Joe Behan (Wicklow, Independent)

This legislation is unprecedented in its scope and potential impact on our small nation. In my 25 years as a public representative, few issues have caused me such deep concern. As a parent, teacher and public representative, I have made decisions that affected the lives of others. I have always taken this responsibility seriously and it is why I have listened carefully to all sides of the debate on this issue inside and outside the House.

Those being asked to shoulder the enormous burden proposed by the plan, the people of Ireland, should at the very least be given an opportunity to express their opinion by way of a referendum. However, as in the past in the House, I am in the minority on this issue. It is ironic that we cannot trust the people with decisions of this magnitude. Is it any wonder that they no longer trust politicians?

Before I detail some of my concerns I ask the people and every Deputy to stop, think and ask themselves one simple question, namely, why are we expected to accept that precious billions of our hard earned euro should be shovelled immediately and without question into discredited and dysfunctional banks that made enormous and obscene profits on the backs of ordinary decent people? Many do not agree with this plan and are deeply upset by it. We have a great responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard in this debate.

I question many aspects of the Bill and the Minister for Finance must deal with them in his reply. How will a probable rise in the ECB interest rate affect taxpayers' exposure? Will an increased rate affect our ability to repay our debt and how can we quantify the pressure this will put on our already overburdened Exchequer funds? Why is NAMA paying €9 billion for the rolled up interest of developers' loans? It appears that recycled and rolled over debt is a major problem in the global financial crisis and threatens to derail many of the mitigating measures already in place. Is this the case and, if so, how are we going to deal with this further threat? Why is the risk-sharing element so pathetically low? If the banks are to show the gratitude about which the Minister talks, they should accept a higher element of risk for these loans. However, could I be so bold as to suggest to the Minister not to be so naive as to expect gratitude from institutions, the raison d'être of which is the bottom line and which have no concept of the common good?

I am convinced that we are paying too much for these loans. Having listened to many commentators, the market value of the assets is less than stated. The provision for long-term economic value is too generous and forecasts for recovery are too optimistic.

My other major concern about the introduction of NAMA is that, for the banks, it appears it will be business as usual. I seriously question whether there is sufficient impetus for reform in our banking institutions. If we do not insist on radical reform, we will see a return to incentivising quick profits. The Minister stated: "This Government is determined to re-fashion the financial and banking system, and to address and correct all regulatory and governance shortcomings". These are mere words. How will this be done and what level of public and Oireachtas accountability will be provided?

In the large and understandable public outcry about the behaviour of banks, a caveat must be entered. The vast majority of bank employees are just as much victims of the misdeeds of the senior management in their institutions as we are. It is wrong to take out our frustrations on ordinary bank staff who are trying to make ends meet like the rest of us and who had no hand, act or part in the disgraceful conduct of their bosses. What assurances will the Minister provide to those ordinary staff members that they will not be victimised for the actions of others?

I have deep misgivings about NAMA. The more I hear about it, the less I like it, but I will hold off on making a final decision until I have heard the Minister's response to the debate.

See this speech in context