Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:Commission of Investigation (National Asset Management Agency) Order 2017,copies of which Order in draft were laid before Dáil Éireann on 9 May 2017.

I will briefly summarise the matters that have led the Government to accept there is a need for a commission of investigation into matters of significant public concern in regard to NAMA’s sale of Project Eagle. Deputies are aware that NAMA was established as part of the response to the banking crisis that arose in 2008. Its objective was to acquire loans from eligible banks, hold and manage these loans and related collateral, which was mainly commercial property, and to achieve the best financial return for the State by disposing of those assets in an expeditious manner.

NAMA acquired the loans from the participating banks for a total of €31.8 billion. Reflecting the steep reduction in property values following the financial crisis, this represented 43% of the outstanding amount owed by debtors. NAMA’s purchase was funded predominantly through €30.2 billion of Government-guaranteed senior NAMA bonds, which was a large contingent liability for the State. At that time, there was no doubt that the repayment of this debt would be extremely challenging and vitally important to improving the creditworthiness of the State. To be successful, NAMA would have to make important and commercially-informed decisions at a time of great economic crisis.

It is important to note that since 2010, against all expectations, NAMA has redeemed 98% of its senior debt, thus reducing the State's contingent liability from the original €30.2 billion to just €500 million today. NAMA expects to redeem the remaining €500 million in 2017 and to ultimately deliver a surplus of over €2 billion to the State. The full repayment of NAMA's debt, let alone returning a surplus to the State, was considered unthinkable by most people at the time of NAMA’s inception. NAMA’s focus during the period from 2018 to 2020 will be on completing its objectives, include delivery of office space in the Dublin docklands and much-needed housing.

All Members of this House are now familiar with the fact that NAMA sold the Project Eagle portfolio to Cerberus in 2014. The sale represented NAMA's largest transaction up to that point. Issues relating to the sale of NAMA’s Project Eagle portfolio subsequently became the subject of much media and political debate, including in this House and in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

During 2016, the Comptroller and Auditor General carried out an investigation into the sale in order to ascertain if NAMA had obtained the best achievable financial return for the State. In September 2016, the Comptroller and Auditor General published a special report on NAMA’s sale of the Project Eagle portfolio which criticised elements of NAMA’s performance. The Comptroller and Auditor General concluded that the decision to sell the loans at a minimum price of £1.3 billion involved a significant probable loss of up to £190 million in terms of net present value, NPV. It also concluded that restrictions on the sales process, combined with the scope of Lazard's comfort letter, did not provide sufficient assurance that a different marketing strategy for the loans or different timing of the sale could not have resulted in NAMA achieving a higher price from the sale of the loans; and allegations of the involvement of a member of NAMA’s Northern Ireland advisory committee in an arrangement to share fees with law firms connected to the sale warranted more action by NAMA. Following publication of the report, NAMA indicated that it fundamentally disagreed with many of the conclusions reached by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

On 14 March 2017, the Committee of Public Accounts published a report on NAMA’s sale of Project Eagle. The report was completed following extensive public meetings at which many key witnesses gave evidence. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Chairman of that committee, Deputy Sean Fleming, and the other members of the committee, for their work in compiling this report. The conclusions in the report include that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report was evidence-based, balanced and reasonable and that the Project Eagle sale was marked by inadequate record-keeping, weaknesses in regard to the management of conflicts of interest, a seriously deficient sales process and, ultimately, an inability by NAMA to demonstrate that it had obtained the best value for money for the State. The Committee of Public Accounts welcomed the proposal to establish a commission of investigation into the sale of NAMA’s Northern Ireland portfolio and was of the opinion that it should proceed.

I emphasise there has been extensive consultation with all parties in the Oireachtas since last September about the establishment of this commission of investigation. The Taoiseach met Opposition leaders on a number of occasions, both before and after the Committee of Public Accounts report was published. At those meetings, all present acknowledged the limitations a commission of investigation will face due to the cross-jurisdictional nature of the issues, as well as ongoing criminal investigations. At those meetings, the Taoiseach also emphasised that it was unclear how much more information a commission would be able to provide beyond what the Committee of Public Accounts has already achieved. Nonetheless, in view of the consensus among Opposition representatives that a commission of investigation be established and despite its likely cost, the Government has agreed to establish the commission. I am pleased to confirm that Mr. Justice John Cooke, former High Court judge, has agreed to chair the commission of investigation.

The Taoiseach also consulted Opposition representatives on the terms of reference of the commission and a number of suggested amendments were taken on board in the final version laid before the Oireachtas on 9 May. Under its terms of reference the commission will, in the first module of its work, investigate NAMA’s sale of Project Eagle. As agreed with Opposition representatives, it will be possible to amend the terms of reference, in accordance with the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, to provide for further modules at a future point. In particular, the commission is to investigate, having regard to NAMA’s statutory obligations under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 and appropriate commercial practice whether the disposal strategy for its Northern Ireland loan portfolio, including the timing of the disposal and sale as a single portfolio, was appropriate in the circumstances; whether the minimum price applied and how it was derived in respect of its Northern Ireland loan portfolio were appropriate in the circumstances; whether the management of the sales process by NAMA, including procedures and controls applied, timeframes, access to potential bidders and record keeping, was appropriate in the circumstances and demonstrated best corporate governance; and whether any conflicts of interest arising with regard to members of NAMA's Northern Ireland advisory committee were managed appropriately in the circumstances. The commission also is to investigate when and how NAMA became aware of fees allegedly payable to a former member of the Northern Ireland advisory committee by bidders on Project Eagle and whether this issue was managed appropriately by NAMA during the sale of the Northern Ireland loan portfolio and if decisions and actions of the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance relating to the disposal of the Northern Ireland portfolio, including communications with members and officials of the Northern Ireland Executive and meetings with potential bidders, were appropriate in the circumstances.

The commission shall avail of appropriate and independent commercial and financial expertise to inform its investigation. The commission will provide a final report on this first module of its work by the end of June 2018, subject to section 6(6) of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004.

I note Deputy Wallace has submitted an amendment to the Government motion today and I wish to point out the Government will not be accepting the amendment. Due to the constraints on my speaking time today, I cannot go into detail regarding all aspects of Deputy Wallace’s motion but I would like to comment briefly on a number of points. First, Deputy Wallace wishes to remove the provision authorising the Taoiseach to appoint members of the commission. It is not clear why this amendment is being proposed as under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, only the Government or the Taoiseach can make such an appointment. As for the commission's terms of reference, the Deputy has suggested a number of amendments. However, the Government believes the current wording, which reflects the consultation with Opposition representatives, including Deputy Wallace, is sufficient and appropriate. Deputy Wallace’s motion also calls for primary legislation to deal with potential claims of privilege and confidentiality that may arise for the commission in its work. While bespoke legislation was enacted in respect of the IBRC commission of investigation, the Government's view is this is not required for this commission. However, as agreed in discussions with the Opposition, the commission will provide an interim report within three months. At that point any specific obstacles identified, legislative or otherwise, can be dealt with. In addition, as all Deputies will be aware, primary legislation takes time and I do not believe the establishment of the commission should be delayed until bespoke legislation, that may well not be needed, is enacted. Finally, the Attorney General’s office has advised that the power of the Oireachtas is to approve or not approve the draft Government order. The Oireachtas cannot amend the draft Government order, which is an order of the Government under section 3 of the 2004 Act.

If this draft order is not approved, the Government will not be able to establish the commission without a new draft order being made and then passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to conclude as his time is up.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I need one minute, if that is agreeable to the House.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The exact requirements of the commission will become clearer once the commission is established and begins to scope out its work in more detail. The appointment of staff and their terms and conditions will be subject to approval by the Taoiseach as the specified Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Significant costs may arise in recruiting independent specialist financial expertise, possibly from overseas. Based on an initial assessment and taking account of the cost estimate for the IBRC commission to investigate one transaction, an approximate cost of €10 million is proposed. This may be an over-estimate if the commission does not suffer from the same level of third party costs and other challenges faced by the IBRC commission. Nonetheless, this estimate was conveyed to the Opposition leaders at all times during the Taoiseach’s discussions with them. It is important to note that this estimate refers to the proposed first module of the commission’s work on NAMA’s sale of Project Eagle only. I believe there is a shared commitment and resolve among the Members of this House that the matters giving rise to public concern regarding the sale by NAMA of its Project Eagle portfolio are investigated thoroughly, effectively and in a timely manner. The Government and the Opposition leaders have agreed that a commission of investigation is the best method of answering the questions that have been the subject of much media and public debate. I commend the motion to the House.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The establishment of this investigation is welcome but it should have taken place well before now. After denial and stonewalling, the Government was dragged into conceding what the public has known since this controversy first arose, which is that the Project Eagle sales process fell - to put it mildly - a long way short of what we would expect for a transaction of this scale and certain aspects of it are nothing short of deeply disturbing. Project Eagle was a £1.1 billion transaction and the Comptroller and Auditor General concluded that there was a probable loss of value to the State of up to £190 million in net present value terms because of the way it was conducted.

I would like to focus on the reasons this inquiry is being established and the answers that we want it to produce. NAMA was established as an arm's length entity, which was to be entirely immune from political involvement. Public trust in its work rested on the belief that it would operate at all times to the highest standards of corporate governance and would do everything possible to maximise the funding recouped for the people. The accumulation of evidence on Project Eagle means that there is legitimate public concern about the process, price, insider information and inappropriate political involvement. The decision to sell the Northern Ireland portfolio occurred four years into NAMA's work at a time when it was well established and the national financial emergency was over.

The sequence of events in 2013 is very concerning. In June 2013 the Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland contacted the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, to say that he had been contacted by an investor about purchasing NAMA's northern assets. Five months later a member of the Northern Ireland advisory committee resigned, effectively to get involved in the process, and a further month later Project Eagle was launched.

While that sales process was under way, the Minister, Deputy Noonan met one of the bidders in a meeting which he has defended as appropriate but which the Committee of Public Accounts decided by majority vote was procedurally inappropriate. As was addressed at great length in another inquiry, a Minister meeting a bidder during a closed and arm's length sale of a public asset is very unusual, especially if the Government has no role in setting the policy or regulatory framework which impacts on the asset. Once the sale went through, there have been consistent claims, including by the Comptroller and Auditor General, that the process was flawed and resulted in a major loss for the State.

I welcome that the commission will have at its disposal the appropriate independent commercial and financial expertise to inform its investigation. Given the conflict between the Comptroller and Auditor General and NAMA on technical issues around the discounting of cashflows, issues which are indeed fundamental to the overall conclusion reached by the Comptroller and Auditor General, having this expertise at the commission's disposal is essential.

What has been especially striking over the past year has been the aggression - we witnessed it a number of weeks ago in this House when the Minister, Deputy Noonan attacked the independent Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts - with which the Government has defended not just the legality but also the propriety of its political actions. Such actions include a number of discussions on a North-South basis and the Minister for Finance's meeting the bidder. The Government has sought to frustrate and dismiss concerns about a potentially undermined process and, indeed, suspicious political involvement. As the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, has said tonight, jurisdictional issues are a major problem in this inquiry. Given that the DUP cannot lodge a petition of concern by itself, it is our hope that when the assembly and Executive get back to work, the majority will take steps to support the investigation which it is hoped this House will establish shortly. I also call on the Government to write formally to the Northern Ireland Executive, assembly and Secretary of State seeking their full co-operation in all matters pertaining to this investigation.

It may well be that there are other transactions in NAMA which deserve deeper public scrutiny. I have publicly raised questions about Project Tolka, for example. There is an absolute need to get to the bottom of the Project Eagle process and outturn in the first instance. The terms of reference provide for further modules in respect of other transactions, if necessary. I welcome the statement by the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, that any issues identified during the interim report, which will be furnished to the Government after three months, will be addressed. It is to be hoped we can understand that as a firm commitment from the Government. That would certainly be the desire of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I wish Mr. Justice Cooke and all involved in the commission team well in their efforts to get some answers to fundamental questions that remain outstanding in respect of the Project Eagle transaction.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join my colleague, Deputy McGrath, in welcoming the establishment of this very important commission of investigation, which I do not doubt the Government will formally establish in the next couple of weeks. At this early stage, I also welcome the nomination of Mr. Justice Cooke to take charge of it. While arrangements have to be made for accommodation, location, staffing and resources, it is to be hoped the commission will be fully up and running within the next couple of weeks.

A question has been raised about the draft terms of reference. I understand the Attorney General has stated that the House can either approve the draft terms of reference or not, but it cannot amend them. While I accept that this is the legal position, if the Taoiseach is of a mind to change the draft terms of reference, I suggest that he might come back to the Oireachtas to get approval. We have approved the draft terms of reference in good faith on the basis that there will be no change to them prior to the Minister's formal establishment of the commission by statutory instrument. We can operate in good faith on that basis.

I welcome the commission. It has been called for over recent months. As Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I was neutral on the matter until I examined it as part of our considerations of Project Eagle when the committee came to the firm conclusion that this commission of investigation should be established forthwith.

Fianna Fáil is pleased with the terms of reference, which include examination of the disposal strategy by NAMA of its Northern Ireland loan book portfolio, and consideration of the minimum price supplied. This is a very important issue. There were many technical discussions about what discount rate was being used. I have come to the view that the minimum price was set by the bidder that had made an earlier submission for up to £1.3 billion. The format was restrictive. It was not a publicly identified sales process and various conditions were attached to it. The person had to have the money on the table and there would not be any pre-financing agreements to be put in place. That really limited the scope of those who could bid. I believe that to be one of the reasons we had such a specific minimum price set.

There is a need to look at the management of the sales process, as the Committee of Public Accounts concluded in respect of NAMA's sales process. The commission should also look at the Northern Ireland advisory committee and how NAMA handled the conflicts of interest. I think it was far too laid back. The Committee of Public Accounts criticised NAMA in its report. There were conflicts of interest at an early stage and, although NAMA should have dealt with them in a timely fashion, it never did so adequately. There should also be examination of the contacts and discussions between the Department of Finance in the South and the Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland prior to the formal launch of the Project Eagle bid.

I welcome that the commission of investigation will be able to issue a recommendation as it sees fit. People will ask how long this will go on. That is the burning question. I am pleased that, according to the draft terms of reference, an interim report is to be presented to the Taoiseach within three months of the date of the commission's establishment. If it is established in mid-June, we would expect to be discussing the interim report before the end of September when we come back after the summer recess. It should be in the Taoiseach's hands by that time. There is then scope for adding further modules to the investigation as time goes along.

The Committee of Public Accounts did find that it was not appropriate for NAMA as a contracting body to meet Cerberus representatives the day before the Project Eagle bid closing date. We also found that it was not procedurally appropriate for the Minister for Finance to meet the same people on the same day, and I have no doubt that Mr. Justice Cooke will examine those issues. We were firmly of the view that the sale of Project Eagle was not a well-designed process and that the strategy pursued by NAMA included restrictions of such significance that it could be described as seriously deficient. It was the opinion of the committee that NAMA was unable to demonstrate that by pursuing such a strategy, it got value for money for the Irish State in respect of the price achieved.

The Committee of Public Accounts will pass to the commission all documentation that came to it. The committee members are happy and willing to assist in any way we can, including by providing the letters received from NAMA on 19 April 2017 and the committee's response on 15 May 2017, which came after the publication of the draft terms of reference.

If I may say so, the Committee of Public Accounts did outstanding work and produced a great report at absolutely no additional cost whatever to the taxpayer. Not a penny did we incur. It was all done using the facilities here in the Houses of the Oireachtas and by the members of the committee, whereas we are now putting forward €10 million for this. I hope we get value for money.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún atá os ár gcomhair anocht. Sa deireadh thiar thall, táimid ag an bpointe seo. Le fáil go dtí an pointe seo, cuireadh go leor constaicí in ár mbealach. Bhí daoine sa Teach seo ag lorg coimisiún fiosrúcháin ag baint le díolachán Project Eagle le tamall fada. Chonaic muid arís agus arís eile an Rialtas agus Páirtí Fhine Gael, le cuidiú agus le tacaíocht ó Pháirtí Fhianna Fáil, ag cur ina éadan sin. Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil sé anois thar a bheith bliain ó chur an Teachta Wallace an rún maidir leis an gcoimisiún os comhair na Dála. Ar an lá sin, shíl muid go mbeadh an coimisiún bunaithe agus i mbun a chuid oibre faoin am seo agus go mbeadh cuid de na torthaí le feiceáil agus an t-eolas ar fáil. Ar an drochuair, áfach, tháinig leasú ag an am sin ó Pháirtí Fhianna Fáil a dúirt nár chóir coimisiún fiosrúcháin a bheith bunaithe go dtí go raibh críoch leis na fiosrúcháin uilig a bhí ar siúl ag na fórsaí póilíneachta ar fud an domhain a bhí ag déileáil leis seo sna Stáit Aontaithe, sa Bhreatain agus a leithéid mar sin. Caithfidh mé a rá, áfach, go bhfuil mé iontach sásta go bhfuil achan pháirtí anois, mar a thuigim é, ag tabhairt tacaíocht don rún seo.

I welcome the fact that we are agreeing, across parties and across the Chamber, to establish a commission of investigation into the sale of Project Eagle. This is something Sinn Féin has been hailing for many years. Indeed, the amendment from Deputy Wallace reflects a statement made by Deputy Adams in light of the Fianna Fáil amendment to block the commission of investigation into this matter from being established 11 months ago. At the time, the Fianna Fáil representative stated, "To proceed with a Commission of Investigation while a formal criminal investigation is underway would, in our view, show reckless disregard for a police investigation and could potentially undermine prosecutions." I welcome that Fianna Fáil has changed its position on the question and that it supports the commission of investigation, as we do. We have suggested, as has Deputy Wallace in this instance, that the IBRC model would be the most appropriate way in which to investigate the matter.

There has been needless delay in respect of this issue. The commission of investigation should have been established. In the meantime, God only knows what has gone on in NAMA. For example, since that motion was tabled in the Dáil, we have had the sale of Project Jewel. We have seen some of the spin-offs from Project Jewel in the sense that one of the REITs bought some of the best assets. We can see the pressure this is putting on the housing market and tenants as a result.

I have no doubt that the change of mind from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil on this matter has not simply come as a result of the pressure applied politically in the House but more so from public pressure. It has become unsustainable to stand against the idea of establishing a commission of investigation given the wealth of information in the public domain.

I value the work the Committee of Public Accounts has done, but I believe that it was not necessary in this case because the information was available. We saw it on our television screens and we can read the transcripts. The documentation was available. There was enough evidence to suggest that a commission of investigation was needed. Indeed, there is nothing in the Committee of Public Accounts report that actually adds anything. It parses the evidence and presents it again but there is nothing to allow us reinforce our view that a commission of investigation should have been put in place.

I commend the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General in particular as well as the members of the Committee of Public Accounts in not letting the issue rest. I understand there was a difference of opinion in respect of one of the findings at the committee. It related to whether the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, met a person or whether that was appropriate. He had the meeting. In my view, it was inappropriate. In any event, that is not the biggest or most central issue. The biggest issue is that a State agency sold billions of euro of our assets. I am not simply referring to Project Eagle, although billions were at stake in that case also. In this instance, we have fixer fees, conflicts of interest, offshore accounts, eve-of-bid ministerial interventions and political-to-political interventions. All of these things happened. It would make for a good crime thriller, the type that a person could pick up in an airport bookshop, but this is real life and this is our money. As the Comptroller and Auditor General suggested, there is a probable loss of in the region of £190 million. This is at a time when our State cannot fund vital essential services, including those for children with special needs, people who have difficulties in accessing home help and those for children who cannot obtain access to special needs assistants in the education sector in order to ensure that they reach their full potential. This State agency has resulted in a probable loss of close to €250 billion and yet the Government, with the support of Fianna Fáil, was willing to sweep this under the carpet for a long time. Having said that, I welcome the fact that the commission is here.

I agree with the terms of reference. The first module should examine Project Eagle. I have always argued that there needs to be other modules. We will come to that as time passes by. Let us see how we get on with the first module. I have no doubt that it will be difficult. Cross-jurisdictional issues will arise and individuals may or may not comply with the commission of investigation. I appeal to everyone to engage with the commission of investigation in order to ensure that the truth emerges.

I welcome the fact that the decisions and actions of the Minister for Finance and his Department regarding the disposal of the northern portfolio will be examined. This includes examining whether communications with members and officials of the executives and meetings with potential bidders were appropriate in the circumstances. I welcome that this point is included in the terms of reference.

The Minister tells us that there was never any political interference of NAMA to sell. That is nonsense. How do I know that? We know from a recent freedom of information request from journalists Conor Molumby and Mark Tighe. They revealed new documents that call this very issue into serious question:

The Minister noted that following Ireland's emergence from the Bailout Programme, one of the Government's key priorities was to reduce Ireland's debt to GDP ratio from the current 120% to the European average of 94%. The Minister noted the wider implications and impact of NAMA's performance for the country and particularly for the banks. In this context he noted that the proceeds from a sale of Ireland's bank shares could be used to reduce the national debt and requested that NAMA consider whether it could advance the repayment schedule of Senior Bonds through accelerating asset disposals with a view to making bank assets more saleable.

For me, that statement is clear. It amounts to the Minister for Finance - the political master of the day - giving the green light to NAMA to sell as quickly as possible rather than to sell as wisely as possible. It flies in the face of statement after statement that has been paraded in the House to the effect that the Minister did not direct or provide influence on NAMA to accelerate the process. All of this needs to be dealt with by the commission of investigation.

Something is altogether lacking at the heart of this State, because we have to go again and establish a commission of investigation. It will not be the last one. There is another inquiry into IBRC. We have commissions of investigation falling around us. The reason is that this State does not do accountability. Today, events in the courts have highlighted the weakness of white-collar crime legislation and enforcement. If the House and its legislators did their job right, we would not be talking about establishing another tribunal or commission of investigation. We would not be referring to reports such as those produced by the Moriarty tribunal or the Mahon tribunal in respect of which nothing actually happened. If we ensured that the legislation was robust, then there would be no excuses for the failings of the past.

Let us consider the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. The staff of the office has been cut by 25% since Deputy Enda Kenny became Taoiseach. In 2007, Deputy Micheál Martin refused point blank to support the claims of the office to increase its workforce by 20. Bertie Ahern said that the office needed to get in line. That was at the time when the bankers were running amok and when they cost us billions of euro. We still do not have laws on reckless lending. We do not do white-collar crime in this country unless we take it from the script of the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Varadkar, which holds that the only white-collar crime relates to welfare fraud. When it comes to wrecking the economy, the country, reckless lending, fixer fees, conflicts of interest relating to billions of euro and so on, then it is a free pass.

There must be clear lessons learned. We need to establish the commission of investigation because it is the only option. We need to learn the from what has happened. We need to get our act together and legislate properly in respect of white collar crime to ensure such activities never happen again.

It is absolutely unbelievable that we are allowing NAMA to sell off our assets as this commission of investigation is ongoing. The House is agreeing to establish a commission of investigation into what has happened in NAMA. Yet, NAMA has billions of euro of our money. The money is in property - bricks and mortar - greenfield sites and so on, but it is our money and we are allowing NAMA to do whatever it wants with that money while we are investigating whether what NAMA did in a €1.1 billion transaction was appropriate. There should be a complete freeze on NAMA's sales.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendments to the Government motion seeking to focus the commission of investigation but also seeking to suspend NAMA sales pending the completion of the investigation. We are in the habit of having investigations and commissions that tread over the same ground.

It remains to be seen if this investigation will get us any further. That said, it is walking on the foundation of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on Project Eagle, which tells us quite a lot about what we need to know about NAMA's operations. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General, NAMA incurred a potential loss to the taxpayer of €223 million on the sale of a portfolio of all of its remaining 860 Northern Irish loans and 900-plus properties to Cerberus for €1.53 billion in April 2014. However, according to The Irish Times, the original book value of the Project Eagle loans was more than €6 billion. In that sense, the true loss to the State was actually approximately €4.5 billion and not €223 million.

I want to challenge again the typical response those of us on the left received throughout NAMA's existence from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, when we highlighted how NAMA's brief could have been radically altered in order to make a significant contribution to the resolution of the housing and accommodation crisis. The Minister's refrain was that NAMA had to get the best deal possible for the taxpayer. The uncontested facts around Project Eagle alone knock that one on the head. I put it to the Minister and the Government that not utilising NAMA's assets, even on the basis of their own narrow criteria of the best deal for the taxpayer, does not make sense. Had NAMA's resources and assets, including €2.4 billion in cash reserves last year and a projected €2.8 billion in overseas sales, been deployed to help solve the housing crisis over the past three years, how much would have been saved out of the tens of millions that have been spent on emergency accommodation? How many of the millions spent on rent supplement and the housing assistance payment, HAP, for extortionate rents would have been saved?

A 2014 National Economic and Social Council, NESC, report found there were 47,000 households on rent supplement that were not on the housing list. According to the Department of Social Protection, in 2014-15 there were between 30,000 and 31,500 tenancies with private landlords supported by the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which would have been taken off the housing list. In addition, there are 8,800 households on the housing assistance payment, HAP. All of these schemes together cost approximately €500 million in handouts to private landlords. This is money that could be better spent building and acquiring permanent public housing. Some €6 billion was spent on rent subsidies to private landlords since 2004. That could have been used to build 60,000 permanent council homes by now.

Even that is not the full picture. There is also the societal costs that cannot be translated easily into monetary statistics. They include the mental and physical health of those who have experienced homelessness and overcrowding and the disruption to the schooling of children forced to live in emergency accommodation. It is clear that these calculations did not even enter the heads of those in this Government and, despite what we now know, nor is the Government inclined to change course now. Instead, its main concern is to prevent the retooling of NAMA as a public housing body. Why? It is because of the depressing impact it would have on private developers' ability to turn a big profit. According to the CEO of NAMA, Brendan McDonagh, many developers are, in his words, "not satisfied" with a €20,000 profit on a €300,000 home. They would rather wait until prices rose to a point at which a €50,000 profit was possible. He explained this to the special housing committee that was set up by this House after last year's election. He stated:

...if sales prices went up by 5%, the profit would increase to €30,000. If they went up 10%, the profit would increase to €40,000. That is the dynamic of the market.

The strength of my argument is also shown by estimates on the component costs of a €330,000 house that were provided to the committee by the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland. These estimates allow for nearly €40,000 in developer's profit on a €330,000 house. According to the chair of NAMA, Frank Daly, land speculators in Dublin are currently seeking returns of 15% to 20%. That NAMA has acted as an accessory to the de facto strike in investment by developers is, of course, perfectly legal. However, for some of us it is even a bigger scandal that is worthy of exposure. It is even bigger a scandal than what has happened with Project Eagle, though that be scandal itself.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to talk on this matter. I am not sure what the proposed commission of investigation will achieve. It is too late. It is like closing the stable door when the horse has gone down the road. We, as a country, have had many tribunals, inquiries and reports and people out there are very sceptical about what they have achieved. There will be jurisdiction problems with this investigation and problems getting witnesses to attend, as some of the people involved are living in other jurisdictions.

I had another sheet.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should take his time.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did Deputy Mattie McGrath take Deputy Healy-Rae's sheet?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It is only the Government that takes votes for each other; we do not take things at all.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should proceed in his own time.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I do not know where I put it. I have it now.

NAMA was set up by Government and when it was first set up, many thought it was a good idea. Many felt that if NAMA held on to property owned by people, companies or banks with financial problems for long enough, it would realise substantial funding for the State. There has not been enough transparency with NAMA. People ask me why NAMA has not sold any of the properties it controlled by public auction or public tender and why it sold many properties in bundles. When it does this, it rules out the small people and the people who have an interest in a certain property. It sells a lot of bundles together or bundles up a lot of properties together which deprives many people of the opportunity of buying. We all know when a certain property goes for sale at public auction and people are interested in it, they drive it on and drive it up, because there could be two or three interested bidders. If there are more properties included, which they are not interested in, they are not as likely to show interest and they may not have the finance to buy a bigger bundle of properties together.

I support and welcome instances in which companies that lost everything during the collapse are given the opportunity to buy back some or all of the properties they lost.

They have worked hard to provide funding to buy back some of their properties. They had invested large sums, employed people and then lost much of what they owned when the market collapsed. I am glad some of these companies were able to buy back some of the properties they owned previously.

I am not sure the commission of investigation will provide anything positive, other than perhaps find out some of the things that should or should not have happened. I do not know how it will leave the country or economy financially better off. I hope the investigation does not go on forever. I hope, when its findings are published, we will wake up and realise that some of these inquiries, reports and tribunals are providing very little in the way of repaying taxpayers for what should or should not have happened, as the case may be. I am sceptical about the commission of investigation but I will go along with it until I see what it achieves. Many people are sceptical about commissioning more investigations, reports and tribunals because previous inquiries have not delivered many financial benefits for taxpayers.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to speak on this issue and thank the Minister for Finance and Taoiseach for the briefings provided to Deputies on the establishment of a commission of investigation into the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. I attended two such briefings with officials.

I am surprised by the appointment of the named eminent justice to chair the commission of investigation. A question that arose at the briefings I attended and in other briefings, specifically the one on the commission of investigation into An Garda Síochána, was where we will stop with inquiries and tribunals. Only last week, we were discussing legislation dealing with issues arising from the Flood tribunal. We are in a tribunal frenzy. This is like having a bad rust on old Morris Minor car - animal feed cars were worse as they rusted like hell - in that it is bad for the body politic. It is unclear if the tribunals and inquiries have been of value. Nobody has been held accountable. Many of the recommendations have been challenged and I understand more will be challenged. Tribunals and inquiries allow the white collar class and the big people to avoid facing trial as they would in other countries. When tribunals are set up the fat cats get fatter - Deputy O'Callaghan is not here - because they are let loose in the Law Library and get the industry going. The ball is thrown in like at a match in Croke Park that never ends. That is what is wrong with the tribunals and I do not have any faith in them.

I have never had any faith in the National Asset Management Agency either. The comments I made on the night we discussed the legislation setting up NAMA are on record. The then Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan, was sitting in the seat occupied by the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe. I fundamentally disagreed and differed with the Minister and described the establishment of NAMA as like letting a wild animal out in the woods with no idea where it would end up. By God, I have been proved right. The legislation on NAMA was so tight that Deputies could not interfere and were afraid to even write to the agency about issues for a long time.

We had Project Eagle here, project jackdaw in Clonmel and many other projects around the place. There is an amount of underhandedness and skulduggery. Ireland is too small for something like this because everybody knows everybody else. Even the people who had done a runner and left the country are back and own the land that went into NAMA. What in God's name is going on or are the lunatics really running the asylum? These people are back in business. People contacted me to say they could not be in business. Auctioneers are acting on their behalf and are now selling the land that went into NAMA, which was supposed to be of benefit to the State. Planning permission for 100 houses was granted in my village. Why did we not get some social capital or benefit from NAMA?

While the terms of reference of the commission of investigation are welcome, in particular regarding whether the disposal strategy for the sale of NAMA's Northern Ireland loan portfolio was appropriate, I have concerns about another matter, namely, the eminent justice who has been chosen to chair the commission. I received an email this evening from a man I know well, Mr. Seamus Maye, in which he states that Mr. Justice Cooke’s shareholding in a defendant company, CRH plc, was not declared by him to plaintiffs in two cases during 2010, 2011 and 2012. Arising from Mr. Justice Cooke's failure to disclose his shareholding in that case, there are now-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is here a long time and has considerable experience. He should refrain from making comments about the judge.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The judge has been appointed and we are discussing his appointment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy must refrain from making any comments about people who are not-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am commenting on the suitability of the individual who will head up the commission of investigation. Why bother discussing this if it is a closed shop?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a closed shop.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle seeks to gag me.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy knows the rules.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but we are discussing the commission of investigation. The chairman, who will present the report, has been forced off court cases in the High Court and other courts and has been forced to declare issues he did not declare when he was presiding over cases in which he had a vested interest. That is not right. I do not know what will happen. If we are not allowed to debate this motion, will it be forced through and the issue dealt with in that way? I will certainly not support it.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is better to resolve this issue this evening. The Deputy stated the judge had a vested interest.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say he had a vested interest in this case. I referred to other cases. I referred to previous incarnations and cases of construction companies and CRH, which supplied lots of concrete to people who went into NAMA. I did not refer to this case but to history.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move on.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will we be satisfied with this? I am being gagged here.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is not being gagged.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am. I have been told I cannot question the chairman's suitability for the role.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The commission has been appointed and we should allow it to get on with its work.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not and I am not happy.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reluctantly support the setting up of this commission of investigation because I believe an inquiry should be held. However, it was predictable that matters should come to this. The investigation is to be specifically limited to Project Eagle and the controversial sale of the Northern Ireland loan book. It is clear that serious questions arise regarding the wider operations of the National Asset Management Agency and the agency's impact on the economy. While Project Eagle clearly requires specific investigation, there is no reason it could not be the first module in a wider commission of investigation.

The Minister for Finance, responding to questions in the House on the oversight of NAMA, repeatedly stated the Comptroller and Auditor General had a supervisory role in respect of NAMA. This overstates the role of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has an audit rather than supervisory role. This is a major deficiency and the Minister's statements give a false impression of the type of oversight that applies. This goes back to the establishment of NAMA.

As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I was involved in the report on the sale of Project Eagle. I am, therefore, well acquainted with most of the details pertaining to the sale that were within the scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. Wider issues arise, however, which is the reason the commission of investigation is being established. Serious concerns were raised regarding the appropriateness of the Minister for Finance and NAMA officials meeting Cerberus on the day before the bidding process closed and they were sufficient to divide the Committee of Public Accounts for the first time in its history. Those operating in the world of big business will confirm that even a perception that Cerberus had an inside track would be seriously off-putting for other bidders and could reduce the amount that could be obtained for other distressed assets.

It must be noted that Cerberus got the lion's share of the transactions involving billions of euro. I am confident that this, coupled with the knowledge that Cerberus held meetings with the Minister, NAMA and other bidders, has the potential to give the impression at the very least that it was the preferred-----

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I interrupt for a second? Obviously, we will not have this completed by 8 p.m., as per the order. Does the House agree that we should continue for the next seven minutes before proceeding to the next business? Agreed.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It had a preferential opportunity. The questionable decision to bundle loans raised eyebrows, and rightly so, given that it excluded many potential bidders and ensured that the proposed sale would only be available to a small, elite group of large investors. It can be legitimately argued that such bundling may have occurred because of the need to bring forward the asset sales in order to allow the Minister to provide a skewed picture of our finances to the ECB. We were told that there was no pressure from the ECB to bring the sales process forward. It is vital that the commission thoroughly examine such a possibility and set out the reasoning behind the decision to bundle the loans in such a way.

While I support the commission of investigation, limited and all as it is, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the fact that yet another commission of investigation into a matter of serious public concern is about to get under way. This seems to be our approach to dealing with problems and needs to be examined in its own right. Why can we not deal with issues in real time and, when designing systems, predict the kind of oversight that is required? The work of commissions excludes us from making freedom of information requests and exploring issues, which almost go into hiding for the length of time it takes the commissions to do their work. The Committee of Public Accounts has done some work that shortcut the work of the commission. I hope this means that we will have a speedy result and a report is before the House sooner rather than later.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, have concerns about the establishment of this commission, but we are willing to support it. The Committee of Public Accounts has published a report that compels us to look further into the differences it outlined between the Comptroller and Auditor General's office, NAMA and the Minister.

Like Deputy Catherine Murphy, I have concerns about the mechanism of using commissions. We have seen the legal knots that we can get ourselves tied up in with such a process. It tends to be legacy oriented rather than related to current and urgent issues and problems with the process, expense and many other issues often arise.

I have mentioned a specific concern at various stages along the way, in that one of the key issues regarding this investigation into Project Eagle seems to be whether individual staff members within NAMA in the Republic were compromised by what was uncovered regarding Mr. Cushnahan and his claims that he was able to influence officials here. In the absence of the UK's National Crime Agency coming to any conclusion in its inquiries, which is probably the best way to put it, into the role of Mr. Ronnie Hanna in that regard, it is difficult to know how the commission can effectively take on its task. It has been almost a year since Mr. Hanna started helping the UK authorities with their inquiries, as they say. The chairman of NAMA, Mr. Daly, has indicated that there has been no indication of charges being laid against Mr. Hanna. That there has been no further charges makes it difficult for us to set out terms of reference or to know the scale of what we are inquiring into, given that we do not know the conclusion of the National Crime Agency's investigation. That agency has the ability to examine computer and other records in a way that is more insightful than anything we have seen to date.

I must express another concern. As much attention needs to be applied to the management of the remaining assets. Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to real-time investigations. I would love for us to concentrate on the role of NAMA in the building of 20,000 housing units. We are in a housing crisis and I understand the majority of those units to be in the Dublin area and due to be completed within the next three years. I have a slight concern about the nature of commissions of inquiry, in that the legalistic force around this commission might distract from this key task for NAMA in its remaining years of existence. I seek an assurance that, wherever this process takes us, we manage the remaining land assets that NAMA has access to in an effective way.

In that regard, we seem to be restricted in a way that was not included in the original NAMA legislation. There was an interesting debate in the Dáil today on the development of Cherrywood, where NAMA had control over a large portfolio of land and loans. Similarly, the recommended strategic development zone, SDZ, at the Poolbeg site has just been completed. In my understanding of the NAMA legislation, section 12(8) should have provided us with much greater flexibility regarding how NAMA uses its landbank, particularly in urban areas where there is a critical housing need. I am wary that the focus on the Project Eagle inquiry does not divert from that remaining critical task for NAMA in the roll-out of other assets.

That said, we support the inquiry and wish the judge well in his work. It is important that he address within the three-month period some of the issues that I have raised, in particular an update on the National Crime Agency, which might influence the commission's work one way or the other. Whatever else happens, we should not get bogged down in a long, multi-annual, multimillion euro investigation process that provides us with no more clarity than the Committee of Public Accounts did in the first place.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Wallace is not present to press his amendment.