Seanad debates

Thursday, 6 October 2011

 

National Asset Management Agency

2:00 pm

Photo of Thomas ByrneThomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)

I thank the Cathaoirleach for permitting me to raise this matter. I thank him also for allowing me to raise the issue I raised yesterday. I understand he had to apply some pressure to get the appropriate Minister here. We do not have any problem with Deputy Noonan, as he has always made himself available to the Seanad.

I am sure the Minister will not take what I say as an attack on the Government, but I have a serious concern with regard to NAMA. On the record of the Oireachtas committee on finance and on television programmes involving certain developers, the impression has been put abroad - and I think confirmed - that the principle of developers paying back all they owe is not being adhered to by NAMA. What the former Minister, Brian Lenihan, envisaged for NAMA and what he spoke about in legislation was that developers would pay back all of what they owe or that we would do as much as we could to get them to pay back all they owed. That is the basis on which I would have supported NAMA at the time.

At least one developer has publically stated that all he has to pay back is what NAMA paid for his loans. That is concerning on a number of levels because the principle should be that the developer owes what he or she borrowed at the start and that NAMA should be able to make a profit. There is some evidence that NAMA bought loans at a very low value and it has made profits. It is of serious concern if NAMA is only enforcing the lower values of developers' loans. It is not the basis upon which I supported NAMA. The public rightly are annoyed about this because they do not see their mortgages reduced yet developers are on chat shows saying that they only have to pay back what NAMA paid for the loan. They have received a major write-off.

I can see the point of NAMA working with developers but they should do this to achieve the best possible financial return to the State. This is one of the purposes of NAMA in section 10 and section 11 of the Act, which I have mislaid and do not have in front of me. The overriding purpose of NAMA was to achieve the highest possible return to the taxpayer. It is within the power of the Minister to an issue guidelines and directions to NAMA and I wonder whether it is appropriate to assuage the public mood and show sympathy to those with mortgages who are not receiving a reduction. It will also be the right thing to ask NAMA to go after these guys. That is what the Legislature intended when it passed the NAMA legislation. It is certainly what the Minister would have asked for although he opposed the legislation at the time. It is absolutely what the Fianna Fáil Party asked for, namely, that these developers be pursued "to the ends of the earth" in the words of the then Minister, Brian Lenihan. We now see developers on television in a relaxed frame of mind, owing a fortune and saying that they will not have to pay back the full amount. In some cases they receive a bonus if they pay back more than what NAMA paid. It is of serious concern. Under the NAMA legislation, the Minister has it in his power to do something about this. If an amendment to the legislation is required, the Minister should consider it and he will receive the full support of the Fianna Fáil Party because this is causing considerable disquiet among my colleagues. It is not what we envisaged.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.