I too have been reading the report from the Government dealing with the problems mortgage holders are having in repaying their loans. The report includes 41 recommendations. There will be a lot of letters written back and forth between lenders and borrowers but the only firm recommendation I can see is that the one-year moratorium on legal action by lenders cannot be extended. That stands in stark contrast to what we are learning now about the real situation in NAMA.

Yesterday there were two newspaper articles, one in The Irish Times and the other in the Irish Independent, both of which seem to be based on fairly well informed briefings, both stating that what we were told in the original business plan for NAMA turns out not to be the case at all. The original plan told us that 40% of the loans that would be transferred to NAMA would be performing loans which would be cash flow generating. It turns out, if the newspaper reports are accurate, that this applies not to 40% but to 25% of loans and that, as a consequence, the projections made for NAMA will not now be fulfilled. The Minister for Finance came into the House when he was proposing the NAMA legislation and told us all that NAMA would not only wash its face but would make a profit of €4.8 billion. If these reports are accurate, there could instead turn out to be a loss of several hundred millions of euro.

Is it true that only 25%, not 40%, of loans are performing based on the case-by-case analysis that has been done by NAMA? If that is true, can the Taoiseach explain to us why the original business plan for NAMA that was presented to the House has turned out be a bit of a financial fairy tale? Will the Taoiseach confirm that when the Minister for Finance came before us and asked us to approve NAMA, that he did so on the basis of projections which now turn out not to be accurate? If it is the case that they are not accurate, can the Taoiseach inform us why this is the case? Is it because the banks lied in providing the original information on which the 40% estimate was made?

Not for the first time.

Or, is it the case that the developers were messing in the period between the time NAMA was first announced and when the first loan was transferred to NAMA? Was there a situation whereby after NAMA was announced a certain amount of financial hanky panky took place and people decided that if the taxpayer were to end up taking on this burden, then perhaps a given loan did not have to be repaid at all? Is there evidence of growing non-repayment from the time NAMA was announced? This is all based on newspaper reports. Has the Government received this report from NAMA? If so, when will it be published?

There has been some misunderstanding of the plan in advance of its publication. It is not true to say that NAMA now expects to make a loss. There are three scenarios set out in the plan. Under the central scenario, based on current expected asset recovery values NAMA is projected to make a profit. There are two other scenarios which are variations on the central projection, one in which NAMA makes a larger profit and one in which it makes a loss.

One would not get a loan in a bank based on that.

The whole purpose of a business plan is to estimate the outcome under different assumptions. We have had an argument in the past regarding whether risk assessments were put in place.

Who made the assumptions?

This will come back on the Government after the next election.

At issue is the draft plan brought forward in October, the first line of which states it is based on information provided by the banks. As the House is aware, there was much surprise in the banking system as to the aggressive nature of the writedowns with which NAMA came up. NAMA has decided, based on the data it has, what the value of those loans is and has paid accordingly. That is the reason.

I refer to the performance of loans. Some 25% of the loans are performing, but that does not change the value of collateral and present asset projections. That they cannot be paid by the borrower does not take away from the fact of the value of the underlying asset and the collateral which applies to it.

That is our money.

We are unlikely to sell them.

Everything set out by NAMA confirms the aggressive nature of what it was doing to ensure we got a proper read on where we are at. This was done by NAMA and it has brought forward its central projection today which suggests that it still believes, based on the present asset values at the present time, that it will make a profit. With regard to whether it ends up with a loss, that would be addressed by a levy on the banks as the legislation provides for.

Whatever the Taoiseach prefers.

Whatever the Taoiseach is having himself.

One cannot get blood from a turnip.

The draft plan, as the Taoiseach calls it, is beginning to read more and more like a daft plan. The Taoiseach's Minister for Finance stated 40% of loans were performing in the draft or daft plan that was presented to us for NAMA. The Taoiseach is now acknowledging that it is 25%. Originally, we were told the discount applied would be 30%. Of course, it turned out that when NAMA got to work on it, more aggressively it appears than anyone in Government, the discount is significantly more. The real situation is that what the Taoiseach has presented to us and what has been presented to us repeatedly by Government in respect of NAMA has turned out in the cold light of day not to be accurate. The Taoiseach has been way off. He was way off on the numbers of performing loans.

Can we have a question please, Deputy?

He was way off on the discounts.

Then the Taoiseach tries to lecture others on it.

The Taoiseach was way off in respect of where NAMA will end up and whether it will make a profit. The Taoiseach is now suggesting two scenarios in which it might make a profit or a loss.

There are three scenarios.

It seems the reality is that the Taoiseach does not know from one month to the next where he is going with this and where it will end up, other than that the taxpayer of this country will, for decades to come, have to shoulder the burden of the mess he has created and allowed to continue.

Can we have a question please, Deputy? There is limited time for Leaders' Questions.

Yes. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his help. The Taoiseach stated that he expects NAMA will still make a profit. Will he indicate his estimate of the profit NAMA will make?

It is not my estimate. NAMA is making these reports as required under the Acts. Some of the amendments discussed and accepted by the Minister at the time enable NAMA to bring forward in a transparent way on a quarterly basis what the arrangements are. Deputy Burton seems to know. Perhaps she could brief her leader.

There are some bizarre amendments.

I made that point exactly. I am simply helping out the Deputy. I might get some kudos.

We would not get to know the information at all otherwise.

That is not the case at all. The Minister has been committed to dealing with the matter in an up-front way at all times. The central projection that NAMA has set out based on the up-to-date situation is that it will make a profit of something of the order of €1 billion. That is the central projection. It is set out over a ten year projection period based on current expected asset recovery values. During the next ten years issues will arise in terms of values and the recovery of the economy etc. This will all be dealt with on a case by case basis. It proves the wisdom of the NAMA approach of dealing with every loan on a case-by-case basis. It also disproves the idea put forward by the Opposition at the time that in some way there was some padding going on between the banks, those clients and NAMA as regards what the value would be.

The banks were lying.

The banks were lying.

I hold no brief for that. The point I am making relates to the policy response to the banking crisis. The asset management agency set up will enable us to obtain a viable banking system. The proposal at the time from the Labour Party was to temporarily nationalise all the banks. If one nationalised all the banks one would be allowing the taxpayers to fund arrangements of all those banks and all the capital required.

We have nationalised them anyway.

No, we have not actually. The Labour Party's proposal was to nationalise all the banks.

Can we have the Taoiseach without interruption, please?

The Labour Party's proposal was to nationalise all the banks, including the commercial banks.

No.

That was the position. The fact of the matter is, thankfully, Bank of Ireland has raised capital on private markets which has saved the taxpayer that consideration.

This report will be published. It will set out the situation and the central projection. I am outlining the factual position and the other scenarios. The report is simply making those scenarios available to the public so that people can see over the next ten years what the variation in projections will be. The important thing for taxpayers to know in respect of the NAMA operations is that were any losses to emerge after this ten year process, these issues are subject to levy and there will be a surcharge on the banks. That will go back on the banks' liability as far as we are concerned.

As Deputy Gogarty would say, "It is a nightmare".