Wednesday, 5 November 2014
Finance Bill 2014: Second Stage (Resumed)
I have brought the matter to your attention. I referred to a case in which loans had been sold to an underbidder, rather than the highest bidder. In the interests of achieving the best value for taxpayers' money I cannot obtain confirmation of what the small difference was or that the taxpayer received value for money, other than what NAMA stated at the committee meeting. There does not seem to be any transparency or accountability. NAMA seems to be stating the highest bidder in this case, a globally trading hedge fund which I understand has at least $23 billion in assets, did not have the funds to go through with the purchase, which I cannot believe, and that a short-listing process took place. There are many questions to be answered and explanations are required. Mr. Flynn said after the court case in which NAMA had been ruled against and Mr. Justice Cregan delivered a fairly damming judgment in the matter that dealing with NAMA was like dealing with the establishment in North Korea. There are serious questions to be answered and it seems that if I table parliamentary questions, I will not get answers, about which I am disappointed.
Anything I am saying is factual and I have the information here. To tell the truth, after I raised the issue at the committee, I accumulated quite a bit of correspondence from people around the country who told me how they had been treated by NAMA and received telephone calls from people in very distressed state. I cannot adjudicate on all of these cases, but there are questions to be answered by NAMA.