Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I support the amendments but I am not sure I do so with a great deal of conviction. I am not sure that it is possible to have a functioning oversight system consistent with the provision in the Bill to muzzle the chief executive of NAMA when appearing before a committee. It does not make sense to provide for democratic oversight and at the same time say in section 57 that the chief executive or chairperson may not express an opinion about Government policy. I find it difficult to get my head around how democratic oversight of this enterprise can be given expression if the chief executive is muzzled. I would have thought the whole point was that one would get his or her assessment, experience and evaluation. Without that, it is very difficult to know how such a committee would work.

This is the clash of culture to which Deputy Higgins referred. In my 20 years plus in this House, there has been a gradual and ongoing erosion of the position of Parliament vis-À-vis the Executive. Gradually, the Executive has arrogated to itself more and more powers as the years have passed and Parliament's standing has been diminished. Therefore, when we provide for democratic oversight in these amendments, to which I hope the Minister will agree, unless it can be given real meaning by the testimony or advice of the chief executive, chairperson or whoever to that committee, in the sense that the person is free to express his or her evaluation and give his or her genuine assessment, that will undermine the value of it. What has motivated the Minister to retain section 57(2)(a)? I welcome his commitment to delete section 57(2)(b). Is it seriously being posited that the people who will appear before the committee are sufficiently feeble-minded to be exploited to the narrow advantage of the Opposition vis-À-vis Government? They are not that type. That does not happen before the Committee of Public Accounts. Without the ability to question about the entire gamut before it, the committee will be ineffectual.

This is part of the reason we are here now. If there had been a structured imposition on the Governor of the Central Bank or on the Financial Regulator to appear before an informed committee of the House, we might not be in the current mess. The fact is that when they make their occasional visits, by courtesy rather than obligation, they will not deal frankly with the questions. Their mindset is that they are responsible to the Minister, not the committee.

See this speech in context