I have previously raised widespread concerns about the operation of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. This deals with billions of euro in public assets being sold to vulture capitalists behind closed doors and without any democratic oversight. NAMA has been ordered by the Government to wind up faster than its 2020 remit, which also raises concerns about a fire sale of assets; we have raised that issue here many times. Sinn Féin has little confidence that the Government is protecting the public interest.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, was aware of concerns about the sale of NAMA's northern portfolio before it even happened because the matter was raised in the Dáil by an Teachta Pearse Doherty. Last week's allegations by an Teachta Mick Wallace suggest insider trading and political croneyism in that sale. These loans had a value of €4.5 billion, but NAMA allegedly sold them to the US vulture capital firm Cerberus for just €1.3 billion. Another US firm, Pimco, withdrew from the sales process in March last year after it brought to NAMA's attention an attempt by a former NAMA adviser, Frank Cushnahan, to solicit payments. Did NAMA report this whole business to the Minister? Did NAMA report to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, the reasons for Pimco's withdrawal? If it did not, is that not a question that needs to be answered? If it did, just three weeks after the withdrawal of Pimco, how did the Cerberus deal proceed, considering the involvement of many of the same actors? Will the Minister accept that this latest scandal demands the establishment of a commission of investigation into the management and operation of NAMA?

I do not accept that. We, as an Oireachtas, set up the asset management agency to recover maximum value for the Exchequer.

Deputy Bruton opposed it.

We put in place a board, chaired by the former chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, to conduct that business and it had a very clear mandate to deliver best value. It was not told how to conduct its sales or whether they should be done individually or bundled; it was told to secure best value. It was also to be overseen by the Oireachtas, via the Comptroller and Auditor General and through the PAC. A system was put in place to give it the necessary discretion to act in the interest of the taxpayer, to maximise value, but at the same time the Oireachtas had this oversight mechanism. It has pursued that faithfully and has reported faithfully in respect of this.

On the issue of whether a sale of a loan realises the book value, as the Deputy knows - if he does not know he can consult the records of the House - often these banks had only a tiny proportion of the real value that was loaned in their books. That was the nature of the crash we experienced. There is no question that one can expect NAMA to realise the full book value of loans that were transferred to NAMA at a substantial haircut. I do not know what the haircut on individual loans was, nor is that a matter of public knowledge, but it is clear that they did not have anywhere near the book value. NAMA has dealt with this in the way I outlined by open tender. It was a competitive tender. It was overseen by the Comptroller and Auditor General's representative, it was subject to audit in the normal way and it was subject to a report back to the PAC.

The issue of the involvement on the other side of the trade of possible fee structures was brought to the attention of NAMA's board. It acted properly to disallow the company that was bidding in such a way. It informed the Minister of its decision, as it should have, and it then proceeded, when the successful tender came through, to seek assurances that no such fee was being paid and it received those assurances from the successful bidder. NAMA has behaved properly in the way it has conducted its business and the record of the way it handled this speaks for itself.

The Minister was told, therefore, and the sale proceeded, despite all these players still being involved. One of the conditions of the sale process of the northern portfolio, following the withdrawal of Pimco, was that no former director should receive payment as a result of NAMA transactions. However, we know the law firm involved in the Cerberus deal had £7 million lodged in an offshore account. That is an awful lot of public money.

The Minister, Deputy Bruton, says he does not accept that there should be a commission of investigation into this. The Minister for Finance has been silent on these matters. I have asked him and I have written to him to make a statement and he has said nothing. I have seen time after time since I have come here that this Government messes about, prevaricates, puts things on the long finger, kicks them up the road and does not move smartly and sharply. Why would it not establish a commission of investigation? Why would it not let the issue be dealt with by those who have the authority, the ability, the resources and the capacity to deal with them?

My other point is that the Government is proposing to parcel up all of NAMA's remaining portfolios, to be disposed of in one sale. I understand that Cerberus is a leading bidder in that. In the same week this scandal emerged, the Government introduced legislation to cut payments to lone parents. It brought in legislation to pickpocket citizens' income to pay its water charges and it increased the six figure pensions of former taoisigh and Ministers. Surely that type of zeal in dealing with ordinary people needs to be matched with a commitment to dealing with issues of corruption and graft that are causing so much anger. I ask him again to reflect on his answer and to establish a commission of investigation into the management and the operation of NAMA.

I do not accept what the Deputy is saying. The Minister for Finance was informed that the board of NAMA had decided that the company that had this compliance problem should not participate. It was debarred. It was not the case, as Deputy Adams is trying to suggest to the House, that the Minister allowed this to go ahead despite such players being involved.

They were not debarred.

They were deliberately excluded from the process.

They were not.

Further, the successful bidder at the end of the process was asked to give an undertaking and that undertaking was given. I have the text of it:

We confirm that no fee, commission, or other remuneration or payment is payable to any current or former member of the board of the National Asset Management Agency, any current or former member of the executive of NAMA, or any current or former member of an advisory committee of NAMA in connection with any aspect of our participation in the Project Eagle sales process. They got a categorical confirmation of the process.

There is obviously an issue in respect of fees, as Deputy Adams says-----

There are 7 million issues.

£7 million

-----that are in an account and that are due to be paid, but those matters are being investigated by the Law Society and by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

What about this assembly?

It is not the case, as Deputy Adams seeks to suggest, that NAMA, which is now proceeding to dispose of its assets, has been found wanting in this. NAMA conducted itself in a proper way. It was found to have dealt with this in a proper way. It is answerable to the PAC and is happy to go before the PAC on Thursday to account for its stewardship. That is how this matter should be dealt with. We do not need inquiries at a moment's notice. We need an Oireachtas that can conduct a questioning of the relevant people and that is what will happen.

It does not have that power.

That is the way we should proceed with our business.