Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I strongly support amendment No. 2. I have been a Member of the House for many years and during that time I have not come across legislation as important or with such financial implications as that before the House. If one calculated the costs accrued on foot of all the legislation in respect of which I have made contributions during the past 30 years, the aggregate figure would not in any way compare to the enormous sums relating to the establishment of NAMA. Correspondingly, the risk to the taxpayer is that much greater

I do not pretend to be an expert on matters of this sort. I have tended not to rely on experts and that tendency has been reinforced as a result of many recent events relating to banking matters. However, all I can foresee is the taxpayer being exposed in respect of extremely substantial sums. I hope the most optimistic predictions will prevail and that taxpayers will not be exposed. However, the possibility of exposure clearly exists.

We live in a democracy and in such circumstances this Parliament must play a significant role in monitoring what is going to happen in respect of NAMA. The way for Parliament to do so would be through a properly serviced Oireachtas committee. During the 30 years I have been a Member of the Houses I have served on many committees and I have witnessed the pressures under which colleagues operate and which are exerted on those committees. The Committee of Public Accounts has been the most effective such committee in the context of achieving a specific purpose. To all intents and purposes, it is a role model. I am not in any way downplaying the work of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. The latter has many other jobs to do. There would be no point in referring the job of oversight to the Joint Committee on Finance, which is obliged to deal with the Finance Bill each year and with many other matters. It is already fully engaged.

What is needed to deal with such an enormous job of work is a separate Oireachtas committee. I am of the view that such a committee should be modelled to a substantial degree on the Committee of Public Accounts. I would go further and state that it is a sine qua non that it should be chaired by an Opposition Member, if only from the point of view that this would bestow upon it democratic legitimacy. There is no suggestion that the person appointed as chairman would hassle the Minister. That does not happen in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts. I do not know whether it is by tradition or otherwise but, as with most democracies, the Chairman of the latter has always been a Member of the Opposition. The model employed in respect of the Committee of Public Accounts has worked and that is the point from which we should start with the committee to which amendment No. 2 refers.

It is essential that such a separate committee, chaired by an Opposition Member, should have access to the best resources available. The Committee of Public Accounts would be a disaster if it did not have available to it the support provided by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Much of the committee's investigative work is based on the detailed analysis produced for it by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Members of the committee are just not competent enough - in any event they do not have access to the relevant documents - to produce detailed reports such as those supplied by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is for this reason that the combination of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts provides a good democratic dividend. I would like a similar democratic dividend to be forthcoming via the establishment of an Oireachtas oversight committee on NAMA.

Deputy Bruton and others have already made arguments in respect of the various powers that should be put in place. I am sure that such powers are not set in stone. The Minister may be of the view that we should not go as far as creating an advise-and-consent situation similar to that which obtains in the American Senate in respect of appointments. It is a question of degree. However, there should be a substantive role for an Oireachtas oversight committee to play with regard to the various issues in respect of which Deputy Bruton and others have put forward arguments.

The Minister is at the centre of a major debate. He indicated that he is open to reasoned arguments. I wish to put such an argument to him, the basis of which is that an effective Oireachtas oversight committee which would have access to the proper resources and to which as many of the powers necessary to bestow upon it the strongest possible democratic legitimacy would be granted. Such a committee should have legitimacy in and of itself and also in the eyes of the public. There is an entire spectrum of views in the House in respect of NAMA. Members of the public are not convinced that it is the answer and there is great trepidation among them with regard to the approach that is being adopted. People's concerns would be allayed, to a degree, if there were parliamentary oversight of the strongest possible sort in respect of the activities of NAMA.

On Committee Stage, the Minister referred to the line that exists between the Legislature and the Executive. I understand that such a line exists. However, there is a way of marrying the points raised by members with those expressed by the Minister in respect of reserved Executive functions. Now is the time for the Minister to reach out not only to the Opposition, but also to the public and provide a reassurance that a strong committee such as that to which I refer will be put in place and that it will provide effective oversight in respect of NAMA.

See this speech in context