Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)

I appreciate that this issue has been selected for debate. I bring to the attention of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, an alarming situation regarding NAMA which came to light recently, namely, its practice of paying the country's most indebted developers enormous sums of money on an annual basis. This is unacceptable at a time when the country is effectively in receivership and we should be building up confidence in our State institutions.

At a recent meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, I asked the chairman of NAMA how many developers are being paid by the agency on an annual basis and what is the maximum salary ceiling for developers engaged with the NAMA process. I was informed that two separate developers are being paid €200,000 per annum by the agency and that between 110 and 120 other developers are in receipt of between €70,000 and €100,000 per annum. In addition some of them may be on commission.

In effect, this means that two of the country's most indebted developers are being paid almost as much as the Taoiseach, receiving five times the average industrial wage. NAMA was created as a result of the mismanagement of the economy but this brings the entire process into disrepute as we approach a very difficult budget. How can we expect the public to have any confidence in a system which generously rewards developers to such an extent, given what they have done to this country?

In the case of the two developers on the maximum salary of €200,000, their remuneration is at the level of the cap on public sector pay. It is reasonable to assume that if that cap had not been introduced by this Government under the aegis of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, these developers might have been earning in excess of that sum.

The chairman of NAMA argued that the agency was reluctant to pay this sum but the decision was made by the board to arrive at that conclusion. I do not accept that and believe that no reasonable, thinking person would share that view. In this context, I call on the Minister for Finance to review the NAMA legislation in order that he, rather than the board of NAMA, would have power to set the payment rate for developers.

Following the revelation by the chairman of NAMA at the Committee of Public Accounts, I wrote to NAMA with a number of questions seeking clarity. First, I asked the names of the developers who are in receipt of €200,000 and the names of their respective companies. Second, I asked for a list of the property portfolios they had in their possession prior to being taken over by NAMA. Third, I asked the extent of each developer's liabilities engaged by the NAMA process; and fourth, the extent of the repayment of those liabilities to date.

In response I was told the information I sought in regard to individual debtors was not available because data protection law and constraints imposed on it by the NAMA legislation would not allow that to be the case. I was also informed that a change in the law would be required to enable NAMA to disclose this information. As I understand it, essentially NAMA is a commercial organisation which operates in the open market. This brings its own difficulties and sensitivities. It is of the utmost importance, however, that the agency be subjected to even more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny in the interests of transparency and accountability.

This very week, under the Freedom of Information Act this House released information to journalists who had sought figures in regard to expenditure on constituency offices by Members. Rightly, that information was made available. Contrast that transparency and the absolute lack of it in this case. There is a huge difference. I call the Minister for Finance to review the section of the NAMA Act which prohibits the agency from disclosing information about individual debtors. This is about transparency and accountability.

See this speech in context