Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will make two points on the consultancy. I am glad the Estimate agreed last year was not spent, resulting in significant savings as mentioned earlier but as I did earlier, I again raise concern about the quantum of increase in comparison to the outturn last year. Across every heading there is an increase for consultancy fees. Only a few weeks ago the Minister stood up in the Chamber and announced the cuts, along with his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, yet when it comes to his own Department every category from A to E has an increase for consultancy spend, and that is questionable.

In terms of legal fees, and particularly this section B which deals with the banking issue, I understand there is the potential for numerous legal challenges - I refer to NAMA and all the rest - that the Department has to face down. In terms of last year's outturn and also this year's Estimate, and I know Estimates are "guesstimates", the Minister is guessing how much of it is for legal fees and consultancy. The Minister mentioned there is a need for consultancy on banking sector policy, personal debt, small and medium enterprises, SME, lending, financial services reform, and cost of implementation of the national payment plan. All of those areas must be tackled, therefore, we understand the need for that. I subscribe to the idea that we can have all the expertise within the Department but when we see the amount being spent on consultancy services, the total quantum is €9 million but this year there is a €5.75 million increase in his Department.

Regarding the issue of NAMA and the review, I welcome that this is happening. The Minister will be well aware that I have asked hundreds of parliamentary questions about NAMA, which I know the Minister reads personally and has answered, on staff and whether the right fire-walls are in place. Rules have been changed in the intermediate period but I agree with the Minister that there is an orchestrated campaign against NAMA and if it is against NAMA, it is against the State also. I hope NAMA will succeed and out-perform even its own expectations because that means the State will be a beneficiary, but it is as clear as the nose on our faces that certain developers are driving an agenda. Unfortunately, some people are playing into that agenda but that should not stop us from challenging NAMA where NAMA must be challenged. The Minister made a case in terms of transparency and accountability but the lack of freedom of information, which was a mistake in the previous Administration, has created huge suspicions in terms of NAMA. I hope that veil will be lifted and we will get more transparency. I look forward to the review and engagement with this committee regarding the outcome of that review also.