Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

At the outset, I thank Deputy Feighan for sharing his time with me.

When the Minister for Finance introduced the NAMA legislation in the House, he said the establishment of the agency showed the Government was prepared to take bold action to deal with the banking system, which needed radical surgery. Deputy Brian Lenihan further claimed that brave and decisive steps had to be taken immediately. If ever there was a false declaration of intent by any Minister, surely that is, because we have no bold steps and no surgery whatever. In other countries, bankers with reckless lending records were immediately removed, but there is no indication whatsoever that the Minister for Finance or the Government have any bottle to remove some, any or all of the banks' directors that have caused so many of the problems in this country.

If the Minister is not able to convince the public that NAMA does not represent a bailout for the greedy developers and foolish bankers who have brought the country to its knees, then he will have failed dramatically. I have a few questions for the Minister to answer as regards this whole debate. The first concerns the question of transparency. In the supplementary budget document, paragraph 1.3, the question is asked as to whether there will be transparency in relation to loan transfers and NAMA. The answer given was, "Yes - NAMA will operate on a commercial and independent basis." That could, perhaps, be misinterpreted. In light of this information as regards its exposure and its size, according to the document, NAMA is commercially sensitive so it would not be appropriate to disclose details. How can the Minister for Finance convince the public that he is determined and that he will be transparent about what is happening if he has made this declaration?

For the sake of the public and for the success of NAMA - if it is to succeed - it is imperative that the Minister for Finance is transparent in his actions and that the details relating to the major offenders involved should be open to the public at large. A few months ago the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mandated that all details of farmers who had drawn down public resources from the EU support grants should be available to the public. If it can be done in the public interest in that instance, why can it not now be done in the case of NAMA? Deputy Feighan indicated that we were talking about a secretive organisation. So it will be if the Minister denies the public the opportunity to see the details as regards those who will be involved in NAMA, the people who have caused the crisis as regards banking services and otherwise.

In relation to transparency, will the Minister mandate all Oireachtas Members who support the legislation, in either House, to declare their interests as regards whatever involvement they might have with NAMA? If they are below the €5 million threshold, they might be dealt with in another way but, if they have an involvement with NAMA above that threshold, surely they cannot come to the House, join the lobbies and vote to support that without declaring their interest. It would be a conflict of interest, as mentioned earlier. If there is to be any credibility for NAMA, it is essential this happens as a matter of urgency.

The €5 million threshold is one issue. However, it is also important that the Minister would indicate the position with regard to all of the others who have difficulties with the banks. In the past few days, we have had a finalisation with regard to ACC and the major developer controlling the Zoe group of companies. However, many people, such as small developers, owe banks a lot of money although below the €5 million threshold. If the banks go to the courts to chase down the loans, as I am sure they will, there will be a downside.

The Minister's prognosis that 1% growth for each of the next ten years will give a 10% return at the end of the cycle for NAMA will never materialise if the loans relating to a series of residential and commercial premises are called in by the banks. People will be thrown out of their houses, and developers and investors in commercial premises will also lose their property. All of this property will come onto the market and will undoubtedly depress it further, despite the Minister believing there will be growth and an increase in prices of 1% per annum. While that seems moderate, there is no indication as to what will happen below the €5 million threshold. I want to know what plans the Minister has in that regard.

All of the NAMA plan was to restructure the banking system so that the banks would work again. Deputy Feighan referred to his own very credible experience. I want to give two examples of a simple situation where not a penny is being made available by the commercial banks, even to their best customers. One example concerns a small business person who had a viable and progressive business. He had achieved a contract from an Italian company to develop its products here in Ireland and he needed an increase in his overdraft. When he went to his traditional banking source, he was refused point-blank for a loan of €25,000 to develop his business, which would create employment in that industry. He has tried every other source that might support him but the answer was always "no". It seems that inter-bank conniving is taking place with regard to the details, and if a person gets a black spot from one bank, that person is doomed in regard to all the banks. That is unfair and it must stop. One of the major planks of this process, the Minister declared, was that the banks would work and provide loans to support small businesses.

My second example is as follows. At the start of the fine weather some four weeks ago, the autumn harvest began. A farmer who had 400 acres of cereals to harvest went to the bank for a loan to replace a machine which had been involved in an accident. Bank staff said openly to him that they would allow his harvest to rot in the fields rather than give him €25,000 with which to buy a new machine to harvest his crop. Not only did the banks refuse this man but all of the other leasing agents - every one of them - had the black spot ready and just ran him out of their offices. They told him he was wasting his time and that he should go elsewhere, but he did not get an answer elsewhere either.

When the Government introduced NAMA, it said there was no other show in town. If that is the case and if the Government cannot see there is an alternative, and if 40 economists made a statement that this would not work but the Minister accepted as the be all and end all the advice of his recently acquired economic adviser, who was new to the political stage, we are in for a further crisis in the banking system. The Government is paralysed in every sense of the word with regard to what it intends to do. There has been no surgery. Banks are sitting ducks for surgery but the Government did nothing. With regard to decisive action to get the money flowing, Government members have sat on their hands and done nothing, and they have allowed banks to railroad the people into further misery.

See this speech in context