2026-06-24

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on NAMA performance 7.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the performance of NAMA including a specific analysis on the potential for higher returns to the State had the property portfolio been managed for longer rather than sold off.” We discussed this at length on Committee Stage and I want to put on the record again that I genuinely believe that NAMA has failed in its obligations, its duties and what this House set out for it in terms of the legislation, which I opposed and one of the Government parties opposed at the time. NAMA was to recover the assets of the State at that time. The book value of the loans was €74.4 billion. NAMA purchased those loans for €31.8 billion. That means it got a reduction of €42.6 billion. The job of NAMA at the time was to recover all of the money. The Ministers went on television and said that developers would be chased to the ends of the earth to secure that money. If property prices did not recover then it could not actually manage assets and could not sell assets to realise values that did not exist, but the reality is that asset prices have recovered and, in some cases, have surpassed where they were at the time. That is not universally the case and there are portions of land that did not have planning permission, that were overvalued or where the loans taken out should never have been given. However, generally, property prices have recovered. Therefore, we should ask ourselves a question. How, if NAMA bought loans for €42 billion less than what the book value was and property prices have recovered over the ten years, when the job of the agency was to manage the assets and recover the full cost or as much as it could, it made a surplus of only €5 billion? That €5 billion sounds like big money for ordinary punters out there, but in the context of a €42 billion haircut and the context of recovering all of its assets, I believe it is a staggering failure. It is a staggering failure because NAMA was also interfered with in terms of the direction of the Government. Michael Noonan made it very clear that he wanted to find a floor for the property market back in 2013 when he invited in the vulture funds. They made no bones about this. They were very clear that they rolled out the red carpet, welcomed the vulture funds for this State and pressed NAMA into what was, in my view, a fire sale of assets at the wrong time, incurring huge loses to the Irish taxpayer as a result. NAMA did not just fail in that regard. The Comptroller and Auditor General has the unique task in this State to look at expenditure and value for money in Government Departments and also in respect of NAMA. The Comptroller and Auditor General in the 2024 report concluded: NAMA did not achieve the residential output target. As at the end of 2021, it had delivered 11,049 units on sites in which it has an interest. This represents delivery of 55% of the target, a year later than originally projected. A return of 55% of the target is appalling. That is really bad in the middle of a housing crisis. There is nothing to be writing home about regarding that. The C and AG went on to say: NAMA estimated that sites sold by NAMA debtors/receivers by end 2024 had the potential to deliver 105,000 residential units. By end 2024, an estimated 27,108 units had been constructed on sites sold. This level of delivery represents just 26% of the estimated overall capacity of the residential development sites sold by NAMA debtors/receivers to end 2024. Anybody who sat the junior certificate or leaving certificate last week and got a result of 26% got a big, fat "F". That is a failure, and that is what NAMA has done in relation to the housing part of it, never mind the billions of euro that could and should have been collected in the recovering-property scenario of its objectives. That is why the amendment before us is crucial. It is crucial that there is: "a report on the performance of NAMA including a specific analysis on the potential for higher returns to the State had the property portfolio been managed for longer rather than sold off." I argue the Irish people deserve nothing less. It is their money. It is their children who were forced to emigrate because of the policies of Fianna Fáil at that time, because of how Fianna Fáil wrecked the economy, because it cosied up to the bankers and developers and bust not only the banking situation but also the construction situation and had our public finances in such a weak position that so much damage was done. As we wind up NAMA in this legislation, it is important that the full truth is exposed and that everybody knows what the missed opportunity was here, what NAMA was tasked with and why it did not recover more than the €5 billion additional it did recover. That is the question. I do not know what the Government is hiding from. I do not know why the Government does not want the Irish people to know that. Is it because the Minister of State knows, in his heart of hearts, that NAMA should have recovered a lot more, that there was political interference in relation to the strategy in terms of the vulture funds? I believe that is the case. Otherwise the Minister of State may surprise me, support this amendment and allow the public to have what we are asking for, a report. That is all we are asking for. Just show the public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is what we are asking for so please support the amendment.

Did Deputy O'Callaghan raise his hand?

Yes, but thank you for the encouragement. My amendment No. 3 is very similar to amendment No. 1 from Deputy Doherty. There is a slight difference in that I am being move generous in the timeline being afforded to the Minister to make this report. The fundamental point here is that the public has a right to know. They should get this information. I made the point on Committee Stage that, with NAMA there was a massive lost opportunity in terms of what could have been delivered in affordable housing for people. NAMA took on 60,000 individual assets, sites, land banks that should and could have been used to create affordable housing for the people of this country. That would have made a massive difference and would have meant we were not in the housing crisis that we are now. Instead, we saw land banks and in some cases housing almost completely finished and unfinished housing sold on at discount rates that was then often bought back by the State or financed by the State through long-term leases and so forth. It was a terribly bad use of money and terrible value for money. I think a report like this would help shed some light on this and on some of the impact of this failure. As I have said before, it is not the individuals working in NAMA where the failing was here. The failing here was the political direction given to it by Government. Whatever about at the start, as prices were recovering and as there was a change going on in the housing supply conditions and prices, at that point, at the very latest, the Government should have intervened and redirected NAMA towards not just recovery in terms of price, but also in terms of making sure one of its key aims was affordable housing. To this very day, while things are done in terms of affordable housing, if we look at our planning system and our housing system in general there is not enough of that at all directed at affordable housing. It should be one of the core aims we are trying to achieve. It should have been for NAMA and it should be something we are trying to do through the planning system and through our housing delivery system.

I thank the Deputies for tabling these amendments. While I fully appreciate and understand the intent behind them, I am not in a position to accept them. This matter has been considered in detail at pre-legislative scrutiny, Second Stage and Committee Stage. I agree that scrutiny of NAMA's performance and of the value delivered to the taxpayer is both appropriate and important. However, I must again set out why this amendment is neither necessary nor feasible. First, NAMA's performance has been subject to extensive oversight throughout its lifetime. Its annual and quarterly accounts were laid before the Oireachtas and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Department of Finance conducted statutory five-year reviews and the Comptroller and Auditor General has also taken independent reviews including one published as recently as last month. Taken together, these provide a comprehensive and independent evidence base on NAMA's performance. Second, the available evidence indicates that NAMA has met and, in some respects, exceeded its objectives. It delivered a lifetime contribution of €5.6 billion to the State and eliminated a significant contingent liability through the early redemption of its senior debt. The Comptroller and Auditor General estimates a lifetime return of 6.8%, compared to the initial expectation of 5%. More broadly, NAMA is widely regarded internationally as a successful example of a state-backed asset management agency. Turning to the substance of the amendment, there are clear, practical and legal limitations. NAMA did not acquire property assets directly. It acquired and managed loans secured on property, with the assets remaining in the ownership of debtors or receivers. Once loans were resolved or the underlying asset disposed of, they exited the NAMA system. NAMA's mandate, as set by the Oireachtas, was to deal with its portfolio expeditiously. It was never intended to operate as a long-term asset holder nor would it have been appropriate to attend assets on a speculative basis in the hope of future price increases. The recent report by Professor John FitzGerald provides useful context. It notes that despite the Government facing external pressure to accelerate disposals, NAMA adhered to its strategy and, in doing so, was able to maximise value. The report concluded that this was the right approach. As market conditions improved, many borrowers refinanced or repaid their loans. In such cases, loans exited the NAMA system and the agency could not, and should not, have prevented this. This is a normal feature of a recovering financial system. It is also the case that in the post-crisis environment, debt levels in many instances exceeded underlying asset values. In that context, agreed disposal strategies were a necessary part of deleveraging and reflected the financial realities of the time. As a result, NAMA does not systematically retain or control information on subsequent resale values or updated valuations. Constructing such a database retrospectively would require extensive third-party data, much of which are not publicly available or are commercially sensitive. More fundamentally, even if such data were available, the proposal would be inherently counterfactual. It relies on assumptions about future market conditions, financing costs and risks that cannot be reliably reconstructed. It does not reflect the context in which NAMA operated - a distressed market, significant uncertainty and a statutory obligation to reduce risk and dispose of assets over time and not to speculate on future price movements. Subsequent valuations taken in isolation do not provide a reliable basis for assessing decisions taken at the time. In many cases, assets were further developed, restructured or invested in after disposal and any uplift in value reflects those subsequent actions. This is not unique to NAMA but a normal feature of property markets. Crucially, only the property owner holds the full information on post-sale investment, including capital and operating costs. This information is essential to any robust comparison but is not accessible, even to the Department of Finance. Without it, any analysis would be incomplete and potentially misleading. There are also strict, statutory confidentiality obligations limiting the disclosure of debtor-specific or commercially sensitive information. These obligations continue after NAMA's dissolution. It is important to consider the broader context. NAMA has delivered a strong return to the State, repaid its debt in full and substantially completed its mandate, and successfully managed a complex and high-risk portfolio by supporting financial stability. NAMA was established to manage impaired loans, not to hold assets indefinitely in anticipation of future gains. It operated within a statutory and state aid framework that required it manage and dispose of assets over time. A speculative holding strategy would have exposed the State to ongoing risk and delayed deleveraging and would have potentially hindered economic recovery. In that context, comparison with later market values does not provide a meaningful basis for assessing decisions taken at the time nor is it well-founded to assume that assets could simply have been held longer to generate higher returns. While the objective of transparency is fully accepted, the approach proposed in this amendment would neither be feasible nor produce meaningful results. NAMA's performance has already been subject to extensive audit reporting and independent review and for those reasons, I will not accept the amendment.

In regard to the reasons I outlined, I understand the Minister of State has to defend NAMA and his position but the facts speak for themselves. The Comptroller and Auditor General's facts also speak for themselves and for that reason, I am pressing the amendment.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on transfer of staff to NTMA 7.The Minister shall, within 1 month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing all of the transfer of staff from NAMA to the NTMA, provide information on salary and if any existing vacancies were filled or new positions created within the NTMA in addition to the resolution unit.”. I also raised this with the Minister of State on Committee Stage. The bumper salary of the CEO of NAMA has turned into an ongoing saga and nobody wants to answer questions on it. The Government's fingerprints is all over this because, obviously, it wanted that individual to end up being in a wee cosy job it has earmarked for him as the housing tsar but that all fell asunder as well. We have been stonewalled on this for months. Information should be available to the public as to whether the NAMA CEO is going to keep his €430,000 salary when he returns to the NTMA. That is a salary he has as a result of him being the CEO of NAMA. It was never intended for him to return from NAMA because the Government wanted him as the housing tsar until that fell apart, when the public was outraged that he would be paid so much to do what is essentially the Minister's job. When that fell through, the section in the heads of the Bill that said all staff of NAMA, when it was wound up, would be transferred to the resolution unit of the NTMA to handle the residual activity was taken out of the legislation when it was published. We all know that the NAMA CEO will return to the NTMA but not to the resolution unit. What we do not know is whether he is going to keep his salary despite no longer being a CEO. What we also do not know if there is an existing vacancy at senior management team level or if that job is going to be created for him. What we are missing here is transparency, and I believe it is a disgrace in regard to transparency. There should be no reason for secrecy or hidden information in this regard. We are talking about how public money is spent and how the Government is refusing to answer questions and has gone to great lengths to hide it from any real oversight. We are winding up NAMA. The Government produced legislation to say that everybody, including the CEO, was supposed to go into the resolution unit but it did not tell us at the time it published that legislation that it had another plan for the CEO. It wanted to second him and make him the housing tsar with a huge salary because it wanted its Minister, who was not up to the job, to have a dig-out from a housing tsar. Now, when that fell apart, the Government has had to create a new system and it will not give us any information on it. This is not on because it is public money at the end of the day. The NAMA CEO is now going to go into a senior role in the NTMA. Is it being created for him? Is there a vacancy? Is one being created to justify him keeping a salary of €430,000? I have no idea because the Government will not give us the information and it is a scandal, in my view. It is a murky ending that is all too fitting for the role NAMA has played in our society. Between Committee and Report Stages - because these questions were asked of him on Committee Stage - he should now know this information and he should put it on the public record in the House. I would be happy to hear that there is a vacancy with a reduced salary, that he will be taking that up, and that the Minister of State is transparent in giving us the criteria or the salary range. However, if it is just more stonewalling, what are we on the Opposition benches or the general public supposed to conclude from all of that? That is why we have tabled the amendment, which makes it clear that it is not acceptable that the Minister of State has made these types of arrangements and that we have within six months a report laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas detailing all the transfer of staff from NAMA to the NTMA, providing information on salary and whether any existing vacancies were filled or new positions created within the NTMA, in addition to the resolution unit. Outside of all that, we do not need the report. What we need is just a bit of transparency and a bit of upfrontness from the Government. It was because of all this dodgy cageyness and not being transparent with the public that the Government's plans for the CEO of NAMA fell through. It created a wee job for him, somebody the public perceived as an insider who was already in a well-paid position. That is no disrespect to the individual himself but the Government created the situation and put him in that situation. Now, the Minister of State is in a position where he is not being transparent. We do not know where the CEO is going. We do not know if there is a job being created. We do not know if a vacancy exists within the NTMA. This is all basic information that should be said in public. It should be said that there is a vacancy at senior management level in the NTMA, the salary range is between €150,000 and €250,000 for those types of management roles, and that is where he is going in because he was seconded from it. That would bring transparency to this situation or it might be a case, because I do not know, that a position is being created for the CEO, he will retain his salary of €400,000 or maybe he will take a wee cut of €50,000 - he will still be on €380,000 - and we are creating a job for him because the job does not exist, but he was not supposed to go there because the job the Government had for him fell through because he has handled it arseways. Therefore, will the Minister of State please tell us what is happening with the CEO of NAMA?

I will respond to the amendment that was put down, which is relates to the transfer of staff, not one individual staff member. I thank Deputy Doherty for bringing forward this amendment which proposes to amend the legislation to require us reporting on staff from NAMA to the NTMA, including salary information. As outlined on Committee Stage, the legislation does not include any provisions relating to the transfer of staff from NAMA to the NTMA. The general scheme of the Bill, published in 2024, had included a standard provision to provide for the transfer of staff, reflecting precedents in other similar legislation. However, following further engagement with NAMA and the NTMA, it became clear that no statutory mechanism is necessary in this case. This is because NAMA does not employ staff in its own right. All individuals working in NAMA have always have been employees of the NTMA assigned to perform NAMA functions. Accordingly, there is no transfer of employment arising from the dissolution of NAMA and therefore the premise of the transfer of staff does not arise in fact or in law. In practical terms, a small number of staff will be assigned to a dedicated unit within the NTMA to manage the limited residual work that will remain following NAMA's dissolution. This is not a new statutory structure but a functional unit operating within the NTMA's existing operational governance and resourcing framework. The roles within the unit are aligned with the completion of the residual work and the work itself is simply being integrated into the ongoing operations of the NTMA. When operational, the unit's eight staff are expected to comprise a head of unit, two finance professionals, two operational professionals, two better case managers and one legal professional. The head of the unit will report to the NTMA's chief financial and operating officer and the unit will be supported by the NTMA's wider operational platform including IT, compliance, human resources and facilities. No additional stand-alone corporate infrastructure is required. It is also important to recognise the broader organisational context. The NTMA is a large established State body with approximately 688 employees at the end of 2025, excluding those assigned to NAMA. While the dissolution of NAMA is a significant step reflecting the fact that it has largely concluded its operational work, the assignment of a small number of staff to a specific function within the NTMA is an internal organisational matter. While the Deputy does not specifically refer to the position of chief executive officer in his amendment, he does in his contribution. I again note that this role will cease on the dissolution of NAMA as the legislative basis for the position is repealed. The current CEO has been a permanent employee of the NTMA operating in a senior executive role before NAMA's establishment. He will transition within the organisation under his existing contractual framework. This does not involve a new appointment but reflects the normal reassignment of an NTMA employee following organisational change. As with all NTMA staff, matters relating to assignments, roles and individual contractual terms are managed within the agency. Neither the Tánaiste, as Minister for Finance, or I have any role in such arrangements. Turning to the remuneration, the NTMA operates within an established statutory and governance framework. It complies fully with the code of practise for the governance of State bodies and provides transparency through its annual report, including the publication of employee remuneration in bands of €25,000, beginning with those earning in excess of €50,000. This ensures appropriate public accountability at an aggregate level. It would not be appropriate to publish salary information relating to individual employees. Such information constitutes personal data and is subject to contractual confidentiality and data protection requirements. Staff assigned to the resolution unit will be captured within the existing NTMA reporting arrangements in the same manner as staff across all other functional areas of the NTMA. More broadly, the NTMA is an established State body with its own statutory functions, governance structures and accountability arrangements. Decisions related to staffing, organisational structure and the allocation of roles within the agency are matters for the NTMA itself operating within that framework. In that context, the additional reporting requirements proposed in this amendment are neither necessary nor proportionate. The amendment is predicated on a transfer of staff that does not arise as all NAMA staff are employed by the NTMA and there is no transfer of staff under the legislation. The information sought is also already either publicly available at an appropriate level of aggregation or relates to matters that are governed within NTMA's existing oversight and confidentiality framework. For these reasons, I am not in the position to accept the amendment.

For the reasons that we are no wiser after the five-minute contribution from the Minister of State in relation to whether the CEO of NAMA is going to go into the NTMA on €430,000, whether there is going to be a vacancy there or whether a job is going to be created, I will press the amendment because, obviously, no light has been shone by the Minister of State on this issue.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I would like to come in.

The Minister of State may go ahead.

I would make the point that the current CEO of NAMA had been a permanent employee of the NTMA since before NAMA's establishment. The NAMA CEO position will cease on the dissolution of NAMA. At that point, he will continue as an NTMA employee under his existing employment framework and individual contract. This does not involve a new appointment or, indeed, any special arrangement but reflects his ongoing status as an NTMA employee. He has not been newly appointed or accommodated. Rather, his role is changing following the dissolution of NAMA, and any future role he takes within the organisation is a matter for the current CEO of the NTMA and he will report within the NTMA structure. He will not be the Accounting Officer. He will not be the CEO of the NTMA. As with all staff, his contractual rights as an employee continue to apply. Matters relating to individual contacts are the responsibility of the CEO and the NTMA and are not determined by the Minister. Neither I, as Minister of State, or, indeed, the senior Minister have any role in individual contractual terms and conditions or assignments within the NTMA. The CEO of the NTMA is appointed through an open competitive process and is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and the staff underneath him are accountable to the CEO.

I still have no more answers from what the Minister of State said. We still do not know what the salary scale is going to be, whether the job at senior level has been created, whether he is going to keep his €430,000 or whether the contract he has at the minute will actually be remuneration, which entitles him not just to €430,000 but a bonus of a portion of that. I think it is about 25% on an annual basis. In fairness, he has never accepted it to my knowledge. I stand to be corrected, but that is the case. Therefore, because we have no information and we are asking to wind up an agency where the individual will transfer, I am pressing the amendment. It is ridiculous that we do not have this information. It will come out sometime.

Okay. So, the amendment is being pressed.

We will have to wait for the publication of the annual report.

It will not come out in the annual report because as the Minister of State said, he is not an Accounting Officer. Therefore, we will never have-----

In an aggregated-----

There is never a responsibility for him to publish what he is getting.

In an aggregated format.

He could go into the NTMA and he could be paid €1 million and we would never know.

The debate is finished. I am going to put the amendment. The question is that the amendment-----

Hold on, with respect, the proposer of the amendment has three opportunities. I only took two. I am the only person who has a third opportunity. Is that okay?

Okay. Proceed.

Let me make the point again. This information will never come to light under the reporting, in the way the Minister of State suggests, because the former CEO of NAMA will not be an accounting officer. As CEO of NAMA, he had to disclose his wages, but now that he is going back into the NTMA, he does not. He is not an accounting officer, so it will not be reported. The issue here is that hypothetically he could be going back in on a million quid and we would never know. We would never know he would be paid that amount of money. We would have to deduce it was him, somebody else or whoever. The Minister of State is asking us to support legislation that is the transfer of his position into the NTMA. As I have said, the Minister of State has had two opportunities to address this issue. He has failed to address it. He has failed to tell us whether it is a new position or whether it is a position that is in vacancy. Again, if the Minister of State told me that there was a vacancy at senior management level and that the range of those senior management levels was X and Y, that would bring the issue to the conclusion. There is a huge issue around this here because this is somebody the Department never wanted to go into the NTMA. It wanted him to be the housing tsar on a huge salary. That fell through and now the Minister of State is not being transparent. I press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 8, after line 34, to insert the following: “Report on NAMA managed properties 10. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas that provides a table outlining all NAMA managed properties, their value at the time of their sale, compared to their current or most recent valuation.”.

We move on to amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister. It arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 17, to delete lines 35 to 43, and in page 18, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following: “ ‘residual NAMA matter’ means any asset, liability, right, cause of action, entitlement or obligation of any nature or kind, or legal proceedings, that immediately before the dissolution day was an asset, liability, right, cause of action, entitlement or obligation of any nature or kind of, or relating to, NAMA or a NAMA group entity and, in the case of legal proceedings, were legal proceedings to which NAMA or a NAMA group entity was a party or which were otherwise relating to NAMA or a NAMA group entity, and which on and after the dissolution day is an asset, liability, right, cause of action, entitlement or obligation of, or relating to, the Agency or a subsidiary of the Agency, as the case may be, or, in the case of legal proceedings, are legal proceedings to which the Agency or a subsidiary of the Agency is a party or which are otherwise relating to the Agency or a subsidiary of the Agency, as the case may be;”. I flagged on Committee Stage that I intended to introduce a small number of amendments to Part 4 of the Bill on behalf of the Minister for Finance. These amendments are technical in nature and are designed to ensure clarity and consistency in the drafting of the legislation. As Deputies will be aware, the Bill provides for the orderly wind-down of NAMA and for the transfer of any residual matters to the NTMA for management to completion, including the continuation of any ongoing proceedings. The Bill also facilitates the conclusion of the IBRC special liquidation, with provision for any remaining residual matters to transfer to the NTMA for management to completion by way of transfer agreement entered into between the relevant parties. A key element of that process is ensuring the seamless continuation of any outstanding matters, including ongoing legal proceedings, with provision for the substitution of the NTMA in place of NAMA and the IBRC as appropriate in such proceedings, along with the continuation of associated rights and obligations. In that context, the amendments being brought relate to the terminology used in Part 4 and ensure clarity and consistency in how references to proceedings are expressed across the relevant positions. This is simply to ensure that the provisions operate clearly and consistently in practice. These amendments are purely technical in nature and do not alter the underlying policy intent of the Bill in any way. The policy remains unchanged, namely to ensure the effective transfer of residual functions, assets, liabilities and legal matters to the NTMA, and to allow those matters to be brought to an orderly conclusion. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 20, line 2, after “proceedings” to insert “of any nature or kind (including legal proceedings)”.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 27, line 36, after “to” where it firstly occurs to insert “legal”.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 28, line 12, after “any” to insert “legal”.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 28, lines 25 to 27, to delete all words from and including “in” in line 25 down to and including “matters” in line 27 and substitute “, in relation to any relevant residual matter”.

We will now proceed to the voting block. I thank Members.