Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The newspaper article that Deputy Murphy refers to includes a reference to a specific property. I am informed that NAMA was not the owner or seller of this property. The sale was managed by a receiver and, in accordance with NAMA's policy, was fully openly marketed and sold to the highest bidder.

The article also includes reference to correspondence between NAMA and a former Deputy about this property. Public representatives regularly engage with NAMA on both policy and constituency-related matters. NAMA welcomes this engagement. Such communication is in accordance with section 221 of the NAMA Act, which contains explicit provision for individuals to communicate with NAMA when acting in their personal capacity or in the course of their professional employment.

The key test for NAMA in the context of section 221(1) of the Act is whether or not a representation is designed to confer a material advantage on one party at the expense of taxpayers in general. Based on its engagement with all public representatives to date, including the engagement referenced in this case, NAMA does not believe there has been any instance that could be considered a breach of section 221(1). Any individual who has information on a breach of the law is required under the Criminal Justice Act to bring this information to the Garda.

See this speech in context