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

I thank my colleagues very much. It is fashionable to criticise NAMA. It is particularly fashionable for certain developers and their camp followers to do so. I noted further criticism of NAMA in a Sunday newspaper last weekend. Before Members accept as fact this seriously flawed analysis, they should read in full NAMA's rebuttal, which is available on its website.

I want to touch briefly on the topic of the commission of investigation as it will no doubt form part of later contributions. Following publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the Taoiseach met party leaders in September and received submissions from party leaders on the issue. At a subsequent meeting with the party leaders in October, there was agreement in principle to establish a commission of investigation. That is still the Government's position. Since then, the Committee of Public Accounts has undertaken extensive hearings and has received extensive verbal and documentary evidence from NAMA, the Department of Finance and many of the companies involved in the Project Eagle bidding process. The Committee of Public Accounts has now published its report, which continues to support the commission of investigation. Before the Government makes a decision on how to proceed and drafts terms of reference, it will be important to hear the views of members of the Committee of Public Accounts tonight on a number of issues. In light of the extensive evidence collected and work already completed by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts and in light of the ongoing investigations in multiple foreign jurisdictions, it is important that Members, in advising the Government, be able to answer the following questions. What would the commission investigate? Where could the commission add value beyond the work already done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and Committee of Public Accounts? What could a commission achieve in light of ongoing criminal and other investigations, and the fact that many potential witnesses and evidence are located outside the jurisdiction? How much might such a commission cost, and would the results of such a commission justify the use of scarce budgetary resources? I am sure today's contribution will be made with these questions in mind. It is the Government's policy to establish a commission of investigation.

Before I conclude, I would like to return briefly to findings against NAMA. There is certainly much to discuss on the various conclusions — corporate governance arrangements, record-keeping and management of conflicts of interest. I believe the NAMA board and executives have provided reasoned and rational disclosures throughout the many Committee of Public Accounts sessions they have attended on these matters. Members of the House can assess that evidence themselves. However, let us remember that the overarching conclusion of the Committee of Public Accounts is that "NAMA has been unable to demonstrate that by pursuing such a strategy that it got value for money for the Irish State". In this House tonight, we should remember that it is equally true that the Committee of Public Accounts has been unable to demonstrate that by pursuing such a strategy, NAMA did not get value for money for the Irish State. NAMA has stated that it was and remains the NAMA board's commercial and considered judgment, in full knowledge of the financial implications, that this sale provided a better financial outcome than any alternative monetisation strategy.

With that in mind, I will conclude. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the injury time. I thank colleagues for allowing me to complete my few words here this evening. We should now allow NAMA to complete its mandate in the manner it has to date, by using its commercial judgment to continue to maximise returns to the State.

See this speech in context