Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)

If the Minister wished, he could voice the view that he felt extra time should be given to the Bill and no doubt the Government would acquiesce to that request from him.

The other issue concerns the term, "to ensure an orderly property management strategy over a ten year period". Once again, within the draft business plan we have no idea what exactly the Minister has in mind in terms of the assets because we do not know the length of the loans. We are told that €15 billion of the €77 billion will be the only assets that will be disposed of.

A critical issue we need to debate concerns situations where a person's performing loans have gone into NAMA and where all corresponding security has also been transferred. We need to look at the issue of finding ways, if such loans are performing and there is a viable business project, by which it would be possible to get secondary security on the securities held by NAMA with other financial institutions willing to extend funds. We need to be progressive in that way.

These are key issues. We have an amendment tabled in that regard. The problem is that the devil is always in the detail. There is no doubt we will not have time to debate many of the issues that will arise when NAMA is up and running, namely the issue of getting value for the projects, ensuring orderly property management and getting full value for the taxpayer. The only way the Minister can get value for the taxpayer is to ensure that he does not create a situation where assets are transferred to NAMA with performing loans, for example, a greenfield site, with all of the security going into NAMA but where the site cannot be developed.

I would be interest to hear from the Minister how he intends to prioritise the €5 billion that NAMA has at its disposal in terms of development. What projects will he be dealing with? Will it be exclusively concerned with finishing existing estates? What commercial criteria will the board use? Will the Minister be issuing directions in that regard?

It is for these reasons it is so disappointing that at 8 o'clock this evening we will not have discussed the windfall tax. I also expect we will not have discussed the question of the bank levy. The Minister is bringing in a surcharge on corporation tax which applies only if banks pay corporation tax. Banks may still make profits and pay no corporation tax. I would have thought a more valid measure would be to do it on the basis of operating profit before adjustment for losses forward. If banks are making profits they should pay the levy. If they are not, I can see a case that they should not pay the levy. The problem here is that the Minister has created a situation whereby the banks may still make profits and not pay the levy. That is unacceptable to the public.

We have tabled an amendment on the issue of the subordinated debt, amendment No. 54, which, the purpose of which is, once again, to recover the maximum funds for taxpayers by ensuring to recover the optimum funding for the assets acquired by NAMA. The Minister is giving only €2.7 billion of the €7 billion overpayment by way of subordinated debt. Instead, that subordinated debt should be based on the difference between the price the Minister is paying for the assets and their market value. That is not the case.

See this speech in context