Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

I offer my sympathy to the 760 workers of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) which has just announced its intention to close its Halifax operations in Ireland with the loss of 760 jobs by end July 2010, which is devastating news. In that context, I put the following question to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach will be only too well aware that the Irish taxpayer has had to write the biggest ever cheque of €54 billion in respect of NAMA. The proposition put by Government before, during and since NAMA has been that in return for our taking the huge risk of relieving the banks of their reckless loans and property deals credit would flow to Irish business. Throughout the NAMA debate last year the Government and Ministers indicated that the tens of billions of euro provided by Irish taxpayers through NAMA to the banks in respect of their toxic developer loans would be used to finance new Irish businesses by way of lending and so on.

I recall that the Taoiseach stated that his sole motivation in setting up the controversial agency was to get credit flowing into the economy. The Minister for Finance told the Dáil on 16 September last that NAMA would ensure that credit flows again to viable businesses and households. He also stated in The Sunday Tribune at that time that a wall of cash from NAMA could help restore credit flow and get the economy growing again. This is in complete contrast with what was stated at the meeting held with the IMF, namely, that it does not believe that NAMA will result in a significant increase in bank lending in Ireland. Why was this relevant and fundamental fact withheld from the House? The IMF is the international reputable body in respect of banks and banking issues. It now transpires from information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that it told Government that NAMA would not result in a significant amount of credit flowing to Irish business. Why was this fact concealed from this House during the NAMA debate when it was made known to the Taoiseach and Government?

See this speech in context