Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White to the House.

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy White for coming into the House this evening, but I am a little disappointed that the Minister for Finance is not here, given that the issue I raise on the Adjournment is a matter of national importance and of particular concern and interest to the taxpayer. This matter relates to the recent revelations regarding a former employee of NAMA who secured employment in the private sector immediately following his employment with NAMA.

I raised with the Minister for Finance in the House a related issue, relating to the lack of a proper non-compete clause in employment contracts with the agency. The lack of such a clause leaves the taxpayer unprotected. I am concerned about the fact that, in Ireland, there is a record of financial institutions having no morals or scruples in dealing with their customers and the taxpayer. I highlighted some of the terrible treatment that Irish customers of Ulster Bank faced last year. We also have evidence of the widespread mis-selling of financial products. We are now also privy to the tapes of conversations between executive of the former Anglo Irish Bank.

I am particularly concerned by a situation relating to the individual in question, which was raised with me last week. I received damning information that the same individual had communication with third parties in respect of a customer's business with NAMA, which possibly contravene sections of the Data Protection Act, the Official Secrets Act, the National Asset Management Agency Act, the National Treasury Management Agency Act, and which may be prejudicial to NAMA's customer in question. The information can be substantiated and confirms to me that there has been continual and ongoing communication between a Paul Hennigan and a third party in respect of a customer's business affairs in NAMA.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Senator please refrain from naming persons in the House.

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise. It will not happen again. This communication may be prejudicial to NAMA's customer and has left the State and the taxpayer exposed to a potential claim for damages for hundreds of millions. It is quite clear to me that NAMA did not act in the best interest of its customer in this instance. My concern is that this may very well be the tip of the iceberg. Will the State be left exposed to other potential claims as a result of how NAMA conducts its business? That is of utmost concern to me.

This is not the only incident regarding this individual. It was reported in the Sunday Independent only last week that the individual in question also dealt with a property transaction at St. James' Square in London which was bought by a company, of which he became a partner immediately after leaving NAMA. I wonder at the level and manner of contacts there were between this individual and the people of Prime London Partners while the negotiation process was in train.

What contracts were there between the London property investment company and the former NAMA employee since the deal's completion? Did they have contact regarding other potential or actual deals between the completion of the St. James's Square deal and his departure from NAMA?

We must remember that this is the very same individual involved in the sale of a property to another NAMA employee who was the subject of an internal investigation, and all these combined actions are possibly significantly undermining NAMA's ability to recover the optimum amount for its assets and return for the Irish taxpayer. The individual I speak of is the same person who tried to silence me on an issue by threatening me with legal action when I mentioned non-compete clauses in contracts for NAMA employees. I wonder if he telephoned my office and left the voicemail because of the details I have submitted to the House this evening and if he was afraid of them coming in to the public domain. In view of the seriousness of the matters I have brought before the House, I request the Minister for Finance to instruct the Garda Commissioner in what I would consider a most serious issue of misconduct, particularly in respect of potential offences under the Data Protection Acts, the Official Secrets Acts, the National Treasury Management Agency Act and the NAMA Act. This investigation should not be restricted just to the legal aspects of these issues and should largely incorporate examination of the potential risks of possible future claims against this State arising from the actions of employees or former employees of NAMA.

The board of NAMA should be directed to implement a risk management policy to incorporate all the issues I have brought before the House. Ultimately, we must protect the family silver and we cannot have practices like this being facilitated for possible personal gain by people who are very conflicted. It is clear the agency and the taxpayer remains vulnerable to abuse by the actions of employees past and present, which is why I have raised the matter this evening. I look forward to the response of the Minister for Finance.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has raised the matter of referring to the Garda national bureau of criminal investigation the fact that an ex-employee of NAMA has now taken up employment with a private sector entity with which NAMA has previously engaged in a business transaction. It is unclear on what basis the Senator believes that this is a matter that the Minister for Finance should refer to the bureau. The remit of the national bureau of criminal investigation includes the investigation of crimes such as murder, serious and organised crime and other serious assaults. Accordingly I am unclear as to what role there may be for the Minister to refer this matter to the bureau in this instance. If the Senator has information which suggests that wrongdoing has occurred, I know she will bring it to the immediate attention of the Garda Síochána.

In the response by the Minister for Finance to a similar Adjournment debate topic proposed by Senator Higgins two weeks ago, the Minister pointed out that the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, model, which applies to staff assigned to NAMA, is based on the free movement of staff from the private sector to NTMA and vice versa. It is important that the NTMA's ability to attract private sector employees is not in any way disrupted. Mobility with the private sector is a critical component of the NTMA model and if it is to be successful we have to accept that it can be a two-way street.

The key issue relates to the safeguards in place to protect the confidentiality of information held by NTMA employees, including those assigned to NAMA, who may leave the agency to take up employment in the private sector. The Minister's response of 11 June referred specifically to the statutory prohibitions on the release of confidential information by employees and former employees of the NTMA, including those assigned to NAMA. Employees assigned to NAMA by the NTMA, as is the case with all other NTMA staff, are subject to section 14 of the National Treasury Management Agency Act 1990, which prohibits an employee from disclosing any information obtained while carrying out duties as employees of the NTMA. Employees assigned to NAMA are also subject to a prohibition on release of confidential data under sections 99 and 202 of the NAMA Act 2009. NTMA employees, including those assigned to NAMA, are subject to the Official Secrets Act. Contravention of these prohibitions is a criminal offence, and these protections do not cease at the point of resignation but rather apply indefinitely and extend to former employees.

The Minister for Finance advised the House on 11 June that the notice period for NTMA employees assigned to NAMA is typically three months and that, in line with employers in the private sector, NTMA contracts for employees assigned to NAMA have a provision entitling the NTMA to place the employee on garden leave at any point during the notice period during which time the employee may not work for another employer. Arising from a review conducted by Matheson for the NTMA, the Minister advised that the NTMA is implementing a number of changes to its employment contracts, including the introduction of longer notice periods of three to six months, up from one to three months, for middle and senior NTMA management employees and garden leave provisions to be included in all employment contracts. These changes will be introduced immediately for new NTMA employees and for existing NTMA employees as they are promoted. As pointed out, the three-month notice period and garden leave provisions already apply to NTMA staff assigned to NAMA.

In addition, the Minister advised that additional post-termination restrictions on employment will be considered on a case-by-case basis in respect of senior NTMA management employees in particular. However, the imposition of such restrictions will need to be carefully balanced against the NTMA's need to recruit good candidates for whom such restrictions may act as a significant disincentive to taking up employment with the NTMA. The Minister or Finance also noted that because of its finite life staff assigned to NAMA are recruited on specified purpose contracts, and their period of employment lasts for as long as their function is required by NAMA. Unlike other public sector employees, their contracts do not extend to the normal retirement age and there is clearly a risk that if specialist staff are offered specified-purpose contracts with rigorous clauses limiting their freedom to return to their sector of expertise afterwards so as to earn a living, it would become very difficult to recruit staff.

The Senator's matter implies that some form of wrongdoing may have occurred in this instance but the Minister for Finance is not aware of any such wrongdoing. Unless there is evidence to substantiate such a claim, it is deeply unfair to persons outside of this House, who do not enjoy parliamentary privilege, to have their name questioned in this manner. I reiterate therefore that if the Senator has evidence to suggest wrongdoing, she should bring it to the immediate attention of the Garda Síochána.

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response and it is unfortunate that the Minister for Finance is not here this evening to address the issue. It is regrettable that he pre-empted my submission this evening.

I am a qualified barrister and I have an understanding of the law. I spent quite a number of years at King's Inns and in practice thereafter. I make it clear that the issue is not limited to the individual in question taking up employment with Prime London Partners, of which he is now a partner. This relates to a more serious issue of him accepting correspondence, replying to it, liaising with third parties and - if one likes the term - being lobbied and allowing himself to be lobbied, contrary to section 221 of the NAMA Act and the Data Protection Act.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a question?

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is also a breach of privacy and confidentiality agreements, as well the European Convention of Human Rights. These details are on public record and they were part of-----

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has made her submission and she may only ask a question now.

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand but it is very important to clarify the matter.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must follow procedure.

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a right to clarify the issue when the ministerial reply intimated I was abusing parliamentary privilege. I want to make it very clear that I am not. There are serious issues that must be addressed and I will furnish the Minister with the details.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think I can advance the matter any further.