Last July, serious allegations were made regarding fixer fees and other improprieties worth millions of euro in regard to aspects of the Project Eagle deal, the sale of the NAMA loans in Northern Ireland. Deputy Mick Wallace made serious allegations which the Taoiseach agreed were serious and should be taken seriously. However, there has been deafening silence in terms of our ability to investigate these allegations and other aspects of the concerns around the purchase of the loan book in Northern Ireland. This is a property portfolio valued at approximately €1.6 billion and the integrity of the State is coming into question as allegations are being made on a continual basis. There is no doubt there are huge competing interests in Northern Ireland, both at political level between political parties and between various property developers and others who have expressed interests in the local scene in Northern Ireland.

However, this goes beyond Northern Ireland. NAMA was established by the Houses of the Oireachtas and it is the credibility and integrity of this House that is being brought into disrepute, because we are unable or unwilling to set up some form of investigation or to facilitate NAMA to co-operate with investigations in the North, in Belfast. The idea that we will continue to allow drip-feed allegations to be made and go unanswered or go without investigation is not credible or tenable. It does a disservice to NAMA, which acts as an agent of this State, and undermines that organisation's integrity.

Does the Tánaiste accept that the allegations are serious enough to warrant investigation? Second, should we not facilitate a proper, robust investigation? This would mean allowing NAMA to appear before the inquiry in the North. It has been said previously, and NAMA has said, that it is only answerable to the Houses of the Oireachtas, but that is not good enough. The issue goes beyond this State and is clearly important. Stormont has set up a committee of investigation and the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice are also investigating the issue. However, this country is doing nothing other than having the Committee of Public Accounts have a look at the matter.

There is a lot at stake on this. There are competing interests politically and in terms of property developers in Northern Ireland. More importantly, the integrity of NAMA, which was established by this Parliament is being drawn into question. We are obligated to ensure we do everything we can to ensure all allegations are investigated and the truth discovered. We owe that to this Parliament.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. He has done so in a very helpful manner. I do not believe there is anybody in the House who is not interested in hearing some of the responses to allegations that have been thrown around.

I am conscious that the Deputy's colleague, Deputy John McGuinness, is leading an all-party Committee of Public Accounts inquiry committee in regard to the position and that both Brendan McDonagh, CEO of NAMA, and Chairman Frank Daly, have been speaking very frankly for an extended period to the members of the committee. Those members are acting on behalf of the Oireachtas in pursuit of appropriate, straight and honest answers to questions that have been raised.

We need to be very clear about what happened and what the mood in the country was at the time when NAMA was established. The Labour Party did not support the establishment of NAMA. We saw flaws in the set-up and expressed our reservations at the time. Two underlining principles were put forward regarding the establishment of NAMA and as far as I am aware, all of the parties in the House at the time and the Independent Members agreed with them. The first principle cuts to the heart of some of the current soreness, including of complaints we hear in this House. This principle was that developers - this was the will of the people - would not be allowed to buy back their loans at heavily discounted prices through the back door. Some people in this House who were themselves successful developers unfortunately lost out. Everybody in the House was involved in the debate. Deputy Michael McGrath was heavily involved in the discussions as a backbench contributor to the debates and the late Deputy Brian Lenihan, as Minister for Finance, led at the time for the Government. Developers were not going to be offered a back door through which to buy back their loans.

The second principle, on which everybody in the House agreed, and I presume still agree, was that politicians would not be directly involved with NAMA. This was for all the reasons we know, which I will not go into, in the history of the bubble and its development, of overly close connections between some political parties, developers and banks.

I am not going to go into that. We have all seen the different reports, such as the Nyberg report. Politicians were not going to be involved in the detailed line decisions on NAMA. When NAMA was established, the Committee of Public Accounts was given an overriding authority on behalf of everybody here to be the investigating body to which NAMA could be properly and fully accountable. I agree with the Deputy on this.

I have listed to Members in this House who are former developers. I have great sympathy for some of the misfortunes that befell them. I have heard them say, with great passion, that at the height of the bubble property values were, say, €6 billion or €7 billion and when the crash came, unfortunately those values often fell below a billion. In fact, when I watched him on television for a short while this morning, I heard Mr. Daly say that in many cases, loan values fell by 50%. In some cases, he said, the loan values fell to below 10%.

What we are getting is a terrible regret on the part of developers that they did not get to buy their loans by the back door and a wish that the bubble values, which they want to keep in front of our eyes as the amounts that should have been realised and magicked up by NAMA, would actually represent what business would pay for them. That, of course, has not happened. We have had Deputy Wallace raise this time after time, as a man who has worked hard in development and produced good developments all his working life. Of course he, like other developers, had a terrible fall in terms of his business. We all sympathise with this, across the House. However, the argument that people should be allowed to buy back their loans was a critical issue in the period around the establishment of NAMA and that is what is in the legislation. I think it was Fianna Fáil that sponsored this legislation. That is why there has to be an arm's-length process of selling.

The Tánaiste's reply reminds me of the Light Brigade. It started out very well but ended very badly.

Like Fianna Fáil.

They do not like the history, do they?

They might have to live it soon enough.

The core of the issue here is that the integrity of the sales process has been compromised. That is the core of the allegation. The legislation is clear. Developers cannot buy back their loans. That is in the primary legislation that was passed here. The Committee of Public Accounts is also able to investigate and hold NAMA to account.

Grand so.

The broader issue is that allegations are being made that there was large bungs being paid to facilitate the purchase of properties in the Northern Ireland Project Eagle loan book from NAMA and that the sales process was compromised. Those allegations compromise the integrity of the organisation which was to oversee the sales. I am not saying that developers can buy back their property loans, or that politicians in the Republic are making representations to NAMA. The legislation does not allow it to happen.

Exactly.

The point is that NAMA and the sales process are being questioned. We need to be able to facilitate NAMA appearing in Belfast before the relevant committee in Stormont so that it can defend its integrity and stand over the sales process. The integrity of the organisation should not be undermined. If the sales process has gone through with probity, why would NAMA officials fear appearing before the Stormont investigation?

There are many competing interests in the North that want to keep this going and keep undermining the process. There is a lot to be gained on either side politically, and also in the context of developers. We owe it to NAMA to facilitate its appearance before the committee so that it can vindicate and stand over the sales process. That is the core of the issue.

A lot of nonsense has been expressed about the historical problems but NAMA has been established in this State for one purpose and that is to clean up the bad banking system and dispose of assets. It is in all the primary legislation to which the Tánaiste referred. Purchasing loans back is illegal and cannot be done. It is wrong. The prohibitions on politicians making representations is also in the legislation. This has nothing to do with the core issue, which is that allegations were made by Deputies in this House and elsewhere that bungs were paid to facilitate the purchase of loan books from NAMA.

Would the Deputy like to tell us if he has faith in NAMA?

It happened on Deputy Byrne's watch.

Let me be very clear. Deputy Kelleher's colleague beside him will remember the long debates in this House that went through the night on several occasions, in which I represented the Labour Party.

They were historical debates. Get the popcorn, this could take a while.

The Deputy should bear with me now. The point is that we made a decision collectively, for good or for bad, as a Parliament. I think it was for the good - I supported the late Mr. Brian Lenihan in his position - that politicians should be removed from the process. Otherwise, every little developer and every big developer in the country could be involved. I was a member of the old Dublin County Council where the developers used to pull my sleeve as I was walking along saying, "Joan, would you like to come to breakfast, dinner or tea and could you have a look at a bit of land that I have a proposition on". When we had the debate on NAMA, we wanted to take that out of the picture.

The Tánaiste should answer the question.

That is done. That is not the issue.

I am glad that Fianna Fáil now supports that approach.

We implemented that proposal.

I have no difficulty, nor has the Government, with NAMA going to any institution in the North of Ireland. We do not dictate to NAMA----

There is a big difference between getting your sleeve pulled----

The Fianna Fáil Deputies are trying to have their cake and eat it.

The Tánaiste is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Their party caused the bank crash. That was bad enough. It established NAMA. I was a critic of it and am still-----

There is an allegation of bribery. The Tánaiste should deal with it, please.

The Deputies should hold on and listen. As far as I am concerned it is a decision for NAMA if it chooses to go to the North. I would be perfectly happy----

It can go.

I cannot tell them----

This Parliament can send them.

It is an agency which operates as far as possible with a remit which is free from the day-to-day pressures of politics-----

This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with the integrity of the State.

It was established in order to get the country out of a mega debt problem which unfortunately we inherited courtesy of Fianna Fáil, along with a mega crash.

This is about whether the taxpayer gets an appropriate return.

I have no problem with NAMA going North but I want the NAMA board and executives to reach a business decision.

A business decision on whether they should be called in to question their own business decisions?

It is not a business decision.

NAMA is currently before the public accounts committee chaired very ably by one of the Deputy's colleagues.

The Tánaiste is throwing out the compliments.

All of these issues are now being debated there. I do not have a difficulty as Tánaiste, nor am I aware that anyone else in Government has a difficulty with NAMA making a decision to go before the committee in the North. It is a decision for it to reach.

It is a decision for this Parliament to reach.

The Tánaiste is not a bystander in this.

Deputy Tóibín is not either, apparently. Do not say anything about Deputy John McGuinness.

That is unfair, the Deputy is not jealous of John McGuinness. We know that.

We know the state when people are jealous of Deputy Alan Kelly.