Ged Nash
Louth · Labour Party · Ireland
“However, it is a rich country that has a problem understanding that it is now sustainably rich. Those of us in opposition will, of course, say that this country needs to do better, and it can.”
“On the one hand, it is legitimate for an Opposition party to critique the economic model day in, day out. I do it myself all of the time, and we all know that Ireland can do better. However, at the same time, is that kind of critique helping to persuade those whom we need to persuade into a new Ireland? I am not so sure that it is.”
“There will be fiscal and financial implications for this State in that transition. There is an obligation on us, insofar as we can, to properly interrogate and consider those implications and to be upfront about them.”
“No, it did not, but let us not exaggerate its impact on the Irish economy. It is good and it had an impact, but was there a causal relationship? I am not so sure. The jury is out on that. However, is the Good Friday Agreement a good thing and good for our economy? Of course, it is. Did the guns fall silent in the North?”
“We are not good at describing what those accommodations will be or what that relationship with the UK will be, whether economically, socially, politically, culturally or otherwise. It is a relationship that will have to be maintained. It will look very different as we approach a new Ireland.”
“That was a very different prospect when the vast majority, if not all, of East German citizens wanted to become part of a united German polity. As we know, that is not the case on this island. We need to be careful about how we approach that.”
The complete record
Every one of 739 lines we hold for Ged Nash, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 15.
“We need to address the structural issues that are creating the cost-of-living permacrisis that has been ongoing for a number of years. Given the volatility in the world at present, we are likely to experience these kinds of shocks again and again. Rather than opting for sticking-plaster solutions that are well-intentioned, what we need to do is address the real fundamental imbalances in our economy and in how our society works. That is how we address those problems and that is what we need to focus on. However, that is not where the focus of this Government or the previous Government has been.”
“We are far too reliant on a small handful of American-based foreign direct investment firms for the bulk of our corporation tax receipts and for a significant proportion of our PAYE receipts from the good jobs they have to create. That is a risk that is always worth repeating. We create a more sound fiscal position and more secure economy by ensuring we tax wealth and assets better than we have managed to do to date. As I said earlier, we do it by focusing on renewables rather than relying on fossil fuels. This motion just deals with the symptoms of that problem as opposed to offering a solution. We also do that by ensuring that we continue to use excess corporation tax receipts and put them into the Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund, as well as being responsible about how we plan our economy.”
“We create a resilient economy by investing in education at all levels, from early years right through to fourth level and lifelong learning. We do that by getting to grips with AI and the threat of mass displacement of jobs and businesses. We do it by closing the income inequality gap that is destroying both our society and the social contract. We do that by embedding collective bargaining systems into our economy, which is something the Government is resisting. We create a more resilient economic framework by having a renewed focus on the development of highly productive, innovative, indigenous Irish enterprises.”
“When we are looking at the question of economic and fiscal resilience, we also need to look at the structural changes we need to make to our economy and governance system in order to ensure that is the case and that we will not, in this era of permacrisis, be back in this situation again next year, the year after or the year after that. How do you make an economy more resilient? You do it by ensuring the economy is managed properly and that we avoid the boom-and-bust scenarios that have bedevilled this State for much of its history. We have seen the fallout from that in recent years and the consequences for households, businesses and citizens. We do that by ensuring that housing is safe, secure and affordable.”
“Why would we tell highly profitable fossil fuel energy companies that regardless of the increases they impose on consumers, we are going to subsidise that and every household anyway? That does not make sense. Certainly, I would have to look askance at any businessperson who thinks that it does make sense. No one should have any difficulty with a move to more sound economic and fiscal planning. That is something we support. I would query some aspects of this motion, while, at the same time, respecting the intent, which is, in general, more positive.”
“The second is we need to improve our energy security. By improving our energy security in terms of the move to renewables, which is not mentioned, from what I can see, in this motion, we can then make our energy bills cheaper for every household and business across the country. We need a renewed focus on that. I am interested in the idea - and I accept that it is well-intentioned - of a national framework for economic resilience and emerging fiscal planning. Who could argue with that? However, the idea that businesses and industries will have some kind of visibility in the context of a potential activation of certain supports during another energy shock is intriguing.”
“That post-Second World War settlement is not just fraying at the edges; it has collapsed. I would prefer if the motion considered why that is the case. It is because of a move to far-right politics and the election of populist and extremist leaders around the world, egged on by tech billionaires who have no interest in the travails of small businesses and ordinary households across the world. Their only concern is to enrich themselves. It is the behaviour of these maniacs that has created the problems we are experiencing. The problems here in Ireland are even greater because of our excessive reliance on fossil fuels. We cannot keep subsidising high fossil fuel prices or continue relying on fossil fuels for a couple of different reasons. The first is that we clearly need to decarbonise our economy.”
“There are also the issues the Government has created for PAYE workers, those very same working people who get up early in the morning, who work hard and who rightly feel the social contract is broken. They do everything properly and correctly. They play by the rules. They work hard and educate themselves and their families. They are paying high rents and mortgages. They feel they get little in return. Their PAYE tax bands, rates and credits are not indexed, which means that, in many cases, they have experienced an effective pay cut. Any small pay increase that has been received is swallowed up by the Revenue Commissioners and goes back into the general taxation pot. We are living in unprecedented times and in an era of real uncertainty and insecurity.”
“Nobody is saying that any government can insulate every single household and business from the worst effects of this unprecedented crisis, which the International Energy Agency itself has said will have a worse impact than the 1970s oil crisis. We in Labour certainly are not saying that. In many respects, the inability of households to absorb this latest energy shock can be traced back to poor decisions made by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in budget 2026, particularly in two areas. There was a failure to fully index core social welfare rates, which has exposed to an even greater level those who depend on the State for their income and who spend a disproportionate amount of their income on heating their homes and on food and groceries.”
“It would be remiss of me not to remind Government that just two weeks ago, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Independent TDs who support the Government voted against a Labour Party motion to introduce a mini-budget targeted specifically at those who require support the most, and I refer to those who have been essentially left behind by the recent package introduced by Government, the PAYE workers who are, to use a hackneyed phrase, genuinely the backbone of this country and who produce the goods and services that have allowed us to generate significant wealth at Exchequer level, allowing us to invest in services and to have the resources we need to support our society as best we can.”
“I also thank Independent Ireland for tabling this motion this morning. It is a well-intentioned motion that is designed to put forward some solutions to the real challenges households and business are facing at present. It provides us with another opportunity to tease out the respective positions of parties in this House in that regard.”
“I know from the maps - I acknowledge the Minister stated quite correctly that Louth County Council were quick out of the traps in terms of developing the proposed special area of regeneration - that close to 60 buildings in that area are considered to be derelict and this could be a game-changer, if it is taken up. It is important that Revenue promotes it. I myself will contact them and make that case that they may very well need to conduct some workshops with the local authority and local businesses.”
“One important aspect is that this is user-friendly and accessible. The Revenue Commissioners and the Department have taken on board some of the critiques of the scheme over the past few years. Certainly, the enhancement of the scheme will make it more attractive. Clearly, it will become more attractive to enterprises that are engaging in redevelopment given the expansion of the value of the relief from €200,000 to €300,000. In reality, with some of the sensitive and large-scale buildings we are talking about in areas such as Drogheda and Dundalk, it may be only commercial enterprises that will have the deep pockets, ambition and wherewithal to undertake the work that would be needed on architecturally sensitive buildings to put them back into use.”
“If it is the case that in previous iterations of the scheme, the Revenue Commissioners went out and conducted workshops in communities trying to promote the scheme, can they be encouraged to do so?”
“Vacancy and dereliction is an absolute scourge that is affecting every town, city and village across this country. For many years, I have sought the expansion of the scheme to areas such as Drogheda and Dundalk. Drogheda, especially, as the Minister will understand, is a very ancient area with sensitive architecture. That being said, one of the main aspects of this scheme now is that it applies, at least from the point of view of commercial premises, to properties that were developed before 1975. It previously pertained to buildings built prior to 1915. The change to 1975 should capture quite a significant number of buildings that could be brought back on stream. One thing I propose would be that the Revenue Commissioners proactively market this.”
“I am seeking an update on the number of applications or inquiries that have been made with the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the living cities scheme since its expansion to cover Drogheda and Dundalk. I appreciate that it was only a month ago that this happened but this is a critical scheme for the area to address vacancy and dereliction. If the Minister has an update, I would it if he put it on the record of the House.”
“The Minister knows the relationship of Louth and Dublin in terms of commuters. He knows how important that is. We need to plan that sustainably and we need to deliver the new train station. We need to find a way to do that.”
“The Minister is not taking responsibility for it, the NTA is not taking responsibility for it, and Irish Rail says it would like to do something about it but nobody is directing the company. This project, which is absolutely necessary for the area, is an orphan project. It is nobody's child, and a situation where we have one of the fastest growing urban areas in the country poorly serviced by rail services is not the way we should be managing the sustainable development of our transport infrastructure in this country. I have been listening to this excuse for years now from the National Transport Authority, really since the agency was set up and the Dublin Transportation Office changed, etc. It seems that, from the point of view of planning such as this, the NTA really is just the Dublin Transportation Office with a different label.”
“The NTA says it is the Minister's responsibility to develop a train station on the north side of Drogheda. I merely asked the National Transport Authority whether it would develop a business case because I believed in evidence-based planning for initiatives such as this, but the NTA refused to do it because it said that the area was not in the GDA and it was a matter for the Minister. As for Irish Rail, I met the CEO a couple of weeks ago. She said that she would like to see something like this happen but it was matter, of course, of funding and prioritisation in terms of Irish Rail's strategy. We have a game of pass the parcel. Nobody is taking responsibility.”
“Nobody can quibble with that. However, the Minister will be aware that Drogheda has only one train station and the north side of Drogheda is one of the most rapidly growing areas of this country. The Minister will be aware that several thousand new homes are being built there as we speak, a couple of thousand have been built already, and there is a strong argument for a north Drogheda train station on the main Belfast-to-Dublin line but the Minister, the NTA and Irish Rail are playing a game of pass the parcel. The National Transport Authority says it has no responsibility for this because Drogheda is not in the greater Dublin area for the purposes of transportation strategy. The NTA has regard to the GDA plans and Drogheda's connection with Dublin from a commuter point of view but it does nothing about it that really matters.”
“The population of the "metropolitan", if I can describe it as such, Drogheda area is the same, if not more, than the population of Waterford at this moment in time and it is being left behind. I will be proposing an amendment to include Louth in the greater Dublin area, GDA, for the purposes of transport planning to ensure that transport can be planned in a much more sustainable fashion than has hitherto been the case in the area that I represent. The Minister might ask what the point of that is. The point is as follows. The Minister will know that, last week, a welcome announcement was made about the establishment of two new train stations in Navan. That is required. We need to get people out of cars, onto train lines and into the city for work, and vice versa as well in getting people from Dublin to Navan to work.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill because it affords me the chance to put on the record some concerns I have, which I believe can be addressed through amendments to the Bill in relation to sustainable transport planning in the Drogheda area, an area that the Minister is very familiar with. In his remarks, the Minister referred to the fact that this particular legislation aligned with the overall objective to ensure that the NTA managed transport initiatives into the future in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford, and that is commendable. However, there is one area missing from that ambition, and that is Drogheda. Drogheda is, as the Minister will be aware, one of the fastest growing parts of the country. It is Ireland's next city.”
“Can she commit on the floor of the House today to ensure that services are included in that Bill as she has committed to previously in the context of her party's manifesto and the commitments that were made in the programme for Government?”
“If the vote at EU level does not go the way of Ireland, Slovenia and others - I am assuming our colleagues in Spain will support that initiative as well - what will the Minister do? Will she take action to work unilaterally towards the aim she has expressed, namely, the suspension of the trade element of the EU-Israel agreement? We are at the point now that the mere suspension of the trade element simply does not go far enough. This is an apartheid state that does not share the same liberal, democratic values as the European Union. We use trade to promote the values of the European Union but make exceptions in this case. I also note the Minister's commitment to finally bringing in draft legislation in respect of the occupied territories Bill.”
“If European values are to mean anything again and if we are to recover some moral authority on the world stage, the EU-Israeli Association Agreement must be suspended now, not in a month's time. This is a real test for Ireland, especially over the next few months. Will the Minister officially commit to this objective and set this as a test for the success of our EU Presidency? Ireland has given some hope to the Palestinian people by our actions but we need to do more. My colleague, Deputy Smith, accused the Government of mothballing the occupied territories Bill and I note the Minister’s comments earlier on. We have been told that we can expect the Bill soon. Why not pass the occupied territories Bill next week? Let us clear the decks and pass the Bill next week.”
“Let us be clear that the actions of Ben-Gvir are the actions of a fascist; no more, no less. The actions of a man who did and said the quiet thing, out loud. This should come as no surprise to any of us. This behaviour is enabled by a sick regime that knows it can commit genocide with no consequences, and Netanyahu’s empty condemnation means nothing. This is political expediency. There is no sign of Ben-Gvir being sacked or tried. It seems the Taoiseach has finally found his voice. It is high time he turned his anger into action but letters and words are no longer enough. The EU’s approach to the systematic crimes of Israel has been contemptible; an abrogation of both our legal and moral responsibilities.”
“It is eight years since the occupied territories Bill was first introduced in the Seanad, and 18 months since the general election when both the Minister’s party and Fianna Fáil promised to pass the occupied territories Bill. Since then, we have had vacillation, dilution and backtracking on services. I do note the Minister’s update that was put on the record of the House earlier this morning and again a few moments ago. In that time, nearly 30,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and almost 70,000 injured. Seven months into a so-called ceasefire, aid is still restricted into Gaza resulting in an ongoing humanitarian disaster, and Israel has introduced the death penalty for Palestinians. When it comes to this regime of apartheid, when is enough, enough?”
“Fifteen brave Irish people took part in the Global Sumud Flotilla, putting their own safety at risk to once again bring the eyes of the world back to Gaza. I commend the courage of the activists, and in particular Caitriona Graham. Her inspiring peaceful resistance, chanting "Free, Free Palestine" resulted in her being violently forced to the ground. We always knew those detained were treated despicably but this video that has emerged has shocked the world. It shows clearly the disgraceful actions of Israel and its far-right ministers. There are reports of sexual harassment, broken ribs, hospitalisations and more. However, this is nothing new. It is a deliberate policy by Israel to degrade and dehumanise those opposed to its crimes against Palestinians. The difference this time is that the victims are Europeans.”
“This is an important debate but we may not have the opportunity to bring forward the kind of amendments ideally that we would like to on Committee Stage. Given its importance, I ask that we give this legislation sufficient time as well on Report Stage and that the use of the guillotine or at least the excessive use of the guillotine is avoided because we will have views on the kinds of amendments we wish to bring forward and we will need time to do that. In doing so, that would give the people who are targeted by this legislation their full due and the respect they deserve and give this legislation the respect it merits. We need time to fully consider this and propose amendments.”
“It needs to be put on notice that there is a very clear expectation of it that it act in accordance with this legislation. There should be no requirement for the insurance industry to be asking any more of cancer survivors in terms of the information it needs to make a determination on access to mortgage protection product than what is outlined here. We know only too well from our experience that the insurance industry can often go further in its interrogation, if I could describe it as such, of clients and prospective clients. I would ask the Minister of State and the regulator - the Central Bank - to keep a very close eye on how the insurance industry manages this. Unfortunately, there was a very tight timeframe for us to introduce our proposed amendments on Committee Stage, which we hope and expect will happen next week.”
“In legislation, more often than not there is at least an in-built review after two to three years in terms of the operation of an element of an Act and we need to be very clear that it has to happen in this case. Financial service providers are only too capable of undertaking actuarial reviews on services and their client base and so on and I have every confidence that the financial services industry, in its broadest definition, is well capable of ensuring there is extensive access to all financial services for those who have come through cancer diagnosis, who are survivors of cancer and are living healthy lives. The Minister of State knows very well that we need to keep a very clear-eyed view when we come to the operation of the insurance industry and how it operates in this country.”
“It is positive that we are inserting this requirement into the primary legislation. The scope of the intended legislation involves only mortgage protection insurance but could I ask that this matter be looked at in terms of the right to access additional financial products and services, that we keep an open mind on this and that this is regularly reviewed and interrogated because cancer survivors like everybody else are entitled to live a full life and participate fully in the economy of this country and our society? If it is the case that someone cannot access all of the financial services that are available to the broad range of citizens then he or she is not by definition a full actor in every aspect of economic and social life so I ask that this be kept under review. I think it is inevitable that we will be looking to review this.”
“I am glad that the Minister of State has more appropriately framed this initiative and his intention in terms of the legislation as a right of disregard rather than a right to be forgotten. That is the appropriate way to describe this. It is fantastic that when this legislation is passed, cancer survivors will no longer be discriminated against in terms of accessing mortgage protection insurance. We know and the Minister of State referenced the fact that a voluntary code has been in place since 2023. Voluntary codes are all well and good but they often do not always cut it. We often see voluntary codes that are developed on a positive basis through the bona fides of a regulatory body or a well-established agency but they can often fail those they are designed to support and protect.”
“We always try to be the messengers of the people in this House and time and again in my nigh on 30 years as a public representative - almost 16 years in the Oireachtas and as a member of local authorities before that - I have come across these cases. I have worked with insurance brokers in my own constituency of Louth time and again to try to address the issues that are brought to their attention by clients or indeed people who would be more appropriately described as potential clients because until now, there was very little they could do for a client seeking mortgage protection insurance on his or her way to purchasing her or her home. We have all dealt with those cases and they are heart-breaking. This is a very real human issue that is being addressed in this legislation.”
“I too direct my plaudits at Deputy Ardagh. This is very much her initiative and something that was well supported along the way by the Irish Cancer Society and other Deputies and Senators across these Houses. It is one of those evenings when we can all say a job has been well done. It shows the utility of this House as well. We try to do it all of the time but it is more explicit on occasions like this when we are reflecting the real, everyday needs of the people who elect us. We do not know ourselves the day on which a diagnosis of cancer will knock on our doors. It does not discriminate. There is not a family in this country that have not been affected. I know that Deputy Ardagh's own family have been affected as well. I have no doubt that experience influenced her commitment to bringing this legislation forward.”
“The Minister of State knows that State agencies across the spectrum routinely share information in relation to compliance on a range of matters, whether they be taxation or social protection matters and so on. We believe this particular proposition merits the Minister of State's consideration.”
“(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) are: (a) the Authority; (b) the Health and Safety Authority; (c) an inspector for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.”.”. The point of the amendment is essentially that it would provide a basis for the exchange of information between HIQA, the Health and Safety Authority and the Workplace Relation Commission, WRC, inspectors. If, for example, HIQA found that workers employed by a home-support provider were working unlawful hours or perhaps not being paid correctly, or if there were other breaches of their employment rights and other matters that would be outside of HIQA’s remit, it would be allowed to and there would be a basis on which it could provide that information to the WRC inspectorate.”
“(1) A person specified in subsection (2)— (a) may, where he or she considers that it is necessary and proportionate for the performance of his or her functions pursuant to this Act, request any other such person to supply him or her with such information as the first-mentioned person may reasonably require for the purposes of those functions, (b) shall, if her or she receives a request under paragraph (a), as soon as practicable thereafter comply with the request in so far as the information requested is in his or her possession (c) may, of his or her own volition, disclose to any other such person information the disclosure of which appears to the first-mentioned person to be necessary and proportionate for the performance by the other person of his or her functions pursuant to this Act.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 12B in Principal Act 8. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 12A: “Exchange of public service data 12B.”
“It is quite extraordinary given the burden carried by the taxpayer over many years, the implications of the bank bailout, the burden carried by the taxpayer over many years and the implications of the bank bailout for the Irish taxpayer, our economy and our society more generally. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on that and that he and the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Harris, agree to a debate on the implications of the future of PTSB in this House without any further delay.”
“It is quite extraordinary we have not had an informed debate on what we are doing in PTSB, why we are doing it, the nature of the offer, potential implications for banking staff employed in PTSB and implications for account holders and crucially the branch network because from what I can read, there are no guarantees from the prospective new owner and majority owner of PTSB. I have lots of different questions about the Government's decision, why the decision was taken and when PTSB was made aware by the Department of Finance that prior to BAWAG coming forward, another interested party appeared to express an interest in making a pitch to buy the State's share. Lots of different questions have not been ventilated at all in this House.”
“It is quite extraordinary given the decision taken almost 20 years ago now to bail out the banks that there has not been a debate in this House on the future of PTSB. That is quite extraordinary. The Government might laud itself and say that this is an expression of the normalisation of the economy now, if I can describe it as such, and the fact that we no longer have any concerns about how our banking system is functioning. However, that is hardly the point given the significant decision made a number of years ago. We requested it at Business Committee meetings over the last period of time.”
“The Minister of State will argue that this is another milestone but it appears to me that the only policy this Government, its previous iteration and the one before that had with regard to banking policy was to rid themselves of what they see as a burden, namely, majority State ownership in banks that the taxpayers of this country bailed out. Our position in the Labour Party is clear. For many years, we were of the view and made the case that PTSB could remain in majority State ownership and that State ownership should be used to try to expand that bank, create a third banking force in this country, break that Bank of Ireland-AIB duopoly and try to introduce more significant competition for householders and small businesses in a market that where competition is very badly needed.”
“A significant decision was taken in this House that taxpayers would essentially bail out the main financial institutions. We, in the Labour Party, decided that it was best that we did not support that decision but others did. That we did not is immaterial; it was passed that evening and we made the case as to why that initiative should not have been taken and the implications of that. It brought us closer to the bailout and the loss of our economic sovereignty in late 2010, the outworkings of which have yet to conclude. One of the implications of that was the bailing out of Permanent TSB. The State still owns a majority stake in Permanent TSB. An offer was made by BAWAG P.S.K. recently to purchase the State's remaining share in Permanent TSB.”
“Considerable expertise has been built up in that agency over many years and it is the kind of commercial and housing expertise that is required for the State to meet its own albeit modest objectives in terms of housing development and the raising of finance to support housing development. Some other recommendations were made as well that I will not go into but the Minister of State will be familiar with them. I would ask the Minister of State and his officials to scrutinise the committee's report on pre-legislative scrutiny and consider some, if not all, of those recommendations for Committee and Report Stages. My last point harks back to the banking situation at the time NAMA was established when the country was in the throes of recession and when all hope appeared to be lost.”
“Again, I am not necessarily persuaded that this needs to be placed in primary legislation but if the Minister by way of regulation or through other means would make a commitment that this would happen, that would attract the support of committee members and all members of the Opposition. It is also worth noting that the committee did recommend that the NTMA should publish a note in its final accounts to detail NAMA's specific liabilities once NAMA is dissolved. That will enable us to keep track of progress in that regard and ensure that those liabilities simply do not get consumed into the overall NTMA analysis and annual reports. The point was also made as well that the specialist expertise that has been built up and that will transfer to the NTMA should not to be lost.”
“That in itself was a not insignificant landmark on our road to recovery. Turning to the Bill and the recommendations made by the committee in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny, I made the point about that independent assessment of NAMA. That would be very important from the point of view of accountability and transparency and that is something that should be considered. The committee also recommends that Minister for Finance seek quarterly reports from the liquidators of the residual assets following the dissolution of NAMA that would detail the outstanding liabilities and expected timeframes for recovery and that the committee would be provided with same.”
“That is something that should be considered. It is good to see, and the Minister put it on the record, that there are residuals of around €25 million only that would be transferred from NAMA to the NTMA. That is a good thing. Regarding the IBRC, while the story of that tumultuous time is yet to be written and fully comprehended, we should remember the significance of the bank bailout and the path it led us on as a country. The IBRC was the zombie bank that was managing the remnants of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society - institutions that will go down in infamy in this country and, indeed, internationally. It was just 13 years ago when the promissory notes were torn up and significant steps were made to get the proverbial monkey off the backs of the Irish people and their economy.”
“I absolutely understand that. Positions tend to be taken on these kinds of matters with the benefit of hindsight. I do acknowledge the independent assessments that have taken place of the performance of NAMA. Would the Minister of State take it on board the following in the context of the Committee and Report Stages of the Bill? One of the recommendations made by the committee in the context of our assessment at pre-legislative scrutiny stage was that a further independent assessment of the performance of NAMA would take place, with the benefit of hindsight and as the dust is settling on that era, if I can use that term. That is something the Minister might consider whether by way of inserting a provision into the primary legislation or, indeed, by the way of regulation requiring NAMA, or the NTMA as it will be responsible for NAMA.”
“I will not go into the details here but we were all critical at the time of the risk of fire sales of assets that, in effect, belonged to the taxpayer. I remember a lot of the NAMA exposure originally was in the UK and that market recovered more quickly than property values and the market in Ireland. It was there that NAMA did much of its early substantial transactions and later as the property market improved in Ireland, as property values rose, more of NAMA's work was focused here in the domestic market. At the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, NAMA defended itself and pointed to independent assessments of its work, and I accept that. To a degree, one's position on whether or not greater value might have been achieved by selling portfolios and properties later than they were sold is a subjective position.”