Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

The functions of the proposed oversight committee are not delineated and its membership is not defined. For those reasons, I believe amendment No. 4 does not pass mustard, with all due respect to Deputy Burton.

Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Bruton. As I stated last week on Committee Stage there is much in this amendment I can support and believe is valuable. The provisions I do not support or believe are worthy of support are those which seek to take away the executive functions of NAMA and from the statute of the Minister. The functions listed at subsection (3) paragraphs (a) to (e), possibly (f), but probably not, and (g) and (h) are the type of functions which should be the preserve of the board, the chief executive and the Minister as set out in this legislation.

I accept that subsection (3) paragraphs (j), (k) and (l) could be functions that would come within the remit of an Oireachtas scrutiny committee. I want to repeat my comments of last week that this committee should be properly staffed and resourced with full legal powers of compellability of witnesses. When dealing with a sum of €54 billion there should be no question but that where a committee subpoenas a person to appear before it such person must attend, as they say in legal parlance, ad duces tecum testificandum - they must testify and must bring their documents. This, for me, is also the bottom line in terms of compellability.

I disagree with the point made by Deputy Rabbitte with regard to amendment No. 73. It would be preposterous if the chief executive or chairman of NAMA appeared before a committee and stated he or she believed a different policy was required. That is not their job. If he or she were to be elected to Dáil Éireann or to be Minister for Finance then he or she could create and submit that policy on the floor of the House for scrutiny.

See this speech in context