Well I’m truly confused, but then again NAMA’s anti-lobbying provisions have always been confusing; witness poor former minister Willie O’Dea who just did not know what to do for the best last summer as a building site under NAMA’s control in his constituency became a health hazard and magnet for criminality. The former tourism minister Mary Hanafin was similarly bamboozled about how she could express her concerns for unfair competition in the hotel sector to NAMA. And indeed NAMA itself has been forced to dance a delicate dance by insisting its letter to the former Minister for Finance last year on Upward Only Rent Reviews was merely pointing out the effect the promised changes would have on the NAMA portfolio of assets, and the agency has been keen to emphasise that it wasn’t lobbying for the abandonment of changes to existing arrangements. For an outsider, it’s been amusing to watch people experienced in law in a bit of a tizzy over what they can and can’t do.
Lobbying is dealt with in section 221 of the NAMA Act. And it’s not just lobbying NAMA that is potentially an offence. It is also an offence to lobby “a NAMA group entity or a person providing services or advice to NAMA or a NAMA group entity”. So you could argue that the Department of Finance provides “services or advice” to NAMA. So lobbying the Department of Finance in relation to NAMA might potentially be an offence. Even if it was a NAMA employee doing to lobbying.
So what is confusing is that NAMA is now recruiting a lobbyist. The advertisement is here and you have another 10 days left to apply if the post is of interest. The salary isn’t quoted, but this week, it was revealed that 235 staff at the NTMA (NAMA’s parent organization which includes NAMA) were paid up to €100,000 , 78 were paid from €100,001 to €150,000, 27 were paid from €150,001 to €200,000, 3 were paid from €200,001 to €250,000 and 14 were paid over €250,000. The new NAMA role will report to Seán Ó Faoláin, NAMA’s Head of Business Services.
The role is not termed “lobbyist” however, the appointee will have the title of “Relationship Manager”. The vacancy notice says “the purpose of the role is [sic] as a contact person between NAMA and its principal stakeholders and to manage NAMA’s external communications” though it then goes on to specify that “experience of communications in a political and Governmental environment would be an advantage” which would seem to indicate the lucky appointee will be dealing with NAMA’s political masters – at least that is the conclusion reached by Emmet Oliver in the Irish Independent today when he writes that NAMA “ seeks to improve relations with politicians and other groups” and that the term “stakeholders” with which the role will liaise “is understood to mean members of the Oireachtas, but also the wider business community”
The whole area of lobbying and NAMA seems to be very confused. The reason it was addressed in the first place was to deter vested interests from swaying NAMA from its primary role of delivering maximum returns to the taxpayer, and that included deputies in the Dail who might be tempted to place local constituency concerns ahead of the national interest. But because the relevant section of the Act has dark warnings about imprisonment and fines, the lobbying provisions seem to be perceived to go far beyond what was intended. Which seems puzzling to me because the relevant section of the NAMA Act seems to exclude from its ambit, people who are paid to lobby or as the Act says,“is acting in his or her professional capacity or in the course of his or her employment”.
The NAMA chairman was forced to clarify before an Oireachtas committee last year that NAMA positively welcomes information about sites becoming health hazards. And people can contact NAMA to express an interest in buying a NAMA asset, NAMA meets with 50 of them a week apparently. And NAMA itself is building bridges with, for example, the representative body of Irish accountants, and with planning authorities and the expert group dealing with ghost estates.
So maybe some better clarification is needed about NAMA’s anti-lobbying provisions. It would be unfortunate to see the appointee to fill the current vacancy, facing a Garda investigation every time he or she opened their mouth to a politician.
NAMA Wine Lake 
Sorry NWL. Section 221 only deals with people making solicitations to NAMA, not the other way around. A NAMA group entity is defined as either a subsidiary of NAMA, or else an entity meeting a set of such a broad and general requirements that they are effectively meaningless.
NAMA needs a lobbyist in order to influence government policy in favour of its management pay structures, its treatment of developers, and to secure its plans to converting itself into a credit institution to become the biggest provider of credit to the Irish buy to let market. To borrow a quote from Shane Ross, what we are seeing here is “a semi-State power having detached itself from the Government”.
NAMA’s intention is to become a de facto independent entity–of government policy if not government funding. It will become the Semi-state company to end all semi-state companies (possibly literally). The largest property agency in the world, free to buy, sell, lease, develop and gift properties as, how, wherever, whenever and to whomever its sees fit, without any oversight, interference or accountability to government. De facto at least.
Expect Chairman Frank Daly to completely deny any such intentions, and/or to be “appalled” or “outraged” at the suggestion, and/or to advise anyone who has concerns about NAMA to write to him detailing them. Also expect him to approve this appointment.
@OMF, don’t be sorry at all – healthy debate enriches us all but I would disagree with you. Here’s the heading provision in s221 of the NAMA Act
“Subject to subsections (3) and (4), if a person communicates, on behalf of another person, with NAMA, a NAMA group entity or a person providing services or advice to NAMA or a
NAMA group entity with the intention of influencing the making of a decision in relation to the performance of the functions of NAMA or the NAMA group entity, the person commits an offence.”
So what I have suggested is that if a person communicates with “a person providing services or advice to NAMA” then that person commits an offence subject to the provision of s221. I say that the Department of Finance provide “services or advice” to NAMA. So communication with the Department of Finance, and arguably other political offices which might influence NAMA’s activities might be construed as an offence.
Of course what I was doing above was drawing attention to the confusion that surrounds NAMA’s anti-lobbying rules with ministers and indeed NAMA seemingly in trepidation of breaking the rules.
The problem here is that the paragraph is go general it may not hold weight. If I write a letter to the Department of Finance asking about NAMA, have I just committed and offence? I hope you’ve been keeping records of your communications NWL; they might try to string you up!
Anyway, I don’t think the section applies to NAMA itself. NAMA employees contact all these other agencies all the time “on behalf of” NAMA, and the section doesn’t make a distinction between a lobbyist and any other type of NAMA employee. Also, subsection 4 is the big kicker here
Personally, I think this whole section is very badly written. It is so vague, and there are so many loopholes, you could probably ram an entire brigade of PR firms though them. You could also use them to string up someone who write a letter complaining about noise from a NAMA building site. Either way, I don’t see this NAMA job appointment being hindered by this section.
@OMF, I totally agree with you. But why would former minister (and barrister) Willie O’Dea have been so concerned last year about breaking lobbying rules simply to alert NAMA to a derelict NAMA-controlled site in his constituency that was attracting vandals and pipe strippers? As a public representative, wouldn’t Willie have been just “acting in his or her professional capacity or in the course of his or her employment”
So although I agree with you, I think in practice there is still a lot of trepeditation towards communicating with NAMA and related parties on NAMA matters. And frankly I find it difficult to see how anyone can break the rules at all. For example if I am a dastardly developer and want to undermine another developer so that I can buy that developer’s property from NAMA, what is to stop me communicating with NAMA to advance my aims. After all as a developer, I am paid to make as much as I can from property developer.
So to me this section of the NAMA Act is a dogs dinner, and I hope the entry above serves to highlight inconsistency and shed light on the issue.
You interested NWL?
@Rob, I like your thinking – discourage applicants by suggesting they might become regular customers of our boys and girls in blue, and then make an application in a cleared field. But no.
Heh. It seems that the NAMA boys will needs a lobbiest good and quick if they want to save their “Rolls-Royce” pension. Same goes for the NTMA.
Yeah. I can see why NAMA would need to have its man at the Minister’s ear. Also, good to hear the NTMA is putting the funds in its care to good use.