Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for giving us the opportunity to raise this issue and pay tribute to Deputy Wallace for having the courage to stand up and throw the ball into play on the very first occasion. The manner in which he, and anyone who raises questions around the issue, have been treated clearly demonstrates that something is afoot. The manner in which people are running for cover and declining to answer questions also demonstrates that something is afoot. All we are seeking is answers and a mechanism, a commission of inquiry, that will allow people to give evidence in a protected manner so we can find the answers.

Deputy McGuinness has put the figure for the loss on this portion alone at €783 million. It is a huge amount of money. It is the amount of money that will go into the health service between now and the end of the year. It could do so much. Even if one accepted the Government’s figures, which are considerably less but still in the hundreds of millions of euro, it is taxpayers' money that the State could do with. The Oireachtas has a duty to ask questions and get answers, which we are not getting. The fact that another jurisdiction is involved is being used to muddy the process. However, a Government agency with responsibility to raise capital for the State has questions to answer. If we could establish cross-Border inquiries before, such as the Smithwick tribunal and others, surely we can do it in this case to get evidence from all sides.

There are so many questions which Deputies have gone through. Since Cerberus acquired the portfolio, it has collected €100 million in developer loans and has used the structure for its Irish-registered companies. On a combined turnover of all its various operations of €224 million last year, it paid €10,320 in tax. This is why our corporation tax regime has a bad name. Our corporate tax regime exists to support very good employment and very good employees; the best in the world. However, when companies such as this use it in this manner, it explains why we must defend our regime all over the world and why the State is getting such a bad reputation.

NAMA initially identified 6,500 properties in its portfolio that it believed would be suitable for social housing and it engaged with the various local authorities. At the end of September, the figure of 6,500 had been reduced. More than 4,000 were deemed to be no longer under consideration, 1,500 had been sold before they had the chance to be used for social housing and 2,469 were deemed unsuitable or no tenants were found for them. NAMA has finalised only 1,600 residential properties for delivery to social housing, even though tonight 1,500 children are in emergency accommodation. A body that once prided itself on being described as the biggest property developer in Europe has a social responsibility to provide housing, given that it has a stock available to it. It has a responsibility to put roofs over the heads of people who are otherwise in hotels or who may not even have a roof over their heads but are sleeping on the streets of this city and elsewhere tonight. A body that sees fit to treat the weakest in our community in this manner needs to answer questions.

The difficulty in asking questions is the walls that go up when one tries to get information. While NAMA has fulfilled its mandate in terms of profit and return to the State, there are questions to be asked as to how it did so and whether the profit is much lower than it could have been had other avenues been adopted. This is all we need. We just need questions to be answered and we need everybody involved to ask questions. As late as last week, the other bidder, PIMCO, was still raising questions about its role and raising objections to NAMA's account that PIMCO withdrew its bid in Project Eagle. Last week, its chief legal officer wrote to the Northern Ireland Assembly saying PIMCO voluntarily told NAMA of the fee deal and left the process. He stated that the decision demonstrated, "the emphasis we place on conduct of our business, the high standards we expect of counterparties and the importance we place on protecting our reputation". This is a statement of no confidence in the manner in which NAMA handled this portfolio sale. Although it is from an underbidder, it must be dealt with. This is a company of international spread and if this is the reputation NAMA has, what reputation does Ireland Inc. have?

Many Deputies have raised local issues and concerns around NAMA. Although when local concerns are brought to NAMA, it engages, it drops the bigger balls in terms of public perception of it. I have raised an issue that is very live to us, namely, Westport House. Westport House, a strategic tourism attraction and an economic part of County Mayo, is involved in a current portfolio sale. Westport House is well known to the Acting Chairman, Deputy Durkan. Some 162,000 people visited it in 2014 resulting in €1.7 million in direct expenditure back to the Exchequer, which is funding NAMA. It employs 47 full-time staff. There is a case to be made for Westport House to be returned to the ownership of the State, acknowledging the major contribution the Browne family has made in its time. If Killarney can have Muckross House, which is in the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, surely there is an economic argument to be made for similar treatment to be given to Westport House. Mayo County Council has put forward a case for buying it out of the process. There is no sense in this national asset being allowed to go to some unknown entity that sees itself as unanswerable to this Parliament in the same way that many NAMA properties have gone to other organisations.

We cannot let this drag into the next Dáil. We must bring an end to the swirl of allegations that surround NAMA. The Government can do this by establishing a commission of inquiry. Why is the Government so reluctant to do it? Why is the Government unwilling to deal with the allegations and provide a forum to deal with them? We can only surmise that there must be something to hide and the Government does not want to shine a light on the truth. If there is nothing to hide, the Government should proceed with the investigation, give it the all clear and move on.

See this speech in context