Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)

Senator Daly has been consistent on this issue and this goes back to the previous Government. Were I obliged to vote again on the creation of NAMA as I did back in 2009, I would and the same vote would apply as when I was a Member of the other House. NAMA is extremely important to the future prosperity of this State. It was an important part of the attempt to cleanse the balance sheets of our banks to allow them to do what they are not doing at present, that is, to lend into the real economy.

I have a couple of questions to which the Minister might respond now or later. In his opening statement, the Minister mentioned the Government's primary concern is ensuring a commercial return for the taxpayer. While I fully agree with him, I consider NAMA's disposal of properties in the context of an average discount, or haircut as it was called back then, on loans taken over to NAMA of approximately 50%. Moreover, the taxpayer ponied up 100% if one includes the cost of the recapitalisation of the banks in addition to NAMA's purchase of the loans at a discounted price. I have an issue with how NAMA now tends to track what are its so-called profits on the basis of what it has made above and beyond the price for which it purchased the loan. However, the taxpayer is on the hook for a lot more than the aforementioned average 50% discount. While colleagues today have mentioned that NAMA has not engaged in a fire sale, I believe it has moved too quickly in selling European and British property in particular for which there have been good rent rolls and good tenants. Vultures from across the world have been looking at prime property, particularly in London, where there have been such cases, and NAMA has sold such properties on the cheap. I refer to the basis of the agency's staff performance guides by which its staff will receive bonuses for hitting certain targets. Is it true the targets they are hitting in this regard are above and beyond the price for which NAMA actually purchased the loans? In other words, in the case of a loan with the average discount of 50%, were NAMA to sell it for 50% plus 1%, this 1% would be deemed by the agency to be a profit. However, that is not a profit to the taxpayer and is not, in the Minister's own words, a commercial return for the taxpayer. This is not what it said on the tin two or three years ago and this is an issue to which all Members must give genuine consideration.

In addition, I fully agree with Senator Michael D'Arcy in that I have a concern regarding the NAMA scheme for guaranteeing properties against future falls in market value. Moreover, I am concerned about some properties NAMA has put forward as part of its pilot scheme. In particular, in respect of one development in north Dublin listed on the NAMA website, I ask the Department of Finance to ascertain whether it can confirm the estate in question has pyrite. I believe it does and while I do not wish to put this on the record of the House, I will give details to the Minister's officials after this debate has concluded. Issues have arisen in this regard in which the Minister is involved and on today's Order of Business, I asked when the pyrite report will be issued. This issue also is tied in to NAMA because unfortunately, many of those who live in unfinished estates, particularly on the east coast but throughout Ireland, have been hit with a double whammy of having pyrite issues within their unfinished estate. I greatly hope the €2 billion announced by NAMA first and foremost will be directed towards making them safe. I acknowledge the former Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, did some good work at the outset to ensure estates were, at the very least, safe.

However, to revert to the Bill itself, I do not agree with the premise that this information is commercially sensitive. Incidentally, I am glad the Government included in its programme for Government a national property database, which I had sought during the lifetime of the previous Government. My colleague, Senator Daly, has given a few examples demonstrating how an issue certainly exists with regard to how some commercial properties are being purchased and sold. I do not suggest all of them but there is an issue in respect of some of them. The Bill itself sets out clearly how this can be done, which would mean bringing in commercial property to this register if, at the very least, NAMA has an interest. As my colleague has stated, NAMA does not control the properties for most of the loans it has and in more than 90% of cases, it has control of the loans themselves. Consequently, it is possible to suggest that as the agency does not hold the property, it cannot release that information. However, the bottom line is that for people to have greater confidence in NAMA, one must realise when the current system is not working as it should. I might add I have confidence in those who work in the agency, which has some excellent people who are doing a tough job. This Bill offers a way to ensure people know how and when decisions are made regarding the selling of properties or loans or properties involving loans held by NAMA and to ensure they go through a proper public process. In the instances mentioned by Senator Daly in the Chamber today, it is clear no such proper auction or sale on those properties took place.

I will conclude by noting the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 is clear on what the agency should be doing. Given his opening comments, I do not expect the Minister to accept this Bill. However, should this Bill fail to proceed beyond this Stage after a division, the Fianna Fáil grouping will continue to put forward suggestions as to how it believes it can make NAMA work better. In this context, I ask the Minister to indicate what, in NAMA's view and his own view, constitutes a commercial return for the taxpayer. Is it 50% plus 1% or is it 100% plus 1%, because I believe the taxpayer is being sold short in many instances?