a significant change from the heads of the Bill to the Bill we are dealing with here on Committee Stage, this is unclear to me from this legislation, which is actually surprising because the heads of the Bill had a specific section that set out how staff at NAMA would be treated and how they would maintain their terms and conditions.

The legislation that has ultimately been produced is actually vague. It does not exist any longer. So there are questions, and maybe the Minister of State could answer them, about how the transfer of staff, including the CEO, is going to be dealt with. We understand the CEO is not transferring to the resolution unit that will deal with the remaining work of NAMA, so if that is the case, will the Minister of State outline to the committee what the job of the CEO will be in the NTMA? Is there a vacancy for a senior executive in the NTMA at the minute or is a job being created to facilitate this individual? Will he retain his current salary?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the reason this was included in the general scheme was that it was a standard provision in similar legislation, if there was a transfer of staff from one agency to another. It was included in the general scheme more from an abundance of caution, but when it was worked through, because they were existing staff already who had transferred from the NTMA to NAMA and were reverting to the NTMA, there was no requirement to have a specific section to accommodate that.

On the points raised by the Deputy, the current CEO of NAMA has been a permanent employee of the NTMA since before NAMA's establishment. The CEO position will cease on the dissolution of NAMA. He will continue as an NTMA employee, transitioning within the organisation under the existing employment framework. This does not involve a new appointment or any special arrangement but reflects the fact he was an NTMA employee and he is reverting to an NTMA position. It is not a new appointment or being accommodated in any special way. It is just reverting to his previous employment, and that is the current position.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The questions were, is there a vacancy for a senior executive job in the NTMA at the minute, or is a position being created? What will the salary be in those circumstances? Will the Minister of State also outline how many individuals will be transferred from NAMA to the resolution unit? Those are my three questions.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He already was a senior executive in the NTMA.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How long has he been gone? For how many years has he been gone from being a senior executive at the NTMA?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He was always employed by the NTMA.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that, but he has been the CEO of NAMA. I know he has been employed by the NTMA. I am not arguing that the fella should get the sack at all. I am just arguing for transparency in this. He has been away from the NTMA-----

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He will not be going back into an Accounting Officer role, so he will not be CEO of the NTMA. He will be going back into a senior executive position.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a vacancy in the NTMA? I just want to know if we are creating a position for him or if there is a vacancy there that it works out he slots into. What is the salary that will accompany that role?

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can have no personal information on salaries for an individual.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The section deals with every contract or arrangement with the dissolved body and any other person. In my view, any other person includes the CEO, so I want to know if that now continues. In fairness, that is-----

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that the only salary that is published for public bodies or semi-States is the CEOs. Information on the salaries of people under the CEO is published in an aggregate manner. I understand the NTMA will publicise how many people are earning more than €250,000.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us deal with section 11. Every contract arrangement or agreement made between the dissolved body, which is NAMA, and any other person which is enforced immediately before the dissolution date shall continue in force. I am reading that is the contract between the CEO and NAMA as well. Why can the Minister of State not tell us whether that contract remains in place? Do his terms and conditions remain in place?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section is not to do with the contracts of employees. That is the reason that actual provision was removed from the draft scheme of the Bill. There was no requirement to have it because the employees of NAMA were originally employees of the NTMA and are reverting to their original employers. This section is nothing to do with employee contracts. It is services or other contracts. It is not employee contracts.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Going back to the core question of whether there is a senior executive role vacancy in the NTMA, is it the case the Minister of State does not know if a role is vacant or is it the case he will not tell this committee whether a role will be created to facilitate the return of the CEO? Is it the Minister of State's position that he will not inform the committee of the salary that will accompany that position?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I think the Deputy is trying to misportray what I am saying here.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. That is just a question.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To answer the question, I did answer very clearly in relation to the publication of salaries, and my understanding is, and I am sure the Deputy will be aware of this, for public bodies, the only salary that is publicised is the CEO salary. He is not reverting to being CEO of the NTMA so his salary would not be a matter for publication. Senior executive positions are publicised in an aggregate format, and I believe and stand to be corrected that, currently, there are eight senior executives within the NTMA who earn more than €250,000. Matters relating to individual contracts are a matter for the NTMA, and neither I or the Tánaiste have any role in individual contractual terms and conditions. I can say very clearly that he is not going back into an Accounting Officer role, he will not be CEO and, for those purposes, his contract will not be published.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I do not think anyone expects him to go back as the CEO. I am not suggesting he should not go back. He was seconded from the NTMA to NAMA to do the job. He has done the job and has terms and conditions and needs to be able to go back in. My question to the Minister of State is, very simply, we are dealing with legislation that winds up NAMA. These guys move into the NTMA. He will move in. Maybe we can get this agreed. He will move into a senior executive role. Is that accepted?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, those are his terms and conditions. He is a senior executive.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a vacancy in the NTMA in terms of a senior executive role or will a new position be created? I do not know the answer to that. Maybe there is a vacancy and maybe the CEO fits in perfectly, like a glove, or I find out through the media in three months' time, when this is wound up, that the NTMA had to create a position of a senior executive because of this legislation. We are dealing with this legislation. We should know this information before we pass this Bill.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the responsibility of the NTMA regarding the positions that are there and what role he will revert to. Anybody who takes a job and is seconded from one position to another, when that position ceases, they are entitled to revert to their original place of employment. I think the Deputy will agree with that himself.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have agreed with that.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot answer the question because-----

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Department know?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot answer the question because matters in relation to employees and vacancies within the NTMA are a responsibility for the CEO of the NTMA, not for the Minister.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, that is fair enough. This my final question to the Minister of State and I thank him for answering the questions in the way he has. Does the Department know the role the CEO will take up in the NTMA after the dissolution of NAMA?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an individual contract that we would not be party to.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the question. Does the Department know the role the CEO will take up in the NTMA after the dissolution of NAMA?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our understanding is that no decision has been made on exactly what role he will revert to.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section deals with the records of the dissolved body, which is NAMA. The section says nothing about the ability of the general public, researchers or anyone else to access these records in the future. The banking crash and NAMA are notorious parts of Irish history that will be pored over by scholars and many people in the future and there is substantial interest in these important records. What plans are there for these records to be eventually made public or accessible, where possible, in the same way other records are?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All records held by NAMA transfer in full to the NTMA on the dissolution date. This includes operational, financial, legal and administrative records, as well as records relating to ongoing litigation and asset management. There is no loss of records as part of this process. The transfer is comprehensive and automatic under the legislation.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that but, with respect, that was not the question. These records are going to be transferred. They will be sealed in a vault or whatever in the future. I am asking, given the significance of NAMA and the importance of its role in the aftermath of the crash, whether it is the intention that any of these records will ever see the public light.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are subject to freedom of information, FOI, legislation, as matters stand.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the point.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that, both the NTMA and NAMA are covered by the Freedom of Information Act but I have noticed over the years that the two agencies tend to take a different approach. Whether these are operational decisions or not, I do not know. A different approach is taken by the NTMA and NAMA to the issuing of records pursuant to FOI requests. NAMA, more so than the NTMA, has cited commercial sensitivity and so on over the years, stating the release of information might be prejudicial to the settlement of litigation and other commercial undertakings and so on. Will there be any difference in the treatment of legacy NAMA documentation by the NTMA, in terms of how the NAMA information will be handled under FOI or does the Minister of State expect the same process to be applied? Most of the NAMA documentation is now historical, outside of the handful of legal cases that are to be settled.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once records are transferred, they will be managed by the NTMA in line with its established records management and governance framework. The NTMA already operates robust systems for the management of complex financial, legal and operational records, including those in relation to national debt, the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, and other State functions. These systems include formal records retention policies, secure storage and access control, and clear audit and accountability arrangements. This provides robust assurance that records will be preserved, accessible and appropriately managed. I understand that NAMA is not currently subject to the National Archives Act, but it is designed in such a way that it may some day be subject to that record management policy.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is interesting information. Is the Minister of State minded to engage with the line Minister responsible for the National Archives Act and to encourage that Minister to make the legislative amendments required to bring NAMA under the remit of that Act?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am advised that engagement has already commenced in that regard.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for putting that information on the record. When does he anticipate that the documents that will now be transferred to the NTMA from NAMA will be available to researchers in the future?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot answer that but I commit to come back to Deputy Doherty on it.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am looking for assurance. This is obviously something we dealt with when we saw the heads of Bill. It seems that sections 13 and 14 relate to the legal liability of the NTMA for NAMA. I want to make sure the Minister of State is completely satisfied that this legislation does not diminish the people's right to recourse in relation to NAMA after its dissolution.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everything is done so as not to disadvantage anybody. It preserves everybody's rights.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has to do with indemnity, which I presume carries over. I am seeking clarification. Does this section deal with the indemnification of board members and officers of NAMA post the dissolution? Is that what this section does?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they have indemnity already granted, it is preserved.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The indemnity under the 2009 Act is subject to a number of caveats and the Act allows for the board to revoke the indemnity. Can that be clarified? For example, in the 2009 Act there are caveats on indemnification. It only exists where the board is satisfied that the person "has discharged the functions appropriate to that person in relation to the functions of NAMA in good faith", in which case "NAMA shall indemnify" them. It goes on to say the following:

The Board shall not be prevented from revoking an indemnity granted to, or recovering any payment made pursuant to ... an indemnity ... [where a] person who is subsequently found to have carried out his or her duties in bad faith.

Obviously, the board will no longer exist. How does this transfer apply in terms of those caveats set out in the legislation?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am advised it continues in the same way. It has been structured in such a way that it operates alongside section 13 of the National Treasury Management Agency Act 1990, where the NTMA board will substitute in terms of providing the indemnity.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that include revoking the indemnity?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It includes the caveats, yes.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the requirement that persons have operated in good faith and discharged their functions still apply?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is under the same conditions, yes.

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know we cannot go back to section 14. On the issue of discovery of documents, I presume the same set of rules will apply even though NAMA will have been dissolved. Will the same set of rules be applied as regards access to documents in the event of a legal matter arising and to the ability to get an order for discovery?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is essentially the NTMA stepping into the role of NAMA. The procedure heretofore will remain the procedure. The only difference-----

Colm Burke (Cork North-Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Access to the documents is what I am talking about. Will people be prevented from accessing the necessary documents because NAMA has been abolished?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, access will be the same.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“Report on learnings from NAMA and future operations of NTMA 17. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing a constructive and critical examination of learnings from NAMA and how to best reflect those learnings in the future operations of the NTMA, the Land Development Agency (LDA) and any other relevant bodies.”.

This is a very sensible amendment. It arises from a recommendation from the all-party committee. I hope the Minister of State will accept it. It is looking for a report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas within six months of the Act passing, looking for constructive and critical examination of learnings from NAMA so these can be reflected in future operations of the NTMA and, indeed, the Land Development Agency and any other relevant bodies.

I hope the Minister of State can see the merit of having a constructive and critical examination and of those learnings then being used to make improvements in other bodies. I cannot see any reason the Minister of State would not accept this amendment, which had all-party backing from this committee.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for the proposed amendment, which seeks to require the Minister to lay a report before the Houses within six months setting out a constructive and critical examination of the lessons learned from NAMA and how these might inform the future operations of the NTMA, the Land Development Agency and other relevant bodies.

At the outset, I acknowledge the objective underpinning the amendment. It is entirely appropriate that the experience of NAMA be examined and lessons learned to inform future policies. The matter was also raised by the joint committee as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny and has been formally responded to by the Tánaiste. However, I do not consider the amendment necessary.

First, it is important to note that NAMA has been one of the most extensively reviewed and scrutinised bodies in the State over its lifetime. As I said earlier, this includes the quarterly and annual reporting to the Government and the Oireachtas, the audited accounts reviewed by the Comptroller and Auditor General and statutory reviews conducted by the Department of Finance, which examine the extent to which NAMA has made progress towards achieving its overall objectives. Regular statutory reviews by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the most recent of which was published on 12 May 2026, assess NAMA’s overall rate of return, estimating that it achieved a return of approximately 6.8% compared with an original expectation of 5%. Other independent analysis includes the report by Professor John FitzGerald that concluded that NAMA represents one of the strongest examples internationally of a state-backed asset management agency having delivered outcomes that exceeded initial expectations. Taken together, these measures provide a very substantial and comprehensive evidence base regarding NAMA’s performance, its strength and the challenges encountered.

Second, it is important to emphasise that lessons from NAMA and from the wider banking crisis that preceded it have been identified, examined and applied on an ongoing basis over more than a decade rather than being deferred to a single retrospective exercise at the end of its life cycle. The causes of the crisis itself were examined in considerable depth through multiple independent reviews and the Oireachtas banking inquiry, which identified systemic weaknesses in banks’ governance, supervision and wider policy settings. The findings of these processes directly informed a wide-ranging programme of reforms including a fundamental strengthening of the Central Bank, enhanced supervisory and enforcement powers and significant developments at European levels such as the single supervisory mechanism.

NAMA was established as part of a response to the banking crisis as a vehicle to manage and recover value from impaired bank loans and it is important to recall that NAMA acquired loans rather than directly operating property assets. NAMA operated within a framework shaped by its clear statutory mandate, state aid requirements and the need to stabilise the financial system. In that context, the lessons have informed policy decisions and institutional development over move than a decade, including in areas such as financial oversight, asset management and policy development in related sectors such as housing. This is also reflected to an extent in the continuity of expertise across the system. Individuals with experience of NAMA have in some instances gone on to roles in other State bodies including the Land Development Agency and Home Building Finance Ireland. Officials from agencies such as the Land Development Agency have also engaged extensively with NAMA over the years. Moreover, the CEO of the NTMA is an ex officio member of the NAMA board and would have first-hand experience of NAMA and how it has operated since its establishment.

NAMA has appeared before the public accounts committee on many occasions and has engaged constructively in its discussions with that committee. Finally, we are now at a point where NAMA has substantially completed its mandate. Its remaining activity is limited in scale and largely confined to a small residual portfolio and a small number of ongoing legal matters. In that context, requiring a further report within a six-month timeframe would in effect duplicate work that is already being undertaken across multiple independent and official reviews. Moreover, given the limited scale of the remaining activity, it is not clear that such a report would provide new or materially different insights beyond those already available. For these reasons I am not in a position to accept the amendment. However, I want to assure the committee that the extensive body of existing reporting, review and analysis remains available and continues to inform policy development across government.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Minister of State has actually made the case for my amendment quite well. We are talking about the wind-up of NAMA, so this would be the right time to capture all of the learnings, reviews and scrutiny to date and to have that critical and constructive examination at this point. Therefore, I will press my amendment.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In order for the NTMA to manage the combined residual activity effectively, the Bill is conferring to the NTMA the necessary functions and powers to undertake that work. This is a transfer of powers from NAMA to the NTMA. It seems some of this is just a reproduction of elements of the NAMA legislation to the NTMA. That is fine, but my question is whether there are any powers here that go beyond the powers previously held by NAMA.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for that clarification.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to signal here, as I did at the beginning, that I intend to bring forward a technical amendment on Report Stage relating to Part 4 of the Bill.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 4 has been ruled out of order.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do members wish to put any final questions or make any comments before we conclude? No. Does the Minister of State wish to make any closing remarks?

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, expect to say that I thank the committee for its co-operation.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for assisting the committee with our Committee Stage consideration of the National Treasury Management Agency (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026.