Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is an opportunity to speak not only on the sale but on the whole of NAMA. Deputy Michael McGrath is fully aware of the reasons NAMA was established. If NAMA had not been established there would have been a fire sale of the loan books of some of the major banks, particularly Anglo Irish Bank, and they would have been sold off for whatever, whether to vulture capitalists or to individuals. We must look at where we started. At the time, a Dublin wit said we should have the inquiry first before we get going on NAMA, and this is what Deputy McGrath has called for, specifically on a particular sale, but perhaps there should be an inquiry into all of the sales if this is what he is seeking. The Dublin wit was quite correct.

As part of this sale we must look at the type of market that existed. We are always dealing with the periphery. As Deputy McGrath indicated in his speech, 50% of the portfolio consisted of Northern-Ireland-based properties. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2013 stated that property prices in Northern Ireland could take a decade to recover and a report in 2014 said the exact same thing. Did this mean NAMA was to hold on to these properties for the next ten years, given that most of them were based in Northern Ireland? What would the Irish people have said about NAMA? What would have been the role of the Government, which would be looking for funds to provide housing in the South? What would have happened? The Opposition would have been clamouring up and down asking why we were not selling the properties in the North of Ireland. As I have indicated, the market up there was in a disturbed state. The forecast growth for the North of Ireland at that period was the lowest in the UK. It had the second-highest level of unemployment in the UK, particularly long-term unemployment, and there was negative equity throughout the private property sector. I will not comment on who was, or is, in charge of Northern Ireland. These stark figures relate to the management of the economy there. Around that time, property prices continued to fall. The objective of NAMA is to make a return for the Irish taxpayer. Should it have held on, hoping that a price rise would come, or should it have sold in a falling market? Sometimes it is important to sell.

Deputy Daly mentioned that the portfolio should have been broken up and sold off individually. I am sure Deputy Wallace, who is from Wexford, has been to Enniscorthy mart, where he would have seen pens of sheep. Usually a pen of sheep is a mixed bag, with good sheep, bad sheep and middling sheep. The whole lot are sold and if they average out at €50 that is good. If they had been sold individually the top sheep would have made a lot more than this, but one would have been bringing home those at the bottom end in the trailer because one would not have a market for them. The objective of selling them all together is to gather up the good and the bad.

As has been highlighted, I would much prefer to have seen some of the assets being sold off individually. I would also like to see NAMA, in its wisdom, selling off some assets locally in certain areas, because I fear if they are sold to venture capitalists the bad sheep in the pack will be left there to rot, waiting until something happens. As I have indicated, in the North of Ireland, according to two reports by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the market was not going to rise for ten years. Perhaps NAMA got the best deal available at the time, irrespective of whom it was going to sell to. There are additional benefits. People have commented that some of the choice properties in the portfolio were bought and rolled over within a short period of time, but the State made money on this also because there was a capital gain and, as everyone knows, capital gains are taxed at 33% and bring revenue to the State.

While I welcome the debate, we must have an overall look at NAMA. Some of it is not good. People say it has become a secretive organisation. In fairness, the Government has opened up the freedom of information legislation, not as far as some of us would like, but it certainly has done this. We must look at the conditions in which this group of assets was sold. They were sold into a falling market in a dysfunctional economy in an area in which property prices were not going to rise for ten years.

See this speech in context