Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On foot of the amendment proposed by Deputy Mulherin, I want to add my voice to those of other Members in placing on the record our trepidation with regard to the workings of NAMA since its inception. There is no doubt that the setting up of NAMA was not without its own controversies. There were many fears on the part of the then Opposition Members, who occupy Government benches now, as to the remit afforded to it. In the first instance, it allowed banks breathing space to get their houses in order to start again in terms of the sort of banking practices that were to be the norm from that time onwards, and more akin to what we had expected to be the norm in the first instance, despite the fact that those charged with the responsibility for their regulation assured us of that. However, we see where that has got us, together with everything else that came in 2008 and 2009. NAMA was charged with a responsibility to yield a dividend to the taxpayer. It was given certain powers and briefs, and distance from Government to allow it do that properly and effectively, but it also had to play its role in yielding a dividend from a social perspective and particularly because of the loans that were associated with property that it could play its part in addressing the deficit that was allowed develop regarding the provision of housing.

Year on year since the Government came into office we questioned it on the delivery of housing units to those on that list. As we know, there are 100,000 applications for housing. That does not mean there are 100,000 applicants; it might mean there are up to 300,000 applicants. As Deputy Clare Daly said, we hear about the dilemma faced by Dublin City County Council regarding the provisions it had made on foot of commitments made by the Government regarding the homelessness problem. There are still approximately 1,000 children in emergency accommodation in Dublin. There are still 2,200 on the waiting list in the county I represent, and that is replicated throughout the country.

It is only in recent months that the Government appears to have gotten to grips with this problem and come forward with suggestions, plans and mechanisms which it believes might address that deficit but to go back to the point I was making, year on year we were told there would be a dividend from NAMA for the State but year on year, that did not materialise because, as Deputy Wallace said, we were led to believe that many of these properties were not suitable for local authorities or their tenants. There was no in-depth analysis done of the reason that might be the case and that has allowed us to express our fears that these units - multiples of them - were much more suitable for the profiteering that exists for those who come in and buy them in bulk.

It is against that background, and some of the details that have come into the public domain in recent weeks, that the fears we had over the past number of years have been heightened to such an extent that one recognises and is almost forced to agree with the perception that it might take somebody of more eminence than is proposed to address, analyse and audit NAMA and allow the House to adjudicate thereafter on the effectiveness of this organisation and its ability to deliver a return to the State in the first instance, whether that be in the form of monetary profit or social dividend. I would argue there has not been a social dividend to the extent one would have expected when NAMA was set up initially. I see that in my constituency, and I hear others say they see it in their constituencies. That is at a time when there is great difficulty in terms of this Government being able to address the housing crisis and the disastrous situation that has since arisen.

I have stated on numerous occasions in debates in the House on the provision of housing, whether it be questions on legislation brought before the House or at other times, that up to 40% of the representations I receive are in the area of housing provision. That is a failure on the part of all of us who were elected to work together to address the problems that arise for the constituents we represent. I am at a loss to know how to explain to the many people who come into my constituency office how they will be housed. Yesterday, I had a couple in with me from the town of Edenderry who are faced with eviction from the home they have been renting. They travelled the town in the past week or two and there is no emergency accommodation available. The stress, anxiety and exasperation in the eyes, and on the faces, of those people, who were with their children, was terrible to witness, and we are witnessing it all too often.

The background music to all of that is what we heard today, during the week and, to be honest, what I have been hearing on an annual basis, is the failure of NAMA to yield a social dividend. I accept what has been said about the Dublin GAA county board, the Spawell facility and so forth, which seems to make sense in terms of the provision of an amenity to suit its needs and the needs of those people who would benefit from it. More importantly, however, is the area of addressing the housing needs and if it is proved that there has been a failure and neglect on the part of whomever to realise the reason people are in such terrible straits, then somebody has to be held accountable. What person, body, office or Department that is remains to be seen but unless a clearer picture emerges this week in regard to the deliberations of the Committee of Public Accounts on one issue in particular but, more importantly, on many others that need to be teased out, then the commitment from the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to the Dáil earlier will have fallen on deaf ears and he may then be forced, with his Government colleagues, to acquiesce to the request that has been made by many on this side of the House for a full independent inquiry by eminently qualified professionals who can get to the root of this problem.

Deputy Wallace talked about a figure of up to €60 million or €70 million in regard to the Chicago situation. That would house the 2,200 people needing housing in my county. That would satisfy the person who was in my office yesterday and the 40% of constituents who have sought my assistance in the office I hold and the responsibility I have been given as a Member of the Dáil in order to access the public services.

When funds were available and revenue was forthcoming, we were told we were spending too much. As was stated last week in another part of the building, whom do we say is not entitled to what is available?

The demand for a social dividend from NAMA to the State was made in good faith and with the best of intentions. All we want is reciprocation by those who have been given that authority. I have not seen that social dividend in the form of housing units and I would like to know why that is the case. I want a better answer than that I have been given heretofore, namely, the qualification by NAMA, or the local authority, that the units do not suit the needs. What suits the needs if many of these buildings do not? I do not know. I am at a loss to explain that.

As I said, I will reserve my judgment until we hear what is said at the committee next Thursday when those charged with oversight of taxpayers' spend question those who act on behalf of the taxpayer in relation to public funds and dividends that may be derived from their dealings. Next week, the Government will have to be in a position to say categorically that there is nothing to be fearful of here; that there is no bomb waiting to explode and that this matter is being dealt with as it should be. As I said, it might take a bit longer for explanations to be forthcoming that satisfy me and many others in relation to the failure to address the real problems that I see in my constituency in terms of the provision of housing.

See this speech in context