We move now to Independents 4 Change. Deputy Wallace has three minutes.

The end of February saw the first ever prosecution resulting in a conviction in the UK of a corporate body for failure to prevent bribery. The case concerned the managing director of a company paying a £10,000 bribe to secure a contract worth £6 million. This was the first test of section 7 of the UK's Bribery Act, which provides that a corporate body is guilty of an offence if a person associated with it has been found guilty of corruption. Equivalent Irish legislation, namely the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Bill, came before the justice committee in March this year. The Bill incorporates the "failure to prevent" principle, copying the UK legislation, which is welcome. The legislation will be pointless and a mere fig-leaf reform, however, if the Government does not create an independent body with the necessary legal power to enforce the Bill's provision.

Sadly, the legislation may have come too late for some organisations. We know for a fact that NAMA's chairperson and chief executive were aware of corruption taking place within the organisation to which they turned a blind eye. When it was discovered that a NAMA employee had been leaking debtor portfolio details to investment funds, NAMA's chair and chief executive called in Deloitte, not the Garda, to investigate. By coincidence, NAMA has, since its inception, paid Deloitte over €7 million in fees for receivership duties. If this is not a conflict of interest, I am not sure what would be. We know of ten more cases where senior executives in NAMA became aware of corruption by staff but dealt with it in-house instead of reporting it to the relevant authority. Sadly, it seems that NAMA will get away with it. NAMA is the only State agency that has a policy of deleting the emails of staff members one year after such staff have left its employment. It does not sound as if the organisation is too interested in transparency.

Another serious development took place in February this year in relation to happenings in NAMA. A former NAMA staff member, Paul Pugh, was due to stand trial in the Dublin Circuit Court on 12 February for leaking highly sensitive information that NAMA was supposed to be keeping safe. For some strange reason, the DPP withdrew the case at the last minute. No explanation has been given as to why the proceedings have been halted and there is serious anger in certain quarters that this could have happened. If someone in the DPP's office saw fit in 2016 to recommend the prosecution of this NAMA official and to send him forward for trial, why was the prosecution halted and on whose instructions? If the Taoiseach does not have the answer at this stage, he should provide it to the House as soon as possible. There are a lot more questions than answers around how these individuals are operating.

Before the Taoiseach responds, I remind Deputy Wallace that he should be very careful. I heard him refer to corruption and the CEO in NAMA and it is an allegation. He should choose his words more carefully.

I have done that. I promise the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I do not believe the Deputy has done so and I caution him.

I am not in a position to respond to allegations the Deputy has made against individual members of staff in NAMA. This is not the place for us to make allegations, nor can I respond to them not knowing whether they are true or untrue. The DPP acts independently of the Government and does not receive direction from it. The DPP's office does not account to the Government for its decisions. From experience and following cases down the years, I am aware that when the DPP decides not to prosecute, it generally does so because it does not believe there is sufficient evidence to pursue a case and secure a conviction. I cannot say in this individual case whether that is the position. I am not even sure I am allowed to ask.

On the broader picture of fighting corruption and white collar crime, the Government published a package of measures last year to crack down on such crime in Ireland. This was produced back in November. Since then, the Department of Justice and Equality has taken this forward through three major legislative initiatives.

The first is the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Bill which has made significant progress through the House with Report Stage to take place on 1 and 2 May. It is then planned to bring all Stages through the Seanad and have it passed before the summer recess. The Bill includes legislative provisions for recommendations arising from the Mahon tribunal. It will substantially advance Ireland in meeting its obligations under several international anti-corruption instruments. The major modernisation of the corruption offences law will repeal and replace seven previous Prevention of Corruption Acts, some of them dating back to 1889. It will consolidate, update and strengthen seven Bills for modern times.

An amendment to the Bill was agreed by the Government yesterday which will ensure the full implementation of Article 7 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, making it an offence to launder the proceeds of bribery outside Ireland involving a foreign public official, even if the bribery was not an offence in the place in which it was carried out. In addition to that, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, has brought forward the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Bill as part of the Government's package of measures.

I take the Deputy’s point in this regard that one can have all the legislation one likes, but if one does not enforce it, or have the power or strength to enforce it, then it counts for little. We indicated already, as part of our package of reforms, that we intend to strengthen, expand and beef up the role of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. It will be moved from being an office within the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation to a stand-alone bureau of investigation, a sort of Irish FBI, if one likes, when it comes to white-collar crime and corporate enforcement.

I am not making allegations. I am stating facts. I want the Taoiseach to dig deeper.

Not only does NAMA have a tendency to play a bit footloose with criminal law, but it seems to care little for the data protection law. Two months ago, the Data Protection Commissioner found that NAMA was in breach of its obligations under data protection law regarding requests for data from the O'Flynn group. I have read the 67-page report and believe the Government should be concerned. The O'Flynns had asked for all personal data NAMA held on them, which is their right. NAMA initially agreed to undertake a full search for this. Some 14 months later, however, it told the commissioner it had decided not to do the requested searches.

I have no doubt the workings of NAMA will prove to be the biggest financial scandal in the history of the State when the truth eventually emerges. Former NAMA officials and their closest friends now control vast amounts of Dublin's housing stock. They have morphed from being civil servants into millionaires, quicker than the Government can build a semi-detached house. I know the Taoiseach is a busy man and it cannot be possible for him to be on top of every issue. I appeal to him to consider, however, putting NAMA on his radar and address the fact that it lacks transparency and accountability. There was much talk in the House last week about insider information but a blind eye is being turned to NAMA. The Taoiseach is ignoring it at his peril.

In fairness, some of those points sound like allegations to me. I have no idea whether they are true or not. I have no doubt the Deputy believes them. However, it would not be the first time in this House that Deputies put allegations on the record of the House in good faith, perhaps believing them, and we subsequently found out they were untrue. That is why we all need to be cautious in this area.

NAMA is very much on my radar. It is coming to the end of its remit as a public body which was set up as a solution to the banking crisis. We now believe it will make a small profit and remit that to the State. At that point, it will have served its purpose and have ended its remit.