Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Perry, and ask him to transmit my views on this matter which deeply concerns me to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. I raise with the Minister for Finance, the Government and all my political colleagues the need for us, as a body politic, to react quickly and firmly to the suggestion that somehow we will go back on the word we gave the Irish taxpayer at the time of the creation of the National Asset Management Agency that private arrangements would not be entered into where NAMA developers would be entitled to purchase back their loans at a discount. I would like to quote the final sentence of George Orwell's book, Animal Farm, because it is very pertinent to this debate. It reads: "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." I say to the Minister of State and the Cathaoirleach, on behalf of the Irish taxpayer, that if we, politically, decide to go back on the commitment we gave to the Irish taxpayer and re-enter into some cosy deal with NAMA developers, then the whole concept of political commitments and political promises will be totally irrelevant. The last general election and the change of Government will not have been worthwhile. That is at the very core of this debate.

The suggestion is now being made, whether on behalf of Government sources or developers, that we will rewrite history in regard to NAMA and give a new set of discounted deals to NAMA developers. The taxpayers, the very same people who footed the original bill, will foot the bill. I want a very firm and very quick commitment from the Government that no such plan is receiving serious consideration.

At the time of the creation of NAMA, which most of us supported as being the least worst option, and at its core were economics, politicise and ethics. There was an economic requirement for it. From a political perspective, it was seen as perhaps the Government and the political establishment taking a hands-on approach to the devastated construction industry. From the perspective of ethics, it was presented as an arrangement which would be transparent and fair.

Questions are being asked about NAMA in this House and the Dáil, but the workings of NAMA and its transparency is a debate for another day. However, section 172 of the legislation absolutely prohibits the prospect of NAMA entering into what I would call discounted deals with the NAMA developers. That position must be maintained. The Irish taxpayer and not some far away entity has already paid €30 billion for the loans and the discount on those loans of €40 billion was taxpayer-funded. The Irish taxpayer, therefore, has a huge interest in how NAMA operates and in ensuring it operates well.

We often hear about a functioning property market and somehow the story is spun that to have a functioning property market again, we must facilitate, in some special way, those who were in charge of what they previously deemed to have been a functioning property market. It was not, of course, a functioning property market but an entirely dysfunctional one based on grossly inflated values and grossly inflated egos. The last thing we want as a society, as a people and as an economy is to go back to those days. The people who speak about a functioning property market must recognise it will be a new place and will not be a return to what existed in the so-called Celtic tiger years.

We must ensure the commitment at the core of NAMA, which the taxpayer who was burdened with such debt was given, that there would be no discounted deals for developers is maintained. I look forward to the broader debate on NAMA, to the concept of it coming under the freedom of information legislation and to the very serious questions which have been raised in this House and elsewhere over the past number of months being articulated and answered. I also look forward with hope to a sense of decency and ethics remaining in this House, in this Government and in politics. I hope the commitment that we would not allow developers discounted deals is fully and strongly maintained.

If there is a further write-down for developers, what will be the arrangement for householders and the tens of thousands of people throughout the country with mortgage debt, credit card debt or with small business debt? How many people who have had difficulty with their financial affairs have been in receipt of salaries of up to €200,000 per annum to look after or get out of their debts? According to media reports, some NAMA developers have been in receipt of those sorts of salaries. If the payment of those sorts of salaries helps, in some way, to get some of the projects up and running, the proper management of mismanaged projects and a return to the taxpayer, fair enough but where is the salary for the man or woman who is trying to live on weekly budget and to pay a mortgage which might be out of control? Where is the salary for the small business person struggling against the odds? We need openness and transparency but, above all, we need fairness.

This country was brought to its knees by greed and by people who felt they lived outside the normal rules. The Government, to its credit, is trying to return this country to solvency and, hopefully, in years to come, to prosperity but we must learn from past mistakes and recognise that one does not build an economy on a so-called property boom. The purpose of development, of housing estates and of a property market should be to provide homes for families and not to turn millionaires into billionaires. Will the Minister of State give a firm commitment that this Government will maintain the line, which its component parties certainly took during the initial debate on the NAMA legislation, that there will be no special arrangements for certain people and that section 172 will remain firmly part of the NAMA guidelines?