Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I fully support the swift and decisive actions of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, in dealing with this allegation as there should be no question but that NAMA employees are working in the best interest of the taxpayer. NAMA became aware of the particular transaction involved on 2 August 2012. On 3 August 2012, NAMA instructed its internal auditors, Deloitte, to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the transaction. The Deloitte review established the sale of the property was transacted at market value as the sale price was in accordance with an independent valuation at the time of the transaction.

NAMA requires its entire staff to complete a disclosure under section 42 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 outlining all assets, liabilities and interests which they hold. Each employee is also required to inform the agency’s chief executive officer of any changes to his or her disclosure. He or she must also immediately inform the chief executive officer of any matter that could raise a question about his or her suitability to act as an officer of NAMA or that could result in an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to his or her duties or obligations as an officer of NAMA.

However, the investigation found that the former employee did not disclose this transaction to NAMA at any time either prior to or following the transaction. During the course of the Deloitte investigation, NAMA also became aware that confidential data may have been taken without authorisation from NAMA by the former employee.

I wish to inform the House that a thorough investigation has now been completed. I am advised that the unauthorised disclosure was notified to An Garda Síochána and the Data Protection Commissioner on 12 September 2012 and that NAMA has provided, and will continue to provide, all information required by the Garda as part of this investigation.

I am also advised that NAMA has instituted legal proceedings against the former employee and his spouse seeking a number of reliefs including an injunction to prevent them from using, disclosing and/or dealing with confidential information. NAMA is also seeking several court orders, including an order directing the former employee and his spouse to provide a full account on affidavit in respect of all confidential information that either of them has removed from NAMA. This is to include the identity of all persons who have had access to the information or who have been made aware of its existence and/or contents and the identity of all persons to whom the information has been supplied.

These proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the courts and I am, therefore, not in a position to discuss them further. NAMA's swiftly instigated investigation demonstrates how seriously it viewed the allegations raised in early August regarding the purchase of a NAMA property by a former employee as well as the level of adherence to statutory and other disclosure requirements by the former employee.

I am also advised that NAMA already employs a wide range of measures to prevent unauthorised disclosure of confidential data. These include practical measures such as the deployment of e-mail monitoring technology to prevent e-mail attachments from being forwarded to personal and non-corporate e-mail accounts. IT controls also ensure that data cannot be saved from the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, network on to external storage devices such as USB keys, CDs, etc.

NAMA employees are bound by several statutory obligations in respect of the confidentiality of information to which they have access by virtue of their employment. These include obligations imposed under section 14(1) of the National Treasury Management Agency Act 1990 and under section 202 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009. NAMA staff are also subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1963. Contravention of these statutory obligations constitutes criminal offences and, under section 7 of the National Asset Management Agency Act, a person who commits such offences may be liable to a substantial fine, a term of imprisonment or both.

It is unfortunate that in spite of these wide-ranging controls and obligations, NAMA has suffered a breach of trust. I take comfort in the fact that as part of its review of Deloitte's findings, the board of NAMA will assess whether there are any changes required to NAMA's current data control and compliance procedures.

See this speech in context