Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues for their contributions and the Minister of State for his response. For the past three to four years, I have been raising various questions and issues to do with NAMA, at the finance committee, by way of parliamentary questions and directly with the Minister in the House. Most of the answers I received left a lot to be desired. When NAMA was established, we were assured there would be parliamentary oversight of its activities. However, when representatives of NAMA come before the Committee of Public Accounts, I cannot put any questions to them because I am not a member of that committee. When they attend a meeting of the finance committee, each member only has a very short slot in which to ask questions.

Considering the scale of the activity of NAMA, there must be proper oversight of its operations. Many developers have been brought to their knees under its remit. Indeed, NAMA has been engaged in bully boy tactics, trading on the negative sentiment in general towards developers, notwithstanding that some of them are in NAMA through no fault of their own. We are all familiar with the Paddy McKillen case. I referred to the case of Michael O'Flynn, where the second highest bidder was successful. What about value for money for taxpayers? When one asks these questions, one is left wondering. There is still an opportunity to put in place the type of oversight I am suggesting.

My amendment No. 1 is very simple. NAMA has control over vast banks of property and, as such, should be subject to the same rigours as private property owners. This is not just about developers. As I said at committee, these measure could potentially affect the little old lady up the street who has a property she cannot afford to develop. If a local authority decides to proceed in a certain way as part of its core strategy, this type of thing will happen. That is why it was so important that councils were included in the provisions. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, which is precisely my point in respect of NAMA.

I do not accept the Minister of State's argument that NAMA is like a bank. NAMA is more than a bank. It is engaged in activities as a developer, as we are discussing here, although we might not be happy with its level of activity. It is also engaged in joint ventures. Is the Minister of State saying this is what banks do? To capture the actual situation that pertains in regard to NAMA's care and control of properties and its track record in regard to developers, these provisions should apply to the agency.

See this speech in context