Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few points. I thank Deputy Clare Daly for bringing forward the motion and hope some of the points made in it can be taken on board. Obviously, I will be supporting the amendment, to which I will come back.

Clearly, it is in all our interests that NAMA is successful and ultimately make a profit for the people of the State. When I was Fianna Fáil’s finance spokesperson in the Seanad at the time of its establishment, we spent some 70 hours going through the legislation. We all expressed a heartfelt wish that the agency would undertake its work in a way that would be in the best interests of the people. I remember saying clearly in the closing address on the legislation that it would not surprise me if there was an NAMA (No. 2) Bill or a NAMA (No. 3) Bill on the basis that, as matters evolved, we might realise certain things needed to be done differently.

Looking back from a personal perspective, it would have been wise to have had some statutory Oireachtas oversight of the work of NAMA. While there is inevitably commercially sensitive information, as we saw at the recent banking inquiry, in respect of which legislation was passed to give the members thereof access to sensitive materials from the Central Bank that were protected under Article 33AK of the Central Bank Act, we were able to see such material and undertake our work. We are obviously bound to keep that information secret in the interests of the State. Something similar could have been done in the case of NAMA and, with the benefit of hindsight, such an approach would have served us better and been in the best interests of the good efforts of the people working in and running NAMA. In their work, they are entitled to be exonerated if, in the fullness of time, it emerges there has been no wrongdoing. We all want to see the best outcome possible.

In recent times I tabled 26 parliamentary questions specifically about leaks concerning the NAMA portfolio, as the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, will know. It is assumed in the media and other circles that, following the recent conviction, some leaks occurred. My information, which I outlined in the House and raised in parliamentary questions, is that all of information on the entire loan book and on values and connections concerning the loans was leaked and available to international market investors and some in Ireland who might have been interested in bidding. Ultimately, this could have served to undermine the return or the potential to maximise the return for the people from NAMA. Having been involved in auctioneering, I realise that if I know the value, the expected return and that what will one get is €100, I will not bid much more than €100.50. Therefore, I have concerns about the implications.

In the responses to the 26 questions I tabled the elephant in the room was ignored. The Minister, or the information that was probably coming back through NAMA, did not state "only part" or "some" of the information had been leaked. My information is that all of it was leaked. I certainly hope the Committee of Public Accounts will be pursuing this issue. I understand there are further revelations coming down the track on these issues which we will have to consider closely.

Project Eagle and other deals about which we may be hearing anecdotally throughout the country, perhaps at a much smaller level, give rise to questions.

There are questions arising. Members of the public are entitled to know they have had the maximum possible return for the eight years of painful sacrifice they have endured.

There are also a few allegations - perhaps loose - flying around about political interventions at the highest level in favour of borrower connections or part of those connections in the National Asset Management Agency. Perhaps this has been to the detriment of others or perhaps none of it is true, but the fact that allegations are being made is of great concern. In law, under the NAMA Acts, it is a criminal offence for a politician to use his or her influence in any way to benefit a connection - a borrower - in NAMA.

Another issue I raise, one which is not directly related to NAMA, also needs to be examined by the Committee of Public Accounts or the House. Anybody who read the accounts of Mars Capital recently will have seen that the company paid IBRC 42% of the loan value for the old Irish Nationwide Building Society loan book. At some stage, we need to focus people on our work in these Houses. The loan book was sold for €154 million or 42% of its value. If we had contacted the individuals who owned these loans, they may have had family members or access to credit unions or others who may have purchased the loans at 60% of their value. In such circumstances, the borrowers may have got out alive. We did not serve people well if that is the case and the Committee of Public Accounts could also examine that issue.

On the Fianna Fáil Party amendment, we do not want to undermine a criminal investigation. People are entitled to their pound of flesh, particularly if they have been undermined in this way. Let us see what the Comptroller and Auditor General has to say in his report and what the Committee of Public Accounts decides when it goes through that report when the time comes. While I agree that, in ideal circumstances, we would like to have the criminal investigation completed first, it is possible that the investigation could take three years to complete. In the interests of the public, we should keep this matter under review. Perhaps we should review it after the Committee of Public Accounts has gone through the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

While I do not disagree with the good efforts of Deputy Clare Daly, we should give this matter a little time. After we examine the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, we could perhaps review the matter at that stage.

See this speech in context