skip to main content

Revised NAMA legislation published

Brian Lenihan - Not 'bailing out developers
Brian Lenihan - Not 'bailing out developers

The Government has published revised legislation on the Oireachtas website establishing the National Assets Management Agency.

The Dáil is returning from its summer break next week, a fortnight earlier than usual, to begin debating the measure.

While no firm date for completing the legislative process has been set, Government sources are hopeful that it may have completed passage by mid to late October.

Click here to read the draft legislation in full

The bill includes a series of amendments, which were outlined in a statement by the Green Party yesterday evening.

It is very unusual for a junior party in a coalition to release a series of changes to legislation and take credit for them too. But these are unusual times.

The Cabinet has put getting political backing from the Green Party for NAMA as a top priority.

Among the changes is a risk-sharing arrangement between the banks and NAMA. This means, in the case of a small proportion of the loans, the banks will not get all the money immediately. Whether they receive further payment depends on whether NAMA is successful.

It will also be a criminal offence to lobby new agency, under the revised legislation.

A tax of 80% on developers' profits will be imposed in cases where they gain from land that is rezoned.

The new agency will be obliged to report to the Finance Minister every three months. A new provision also requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to review the progress of NAMA every three years. The CAG will also review NAMA's annual accounts.

Non-executive bank directors, appointed before 2008, will be required to stand down before 2011. Chief executives of banks will also not be allowed become chairmen, as happened in the case of Anglo Irish Bank.

Speaking on RTÉ News at One, Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said the Government will buy the banks' loans with bonds at a discounted value, but to further protect the taxpayer, some of the bonds will be at the risk of the banks' own performance.

A proportion of the bonds will be sub-ordinated debts, where NAMA has the option to not pay interest due on foot of the bonds and not pay the principal after the ten years when the bonds come due for full repayment.

He said this would give the banks the incentive to manage the assets to ensure that they are paid those bonds. If they do not manage to maintain the values the risk will be on the banks.

Speaking on RTÉ's Six-One News, Mr Lenihan said NAMA was not about bailing out developers, but about protecting jobs and the economy.

In a statement earlier, Mr Lenihan said that he will consult with Opposition leaders on the issue of appointing NAMA board members.

The minister also pointed out that the figure he will to the Dáil on September 16 for the overall cost of NAMA will only be an 'estimate'. An exact cost will not be known until each loan is valued, he added.

Bruton criticises legislation

Fine Gael's Richard Bruton has described the revised NAMA legislation as a 'patched up political deal to help the Green Party to get through a difficult meeting at the weekend.

Deputy Bruton claimed that the 'fundamental flaws' in the NAMA model remain, and some of the changes will actually undermine that model.

He said the proposed method of 'risk-sharing' through subordinated debt would cause the banks to reduce lending, because they wouldn't be able to put a value on that debt.

Mr Bruton again called on the Government to name the 1,500 people that will be 'bailed out' by NAMA. Mr Lenihan described this suggestion as 'not constructive'.

Revisions make no difference - Lucey

The Trinity College professor who spearheaded a group of 46 economists who publicly oppose NAMA, has said the amendments to the NAMA legislation make no fundamental difference to the proposal.

Prof Brian Lucey said there is still no certainty what the Government is going to pay, and that overpaying is likely.

He also said its likely the taxpayer will not get 'a significant upside'.