Nama Bill must be amended to reduce risk to taxpayer - Boyle

grumpy · August 17, 2009, 7:55am

irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 80132.html

watch_wait · August 17, 2009, 8:23am

The greens seem to be getting less certain about NAMA.

Are there any green arguments we can use with them, (to speak their language).
eg

Return Unused building sites to agriculture use, insted of a blight on the landscape
proper planning to prevent long commutes,
the idea that we must build 50,000 house per year is silly.
In order to sucessfully implement green policies, People must have a comfort zone and a desire to do it, the economic toll that NAMA will take on the country will take us down a few places on Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs leaving little room for the greens.

Jackfeeney · August 17, 2009, 8:32am

…Interesting that the final Green discussion will be after the Lisbon Vote which I reckon will be another confidence vote in FF…Greens remain on the fence and more concerned about remaining in power than better protecting citizens…IMHO…

I’ll be voting NO to Lisbon for all the wrong reasons but NO nonetheless…

bluesberry · August 17, 2009, 8:51am

In my opinion the word “million” has lost it’s impact. The greens must have a costed shopping list as to how much their objectives could cost. I think they only have to consider what could be achieved with 1% of the cost of the NAMA to find the motivation to use their influence. ie if NAMA even overpays by only 1%, then what green benefits will be foregone or deferred…? eg

Full nationwide broadband extension
Pioneer funding for renewable energies
Coherent public transport strategies eg ensure 90% of dwellings are within a 10 minute walk, from 6 am to midnight, of public transport on a 15 minute to 30 minute frequency/ allied to main route and city centre tolls. And make sure the public transport is faster than the cars.

Orwellgeorge · August 17, 2009, 8:59am

Boyle’s statement seems to have impacted the banks share price, markets are down anyway, none the less a statement from the junior coalition party will have some impact.

Raketemensch · August 17, 2009, 9:24am

It’s interesting that common discourse around the Greens regards them as being interested in issues such as pollution and planning but not economics. Economic policy is one of the pillars of sustainable development as defined at the Rio conference so the simple inequity of NAMA in regards to the treatment of the banks on one hand and the taxpayers on the other, is already a massive violation of sustainability principles. It is not necessary to bring climate change directly into an argument for it to have a ‘green theme’.

qwerty · August 17, 2009, 9:31am

Voting NO to Lisbon is a crazy think to do to get at the Government…EU is keeping the country afloat…we are bankrupt…can you imagine what FF would do without Europe

jmc · August 17, 2009, 10:28am

Here is an amendment that would save the tax payers billions and probably tens of billions over the life time of the proposed NAMA agency.

Here is the current section 172 of the NAMA 2009 Bill…

Obligation to pass certain information to law-enforcement authorities.
172.—Where NAMA has reason to suspect that—
(a) a participating institution may have committed a criminal offence, or
(b) a participating institution may have contravened a law relating to taxation, companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
NAMA shall report the information that leads it to form that suspicion to—
(i) the Gárda Síochána,
(ii) the Revenue Commissioners,
(iii) the Director of Corporate Enforcement,
(iv) the Competition Authority,
(v) the Regulatory Authority,
(vi) any other body, whether within the State or not, responsible for the detection or investigation of criminal offences, or
(vii) any other body (whether within the State or not) responsible for the detection or
investigation of contraventions of law (whether of the State or not) relating to
companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
as the case appears to it to require.

lets just add a few small amendments…

Obligation to pass certain information to law-enforcement authorities.
172.—(1) Where NAMA has reason to suspect that—
(a) a participating institution may have committed a criminal offence, or
(b) a participating institution may have contravened a law relating to taxation, companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
**(c) any company, person, or debtor that receives NAMA funds or benefit, directly or indirectly, or
     any NAMA subsidiary, partnership, joint-venture, or investment vehicle, that may have
      may have committed a criminal offence, 
     or may have contravened a law relating to taxation, companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition**
NAMA shall report the information that leads it to form that suspicion to—
(i) the Gárda Síochána,
(ii) the Revenue Commissioners,
(iii) the Director of Corporate Enforcement,
(iv) the Competition Authority,
(v) the Regulatory Authority,
(vi) any other body, whether within the State or not, responsible for the detection or investigation of criminal offences, or
(vii) any other body (whether within the State or not) responsible for the detection or
investigation of contraventions of law (whether of the State or not) relating to
companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
as the case appears to it to require.

**(2)
(a) NAMA shall create an Office of Compliance for overseeing compliance with 172 (1).
  (b) The Office of Compliance shall be treated as a completely independent entity under the structures outlined in this Act. The Office of Compliance shall report to the Office of Attorney General.

  (c) The Office of Compliance shall consist of persons qualified in the detection and enforcement of the laws and regulations covered by 172 (1).

  (d) The Office of Compliance shall be completely separate from NAMA. All employees, contractors, agents of NAMA must, if they have good reason to believe that an offense has been committed under 172 (1), make know to the Office of Compliance immediately the nature and details of the offense. All communications with the Office of Compliance by employees, contractors, agents of NAMA, or by any person who has good reason to belive that an offense under 172 (1) has been committed, shall be treated in the strictest confidence and shall be covered by all relevant Whistleblower Acts. 
(e) The Office of Compliance shall prepare at the end of each financial year an audit report on compliance with 172 (1) by NAMA, its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures and all their business relationships with any and all outside parties. A copy of this audit report shall be delivered to the relevant Oireachtas committees, and all relevant regulatory or enforcement agencies, no later than 3 calender months after the end of the previous fiancial year.
**

or something like that.

An amendment like this would go a long way to dispel the general view that NAMA is not just a giant scam by the usual suspects.

yoganmahew · August 17, 2009, 10:41am

Yup. Good amendment.

It’s already a whale of a bill, but unfortunately it is alarmingly loose on key areas of taxpayer protection, not to mention equity and fairness, that is, that officers or customers of NAMA should not be permitted to operate to a lower standard than the general public is required to.

Hobo_Sapiens · August 17, 2009, 10:50am

O/T but please remember that Lisbon is *not *a vote on EU membership!

lowiq · August 17, 2009, 12:32pm

That’s funny, I’ll be voting NO for all the right reasons.
I don’t know about the Greens. They are great at calling for this and calling for that – all the while expecting us to forget that they are in government and actually in a position to **do **whatever this or that they are calling for.

Max_Headroom · August 17, 2009, 12:33pm

This sort of response from a previous poster concerns me if replicated nationally

I can understand the reason but not the logic.

Jackfeeney · August 17, 2009, 2:57pm

…Its not to ‘get at the Government’ but to assist in their removal from power … its outrageous to suggest a NO vote will leave us out in the European cold but I’ve no doubt FF will give us that line of BS over the coming weeks…This is but one treaty and I’m sure as Europe evolves, there will be many more of them…Our democracy already voted NO on this one…We’re being asked to vote a second time with minor modifications from a lazy Government that has morally and financially broke the nation…Having read all the pro’s and cons of Lisbon 2, I’m 50/50 (undecided) but what swings it for me is the possibility that it might also serve to remove the FF party…Its an added Bonus… I entirely agree with you that we would be knackered without Europe but Lisbon 2 is not an exit vote…It’s a rare opportunity within the current life of this government to send a clear message …This is not logical but its also not unrepresentative of many voters thoughts right now…

bungaloid · August 17, 2009, 4:34pm

Which is economically worse for the country - a 30Bn NAMA ripoff of public funds? or a NO to Lisbon?

Here are the outcomes ranked best to worst IMO

(1) NAMA NO Lisbon YES - good
(2) NAMA NO Lisbon NO - ok
(3) NAMA YES Lisbon YES - very bad
(4) NAMA YES Lisbon NO - armageddon

little_feat · August 17, 2009, 4:47pm

No to Lisbon has nothing to do with our continuing EU membership unless the EU is to be viewed as some coercive dictatorship.

Orwellgeorge · August 17, 2009, 4:47pm

I fear that Dan Boyle’s ‘amendent’, is really only to take the steam out of the grass roots rebellion that is brewing in green circles. Amendment won’t do Dan, NAMA is immoral and it should not happen.

koya · August 17, 2009, 5:26pm

1

Seriously, that’s one of the the worst ideas I have read on this thread.

There seem to be some people who aren’t aware of the many exciting benefits that the Lisbon Teraty has over the Nice Treaty (Voting no means we keep the Nice Treaty: loose a commissioner this year, less democractic, less transparent etc.). I’ll engage with anyone thinking of voting no or on the fence on another thread to aviod spoiling this one if you like, so can we keep thsi Lisbon free?

I want to +1 this

I find it amazing that informed people still don’t ‘get’ the Greens, especially since the ‘fundies’ have jumped ship. I remember reading many posts from people clearly deeply involved in the Greens on this forum, but they seem to have given up due to being tired for being blamed for everything that happened before they came into power (Tare for example! Dick did it the day BEFORE.)

They are the most democratic party in this states: You should be lobbying them with the facts rather than trolling or begrudging them putting the Copenhagen ahead of everythign else.

Dan Boyle has an e-mail address and may lack the information and analysis you have.

Remedy that.

A_union_supporter · August 17, 2009, 5:38pm

jmc:

grumpy:

THE NAMA legislation will have to be amended to reduce the risk to the taxpayer, according to Green Party chairman Senator Dan Boyle.

A national convention of the Green Party to consider the Nama Bill and the impending review of the programme for government could be held in early October, Mr Boyle said yesterday.

He said the party’s national executive would meet to consider how the membership could be consulted about Nama, the National Asset Management Agency, following motions from a number of constituency organisations calling for a convention.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 80132.html

Here is an amendment that would save the tax payers billions and probably tens of billions over the life time of the proposed NAMA agency.

Here is the current section 172 of the NAMA 2009 Bill…
Obligation to pass certain information to law-enforcement authorities.
172.—Where NAMA has reason to suspect that—
(a) a participating institution may have committed a criminal offence, or
(b) a participating institution may have contravened a law relating to taxation, companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
NAMA shall report the information that leads it to form that suspicion to—
(i) the Gárda Síochána,
(ii) the Revenue Commissioners,
(iii) the Director of Corporate Enforcement,
(iv) the Competition Authority,
(v) the Regulatory Authority,
(vi) any other body, whether within the State or not, responsible for the detection or investigation of criminal offences, or
(vii) any other body (whether within the State or not) responsible for the detection or
investigation of contraventions of law (whether of the State or not) relating to
companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
as the case appears to it to require.
lets just add a few small amendments…
Obligation to pass certain information to law-enforcement authorities.
172.—(1) Where NAMA has reason to suspect that—
(a) a participating institution may have committed a criminal offence, or
(b) a participating institution may have contravened a law relating to taxation, companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
**(c) any company, person, or debtor that receives NAMA funds or benefit, directly or indirectly, or
     any NAMA subsidiary, partnership, joint-venture, or investment vehicle, that may have
      may have committed a criminal offence, 
     or may have contravened a law relating to taxation, companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition**
NAMA shall report the information that leads it to form that suspicion to—
(i) the Gárda Síochána,
(ii) the Revenue Commissioners,
(iii) the Director of Corporate Enforcement,
(iv) the Competition Authority,
(v) the Regulatory Authority,
(vi) any other body, whether within the State or not, responsible for the detection or investigation of criminal offences, or
(vii) any other body (whether within the State or not) responsible for the detection or
investigation of contraventions of law (whether of the State or not) relating to
companies, the regulation of financial services, or competition,
as the case appears to it to require.

**(2)
(a) NAMA shall create an Office of Compliance for overseeing compliance with 172 (1).
  (b) The Office of Compliance shall be treated as a completely independent entity under the structures outlined in this Act. The Office of Compliance shall report to the Office of Attorney General.

  (c) The Office of Compliance shall consist of persons qualified in the detection and enforcement of the laws and regulations covered by 172 (1).

  (d) The Office of Compliance shall be completely separate from NAMA. All employees, contractors, agents of NAMA must, if they have good reason to believe that an offense has been committed under 172 (1), make know to the Office of Compliance immediately the nature and details of the offense. All communications with the Office of Compliance by employees, contractors, agents of NAMA, or by any person who has good reason to belive that an offense under 172 (1) has been committed, shall be treated in the strictest confidence and shall be covered by all relevant Whistleblower Acts. 
(e) The Office of Compliance shall prepare at the end of each financial year an audit report on compliance with 172 (1) by NAMA, its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures and all their business relationships with any and all outside parties. A copy of this audit report shall be delivered to the relevant Oireachtas committees, and all relevant regulatory or enforcement agencies, no later than 3 calender months after the end of the previous fiancial year.
**

or something like that.

An amendment like this would go a long way to dispel the general view that NAMA is not just a giant scam by the usual suspects.

Yes but at what price ???

koya · August 17, 2009, 5:49pm

apologies, should have posted this in my earlier.

Does he have the wrong idea?

Does the e-mail?

Raketemensch · August 17, 2009, 6:31pm

koya:

apologies, should have posted this in my earlier.

Article:

Mr Boyle said he favoured amending the Bill to give more protection to the taxpayer along the lines advocated in The Irish Times by Prof Patrick Honohan of Trinity College.

Article:

An e-mail in circulation among key Green members maintains that paying above the current market rate for bank assets would amount to giving the banks free money. “Giving the banks free money, funded by tax hikes and cutbacks, is to reward them for the damage they have done to the economy, and further punish their victims. Nama should pay the banks the current market value for those assets, which will be often near zero, regardless of the previous crazy valuations of those assets,” says the e-mail.

Does he have the wrong idea?

Does the e-mail?

Does he have the Internet? Pass this: trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/08/nama-30-more-weight.html onto him. The Internet is awash with careful criticisms of NAMA written by qualified people.