George Lee (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

Perhaps if the Minister waits until Godot comes, it might happen. If all of the fanciful assumptions in the plan worked out, it is conceivable that NAMA would one day, when we are all most likely in the grave, make a profit or clear itself. Essentially, however, throughout the world collapsing banking systems cause taxpayers to foot a significant bill. It strikes me, therefore, that there is a huge element of cover-up with regard to the NAMA process, the blueprint, the way it is operating and how it has been presented, because it is very difficult to tell people that, particularly in the current environment.

The public deserves better. The Minister must come clean and explain to the public that it is fanciful to suggest we will get a profit out of this, that we would love to get a profit but there are huge risks and that very brave assumptions have been made but they might not work out. The Green Party was quite reasonable in its comments on this. Senator Dan Boyle said he considered it unrealistically optimistic, and he is absolutely right. The public needs to be treated better; it needs the Minister to be more up-front. In that spirit, it is important that the Minister do what he can in the legislation to give people reassurance. NAMA will most likely make a loss or at least there will be significant fears that it will make a loss, and people will feel they have been mugged. They already quite rightly feel they have been mugged. We have all been mugged. However, in terms of the legislation and what the Minister is putting together in the plan, the public deserves protection.

Many elements of this special purpose vehicle are disturbing. One wonders if the 51% shareholder will be an individual or a pension fund. It could easily be an individual. Who are those individuals, what are their qualifications and what is their bona fides in terms of what they are trying to do? Are they getting a big maximum return for them? Undoubtedly, the Minister does not expect it to be an individual. It would make more sense for it to be a fund. It could be an individual and I know the Minister would not rule out that, but he did refer to pension funds in the debate. It is conceivable that over a period a time the 51% could be held by somebody else. Consequently, it is essential that we provide for as much protection as possible.

This amendment seeks rules about the suitability of those investors and the suitability and behaviour of the members of the board. The public deserves to have that in the legislation. The amendment refers to finance planning, accountability and reporting for the SPV. That is absolutely essential. If, as the Minister has argued, this is a small part of the overall NAMA process, it should not be a big deal to give such reassurances in the legislation. It is beyond question that we have an obligation to the public, given that there is so much secrecy about the operation of this NAMA legislation. There are so many things that will not be discoverable and so many elements where there is potential for conflict of interest in terms of who knows what and how they might operate, it is indefensible not to be support this amendment.

See this speech in context