Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 178: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will comment on recent media reports on the selection process for National Asset Management Board members; if the rejection rate for applicants was comparable to other public service recruitment processes; if he will publish the details of remuneration for NAMA Board members; the annual cost of remuneration and expenses for the NAMA Board; the level of participation, in terms of days per month that is expected of NAMA Board members; if he will reconsider his decision to exclude NAMA from the Freedom of Information Acts; the way the absence of conflict of interest was established for appointees to the NAMA Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12235/10]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will be aware that as part of the debate on the passage of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) legislation, I undertook, with cross party support, to conduct an expressions of interest process and consultation with party leaders to seek appointments to the Board.

As I indicated when the appointments were made on 22 December 2009 over 800 applications were received and considered. With the assistance of the Public Appointments Service and a former Secretary General of my Department these applications were reduced to 36 names from which, in addition to nominees which were submitted outside of this process, the final appointment of 7 members to the Board were made. The very nature of the expression of interest process means it is not comparable to a standard recruitment competition where the interested candidature would be necessarily more restrictive. As with any competition it is the merit of each individual application that determines if it is successful.

I revealed in an answer to a Parliamentary Question of 10 March 2010 the details of the remuneration of the Board members. They are as follows: Chairperson - all inclusive fee of €170,000 per annum on the understanding that the incumbent is available without restriction. Chairperson of Credit Committee - all inclusive fee of €150,000 per annum on the understanding that the incumbent works no less than 3 to 4 days a week. Ordinary Board Members (5 remaining board members) - fee of €50,000 per annum. Chair of other Committees - fee of €10,000 per annum in addition to Ordinary Board Member fee subject to a maximum of one per member.

The total cost in 2010 is therefore likely to be €470,000 and an additional amount dependent upon how many sub-committees are established by the Board of NAMA. However, given that board members can receive a maximum of one fee for Chairing another Committee and given the fact that neither the Chair nor the Chair of the credit Committee can receive this extra fee as their main fee is all-inclusive the maximum extra cost of payments to Chairs of other Committees is €50,000.

I further indicated that in setting the fees account was taken of the critical importance of the work to be undertaken by the Board and the fact that its workload will be excessive by normal standards in the first year of operation. I also indicated that I intended to review the fees after a year. The question of extending the application of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to NAMA was discussed a number of times during the passage of the NAMA Bill 2009 through the houses of the Oireachtas.

Much of the information which NAMA will process in its day-to-day operations will be confidential commercial information attaching to the loan assets it acquires. The commercial and financial risks that would arise in connection with the disclosure of such information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 would not be in the interests of NAMA, the Sate or the public. Such confidential third party information would not be released under the Freedom of Information Act and applying the FOI Act to it simply introduces extra bureaucracy with no additional transparency. There are already a range of other provisions in the Act which will ensure appropriate transparency and accountability of NAMA. Accordingly, I regarded such proposals as inappropriate and I therefore did not accept these amendments to the Bill and I stand by that decision and the rationale for it.

With regard to the question of conflicts of interest I would like to bring to the attention of the Deputy the fact that two of the criteria used in short listing were that the applicant was not currently working in any potential NAMA institution and secondly that there were no conflicts of interest apparent from the application. Furthermore the NAMA Act 2009 provides that all members of the board must furnish a valid tax clearance certificate within 3 months of appointment to the Board and I can confirm that this has been complied for all current members of the Board.

Section 30 of the NAMA Act 2009 provides for matters relating to disclosure of interests by the Board members. Among other things it provides that if Board members do not adequately disclose interests and act in a hands-off manner where interests have been disclosed, they may be removed from office by the Minister. Section 31 further provides that NAMA shall keep a register of members' interests and update it at the beginning of each year.