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

I thank Deputy Catherine Connolly for tabling the question and Deputy Mick Wallace for acting as proxy and articulating the issue in the House.

I am satisfied NAMA has made and continues to make a significant contribution to the social and economic development of the State.  Its principal contribution to social and economic development has been the major progress that it has made in eliminating Irish taxpayers' contingent liability of €30 billion which arose from the Government-guaranteed senior debt issued in order to acquire bank loan portfolios.  As of today, 95% of that senior debt has been redeemed and NAMA has indicated that it expects all of it to be redeemed by the end of 2017.  NAMA also expects to redeem its subordinated debt by March 2020 and to produce a surplus, which is currently estimated at €2.3 billion, by the time it completes its work.

NAMA has also made a major contribution in driving the development of commercial and residential accommodation in the Dublin Docklands SDZ. This will attract foreign direct investment into Ireland and will create a substantial number of jobs.

NAMA has made a significant contribution to social and economic development in other respects also. I refer the Deputy to NAMA's website, www. nama.ie/social-initiatives/,which contains extensive information on how NAMA seeks to manage its portfolio in a manner that complements the objectives of Government Departments, local authorities, State agencies and public bodies.  NAMA's work in this respect includes the provision of homes for social housing and properties for schools and other public uses. NAMA also works closely with IDA Ireland to identify suitable properties for companies investing in Ireland. All this has been managed in the context of NAMA's overriding commercial mandate, as set out in section 10 of the NAMA Act. 

NAMA has made a substantial contribution in the social housing sector by working with its debtors and receivers, the Housing Agency, local authorities and approved housing bodies. It established the NAMA asset residential property service, NARPS, as an innovative model to expedite social housing delivery.  NARPS has significantly reduced the upfront capital costs for local authorities in delivering to date more than 2,370 residential units for social housing.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

NAMA also played a key role in the resolution of unfinished housing estates within the State.  In 2010 NAMA had exposure to 332 unfinished housing estates. That has now reduced to 11 unfinished estates at this stage and they are expected to be resolved by end-2017.

I would also point out that NAMA is seeking to facilitate the delivery of 20,000 homes over the period from 2016 to 2020, subject to commercial viability.  Since 2014, NAMA funding has facilitated the delivery of 4,700 units by its debtors and receivers.

As regards the Deputy's question as to the obligations on purchasers to build homes, I am advised that NAMA contributes to the delivery of housing in three ways. First, as mentioned above, it seeks to facilitate and fund the delivery of 20,000 homes by 2020 through funding residential projects controlled by its debtors and receivers. Second, its debtors and receivers sell sites to the market which enables other developers to contribute to housing delivery. Sites for 40,000 units have been sold since 2010. As the Deputy will appreciate, it is not possible to impose legal obligations on asset purchasers to undertake activity without significant loss in the site values. Third, NAMA enters into licence arrangements with non-NAMA developers which require them to carry out development on sites securing NAMA loans in return for a fee.

Taken together, I hope the Deputy will agree that NAMA has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the social and economic development of the State and that it does so successfully within the context of NAMA's overriding commercial mandate, as set out in section 10 of the NAMA Act.

As the Deputy is aware, does not own property.  owns loans.  As a lender, cannot force a borrower to take action which would reduce his or her repayment capacity such as providing a property for social or private housing where that is not economically optimal.  To do so would compromise a borrower's capacity to repay his or her debts to and would constitute a direct breach of the borrower's property rights, as protected under Article 43 of the Constitution.  I am advised that a direction running counter to these obligations is not one lawfully open to me in all the current circumstances.

See this speech in context