Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Tá áthas orm deis a fháil cúpla focal a rá maidir le NAMA. Tá an-bhéim á chur ar chúrsaí luachála, chomh fada agus a bhaineann siad le NAMA. Sílim gur cheart dúinn breathnú ar an cheist leathan lena bhfuilimid ag plé inniu - an chaoi ina fheidhmeoidh an tír muna bhfuil córas baincéireachta éifeachtach ann. Cé go bhfuil an córas baincéireachta thar a bheith tábhachtach don phobal agus don eacnamaíocht, caithfear a rá go bhfuil an eacnamaíocht ann don phobal. Má bhreathnaímíd ar ghnáth-daoine, mar a dúirt an Teachta Ferris, tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach don dream atá ag iarraidh gnó a dhéanamh muna bhfuil córas baincéireachta ann. Cén chaoi is féidir le daoine gnó a rith i gceart gan córas baincéireachta? Muna bhfuil córas baincéireachta ann, níl aon chreidmheas ar fáil do ghnáth-dhaoine atá ag iarraidh teach a thógáil nó airgead a fháil le haghaidh míle cúis.

Dar ndóigh, tá daoine ag déanamh dearmad ar rud eile - muna bhfuil an eacnamaíocht ag feidhmiú, ní bheidh muid mar Stát in ann seirbhísí a chur ar fáil don phobal. Le cúpla seachtain anuas, tá an-chaint faoin gcontúirt a bheadh ann dá mbeadh an luacháil ró-ard - d'fhéadfaimis roinnt billiúin euro a chailleadh de bharr sin. Creidfimid go bhfuil sé sin clúdaithe sa Bhille. Beidh contúirt i bhfad níos mó ann muna bhfuil an eacnamaíocht ag feidhmiú. Má tá difríocht de €3 billiún i gceist in aghaidh na bliana, ó thaobh foinse ioncaim de, idir an eacnamaíocht a bheith ag fás agus gan bheith ag fás, táimid ag caint mar gheall ar difríocht se €30 billiún i gcistí an Stáit laistigh de tréimhse deich mbliana. Creidim go bhfuil figiúr den chineál sin coimeádach. Má fhágaimid rudaí mar atá siad, beidh an bearna idir an chaoi ina bhfuil rudaí agus an chaoi ina bhféadfaidís a bheith má leanfaimid le NAMA i bhfad níos mó ná €3 billiún in aghaidh na bliana. Mar sin, nuair atá NAMA á scrúdú againn, ní chóir dúinn na cúng-socruithe airgeada nó baincéireachta amháin a scrúdú. Caithfimid breathnú ar an tionchar a bheidh acu ar an eacnamaíocht. Caithfimid ceist a chur orainn fhéin - cé acu is fearr ó thaobh an eacnamaíocht, séirbhísí poiblí agus postanna de? Nach bhfuil sé níos fearr ioncam a bhailiú don Rialtas agus Stáit chun a chaitheamh ar seirbhísí, ná airgead a thógáil ar iasacht? Dá bhrí sin, tá sé soiléir go gcaithfimid rud éigin mór agus ceart a dhéanamh.

Ba mhaith liom rud eile a léiriú sa díospóireacht seo. Cloisim an-chuid caint ar bhaincéirí, ar bancanna agus ar airgead na mbainc. Go minic, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil daoine ag smaoineamh ar cé is leis an chuid is mó don airgead atá sna mbainc. Shílfeá gur le dream beag daoine an t-airgead ar fad atá sna mbainc, ach ní mar sin atá. Má rachfaimid go dtí foinse na billiúin euro a bhíonn á láimhseáil ag daoine áirithe sna margaí éagsúla, gheobhfaimid amach gurb é mo chuid airgead agus do chuid airgead atá i gceist. Duine ar bith a bhfuil taisce acu sa mbanc nó sa chomhar chreidmheasa, caithfidh siad a thuiscint go gcuirtear na taiscí ar fad le chéile. Déanann na chomhair chreidmheasa infheistiú i mbainc eile. Dá dteipfeadh ar na mbainc, cá mbeadh an t-airgead sin ansin? Bíonn daoine ag caint mar gheall ar bannaí airgeadais. Tá níos mó eolas ag pobal na hÉireann ar na mbannaí seo ar fad anois ná mar a bhí trí nó ceithre seachtain ó shin. Céard iad fhéin, áfach? Sa chuid is mó, is iad na bannaí na fréamhacha a cothaíonn do phinsean nó d'íocaíocht árachais. Cuirtear na cistí ar fad le chéile istigh sna comhlachtaí pinsean nó árachais agus déantar iad a infheistiú. Má theipeann ar na mbainc, gheobhfaidh gach mac máthair sa tír seo amach go tobann go bhfuil sé thíos leis go pearsanta.

Táimse den tuairim go bhfuil an oiread fíbín ar daoine breathnú ar na droch-baincéirí seo. Ní miste leo cé a ghortóidís sa mbealach. Tá sé cosúil le buama adamhach a úsáid chun duine mí-ionraic a scriosadh, agus a rá gur cuma sa diabhal go bhfuil na céadta míle maraithe agat. Is mar a chéile é sa chás seo. Mar sin, ní díogh liom go dtuigeann duine ar bith a deireann nach gá córas baincéireachta a bheith ann an tsúnámaí a leanfadh teip ar an gcóras sin.

Before discussing the detail of the various proposals, it is important to examine the fundamental issue of what action needs to be taken. Those who advocate the nuclear option of allowing the banks to go under and those who argue that we do not need a banking system do not know who are the ultimate owners of much of the money in the various funds and bonds and do not realise the vital importance of the banking system in day-to-day business. We must have a functioning banking system. As Deputy Ferris noted, many small business owners cannot secure access to credit. Deputies will also be aware of individuals who cannot access credit, including young people who wish to purchase a house, and others who require loans for various purposes. It is important, therefore, to reflect on the importance of a functioning banking system.

We have heard a great deal in this debate about who takes the risk. The banking system is discussed as if it functioned in isolation from the society in which we live. Let us compare the status quo with a scenario in which the banking system is functioning again, credit is flowing, business can be done and jobs are created. Let us consider this scenario solely in terms of the increase in tax revenue we would secure. Leaving aside the social and human anguish of proceeding on the current path, the economic impact would be to starve people of cash, thus ensuring that business is not done and a large number of people remain unemployed. It is my conservative estimate that the lift we would get re-starting the economy would result in an annual increase of €3 billion in income to the State from taxation. With tax revenue this year expected to be approximately €33 billion, an increase of €3 billion or 10% would be relatively small, particularly when one considers that annual tax revenues were running at €55 billion at one point. Nevertheless, over a period of ten years, the increase would amount to €30 billion. Every other risk associated with our proposal pales into insignificance when set against the risk of doing nothing.

One hears a great deal about bankers and the banking system. I do not know any bankers, not even my bank manager, or developers. I keep away from such activities and lead a simple life, which has been devoted to community work. To imagine, however, that bank bonds and so forth relate solely to rich people's money is to fail to understand the nature of the banking system. I have often noted the large sum of money held in our credit unions. I believe it stands at €7 billion or €8 billion. When a large number of people save a little, the money accumulates and enters the banking system. Anyone who would even contemplate allowing the entire system to fall is proposing Armageddon for ordinary people whose deposits, insurance premia and pensions payments would be wiped out.

Those who work in the offices of financial institutions move large sums of money around the system through various investments. Much of this money consists of the pension contributions, insurance premia and deposits of ordinary people. Those who are not required to assume responsibility may speak banally about getting bankers but forget that they propose to use a nuclear missile to hit their target. They do not care whether 100,000 or 200,000 people are washed away in the tsunami that follows.

Having examined the various options, while I do not agree with the Sinn Féin proposal to nationalise the banks, at least it emanates from a principled position, one which would have been popular in the 1960s and 1970s. It reflects a view that in some way a nationalised bank would become a people's bank. I do not believe that would happen, even in the case of full nationalisation, because such a bank would be subject to the same conditions and lending practices in the money markets as any privately owned bank. The NAMA solution provides for public interest directors of banks and offers an incentive for ordinary business. This mix provides the best of two worlds which will serve our society and economy.

From a philosophical point of view, I empathise with the idea that the people should own the banks but have less understanding for the Labour Party policy. Having examined it from every angle, I just do not get it. People are forgetting our Constitution, the nature of our society and property rights. If we were to nationalise the banks, independent assessors would have to be appointed and full market value would have to be paid for the nationalised institution. Such a proposal does not make sense. If, for instance, the banks were worth €4 billion, what would be the point of borrowing €4 billion at an interest rate of 4% to buy bank shares? Such a move would not do anything for bank liquidity because all the money would go to shareholders.

I am not an expert on constitutional law but the notion that one could appropriate a bank on the premise that shareholders would have some of the action at some point in the future does not stand up to scrutiny. It is important in this debate that people are honest enough to admit if their proposals do not stand up to robust challenges.

I examined closely the Fine Gael Party document which proposes, among other things, to move money between good and bad banks. The end game of its proposal appears to be to use a clever sleight of hand to make the subordinated loans worthless. Somebody has to take a hit to get the balance sheet right. If it is not the taxpayer, through refinancing the banks, it must be someone else. This would be very handy if it was possible.

All of these issues can be teased out. Having followed the debate for months and having been privy to Cabinet discussions on the issue, I believe the Government proposal is a robust, effective and legally sound solution to the problem. As regards valuations, I believe that when NAMA is finished it will at least break even and probably make a profit. It is hard to see that property prices will fall in real terms over the next ten years. The up-valuation is only equivalent to an average, modest consumer price index rise in that period.

There are those who say it would be glorious if property prices continued to fall. Obviously property prices went way beyond where they should have gone, but those who say it would be great if they kept going down are forgetting all those who bought houses in the last five years and the disaster they would face if that scenario came to pass. People who see ever falling property prices as a happy ending are ignoring a huge section of our population who borrowed money to buy houses and whose negative equity would be enormous if property prices were to fall further.

As with everything in life, there is a happy medium. One can price up the real value of a house and there is such an intrinsic value. If one wants to get the real price of a house fairly accurately, one should ask a person who built a one-off rural house what the bricks, doors, windows and other bits cost and what labour cost, paying the fair, standard rates in our society. To that, one must also add a modest amount for the site, which is the real intrinsic price. If it falls much below that, the only people who will gain are those with a lot of cash resources who know that inevitably, sooner or later, property prices will come back to the bricks and mortar cost. They will be able to make a killing in the certainty that there is a real price for this, not just some imaginary one.

The Government gave figures today and it was bound to do so. If assets are appropriated there will be performing loans. We must remember that we are buying the loans secured by the assets. There seems to be an idea that we are buying properties, but we are not; we are buying the full loan. If one has a loan and one pays it fully to the bank there is no question of losing a property. It is in the case of default that one's property comes into question. Time and again we have stressed that properties will be valued individually, item by item. I am sure that in some of these portfolios there will be different types of securities and each one will be valued on its real value, taking a long-term valuation on those for which it is appropriate to do so.

We hear the example of a field in some town in the midlands or the west that was zoned for development and where enough houses have been built for the next 20 years. It may have been bought at an exorbitant price, but if there is no chance of development, the Minister and Government spokespersons have said repeatedly that there will be no question but that it will be valued at its real price, i.e. the agricultural value.

It is important to play straight and fair here. In any debates I have had with Deputy Quinn on this issue he has been straight and up front. He has been responsible in the way he has dealt with it. I hope that when we get to Committee Stage, all sides of the House will work together to try to make the legislation even better. We must try to see if there are flaws in the Bill and, if so, improve it.

The idea of publishing a draft Bill was to give plenty of time to people to analyse, debate, examine it and come up with suggestions. A lot of changes have already been made, not to the fundamental principles which are absolutely sound, but to the details. I look forward to a constructive debate with people addressing what everybody agrees is one of the huge challenges we face in the future. I have no doubt that within this Bill we have the wherewithal to create a proper, functioning banking system that will serve our people well. That will allow the economy to regrow. There are still huge opportunities in our land. In time to come it will be seen that Ireland's response to this crisis was constructive and imaginative and solved the problem. I hope it will do so in a relatively short period.

See this speech in context