Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this Bill at this important time in the economic crisis. It is important that all Members deal with the real issues in people's lives and generate important ideas to resolve our problems. We need leadership and vision to deal with the economic mess we are in. Leadership is about doing the right thing at the right time in the interest of the people but it is also about taking responsibility for one's actions. Sadly, this is not happening enough, both in this House or in banking, and among developers, speculators and a section of the business class.

Although the international economic downturn has affected Ireland, let there be no mistake that we have witnessed economic treason on the part of bankers, speculators and developers. The people are hurting, angry and fed up with all those who have shafted their own country. That is the message I want to introduce to the debate before talking about solutions.

Emotion, sound bites and anger will not get us out of this mess. Playing politics will not help this country. My agenda on NAMA will depend on protecting the taxpayers, mortgage holders, small businesses and the weaker sections of society. I will study all proposals and amendments in the House. If the final legislation is not people friendly, the House can forget about my vote. That will be my clear position over the next month. As with the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty, I will pay maximum attention to all sensible proposals and solutions and vote accordingly. That is where I stand and there will be no fudge when I make my final decision. I have heard the Government say it is open to new proposals and ideas. Let us see whether this is so over the next few weeks. I will judge the Government on its actions.

The economic meltdown has the potential to tear our country apart socially and at the level of the individual. A new vengeful generation has seen its prosperity sacrificed upon the altar of voodoo economics. Bitter divisions are emerging, some of which are being stirred up by irresponsible media elements. Some public sector workers are being pitted against precariously employed private-sector employees. Social welfare recipients are pitted against poorly paid immigrant workers. Behind every statistic lies the human cost in poverty, family breakdown, depression and suicide.

It is important that we who subscribe to the ideas of an chéad Dáil Éireann should be to the fore in promoting the measures to which I refer. It is urgent to reimpose regulation on the whole banking and financial services sector. Regulation was gradually stripped away by the new right since the 1970s. There should be a wall separating commercial banking and saving from casino capitalism, high-stakes property speculation and gambling on global stock markets.

Let me make some proposals. The NAMA legislation must include a section debarring any former owners, directors or executives of development companies, financial institutions or banks connected with the toxic debts from owning, buying or having any beneficial interest whatever in the assets being sold by NAMA. The legislation should contain a provision to protect those defaulting mortgage holders who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to make repayments to those financial institutions we are about to support. Why is nobody talking about the poor mortgage holders in this debate? The silence is deafening.

While NAMA and its spending of taxpayers' money should kick start the banking system, the legislation should state clearly that the protection of existing bank shareholders or bond holders must not be a consideration. NAMA legislation should be cleansed of all those provisions that give the Minister for Finance the power to intervene and meddle in its operations. NAMA should come under the democratic control of and be answerable and accountable constantly and continually to the Oireachtas. The objectives of the NAMA legislation should include a social dimension. In this regard, land banks and assets that will come under the control and ownership of NAMA should be used to facilitate the provision of sites for social infrastructure, including schools, health centres, community centres and leisure centres.

These are all sensible proposals and should be accorded priority in this debate and in the legislation. I welcome the recent comments of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, to the effect that this is part of his agenda also. I hope he will deliver on these issues.

Let us consider the three options. The Government's NAMA option would create a bad bank which buys up all the property loans from the banks in return for Government guaranteed bonds of an amount less than the original value of the loan. The loan would continue to be repaid with the expectation of a bounce by the market. This is risky and potentially costly. How does one value property in the current climate and how much will the taxpayer pay?

I refer to the Fine Gael proposal of a good bank bad bank. This is a twin-track plan to make credit available by setting up a wholesale good bank with a clear balance sheet funded by the European Central Bank. The banks would be given until the end of the guarantee in September 2010 to show they have repaired the balance sheets. However, the weakness is that the plan appears to envisage not paying bondholders and the possibility of banks defaulting. What would this do for our perception internationally? These are legitimate questions.

I refer to the Labour Party proposal on nationalisation. Normally, I would be in favour of nationalisation but I would rather go after banks when they have money, not when they are bust. The temporary nationalisation suggested by the Labour Party would extend for the period covered by the bank guarantee and during this limited period of public ownership balance sheets would be cleaned up with substantial State investment before being re-privatised. However, the weakness in the argument is that corporate depositors do not like nationalised banks. How will the banks raise capital to lend money if they are State owned? These are legitimate points to raise in the debate.

There is much talk of rescued bankers, builders, developers and speculators. I seek for the agenda in this House to represent those who work with disabilities, drug treatment services and education services. I put it to all sides of the House that these issues must be priorities in the broader debate also. I welcome the statements today from SIPTU and IMPACT dealing with the communities sector employers' forum and I strongly endorse them. The community sector employs more than 60,000 people and delivers a wide range of community services and development activities, mostly in areas of disadvantage and such services would otherwise have to be provided by the State. Significant cuts in funding have been proposed in this sector. The McCarthy report would have a devastating effect on workers, services and communities. It is estimated that more than 6,500 jobs in the community sector would be lost if some of these proposals proceed. I make this point from an investment point of view and I put it to speculators and bankers. For every euro spent on quality child care the State will save €10 on future services and for every euro spent on drug rehabilitation the State will save €3 on other services.

Further, the current crisis of growing unemployment and increased hardship will require the vital contribution of these community development activities and services more than ever before. I raise this matter in the NAMA debate because it is a very important part of the debate. I welcome some of the statements from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, on windfall taxes - another issue mentioned which is very important. If these sensible proposals are put on the table I will keep an open mind in the coming weeks. I will consider the solutions and make a decision based on those. However, the bottom line is that any legislation which goes through the House must have the support and the respect of the taxpayer, the weaker sections of society, the people and the mortgage holders of the country.

See this speech in context