Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

In such circumstances, the net effect of the amendment would be shambolic. If one tries to tease out the exact meaning of what the Deputy is suggesting, she is trying to make provision for the micromanagement of a system. That is not to say that people on this side of the House and elsewhere would not agree with her assertion that there is a need for transparency.

Deputy Burton's amendment refers to any assets valued at over €100,000. That covers virtually everything that comes within NAMA's remit and would result in a huge level of deliberation every 30 days in respect of a large amount of lands and assets. I would argue that it would not be possible to utilise the resources of the State in an effective manner in respect of such a level of micromanagement. Amendment No. 18, which was tabled by my party and on which Deputy Mary Alexandra White will be elaborating in due course should we reach it in time, suggests the introduction of quarterly as opposed to six-monthly reports. I am of the view that quarterly reports would be sufficient, but I am of the view that even this is not the correct route to take in the context of setting out the details of the identities of the owners of the assets to which amendment No. 12 refers.

Perhaps information might be issued on a once-off basis so that people might know the identify of these owners of these assets and the value thereof at a certain point in time. If there were a need to report every 30 days, this would interfere with one of the key provisions of the legislation, namely, that relating to restoring "confidence in the banking sector and to underpin the effect of Government support measures in relation to that sector". NAMA is supposed to break even, and possibly even make a profit, over a provisional ten-year period. In that context, we should not be examining the value of the assets each month to discover whether they are rising in value, particularly as the attendant media speculation would have an impact on the economic well-being of the country. There would be value in considering the position on a year-by-year basis to discover how matters are proceeding. However, doing it every month would be overkill.

Amendment No. 12 also refers to the "identities of the owners of, and particulars (including value) of, any assets acquired by it during the period". It would be good if, at some stage, an exercise were carried out in this regard because it would make matters more transparent for those who are concerned with regard to NAMA and who are extremely angry about what has happened. However, I would like matters to go further and for legislation to be passed to ensure that all donations given by developers to politicians who, legitimately or otherwise, rezoned land throughout the country might be identified. People would then be in a position to see clearly the link between developers and politicians. It was not just developers who screwed up, it was also those involved in the body politic - not just Members of the Oireachtas but also members of local councils. I would like to see complete rather than partial transparency.

A 30-day reporting process such as that outlined in amendment No. 12 would be both unworkable and undesirable. If, however, Deputy Burton is trying to communicate a symbolic message to the Minister in the hope that he will make provision in this regard at some stage, I would then be in agreement with the general thrust of her amendment. I am of the view that information relating to the identities of the owners of the assets and the particulars relating thereto should be provided at some point. In addition, information should be provided on the relationships these individuals have with politicians. This must be done in the interests of encouraging both transparency and recovery. However, it would not be possible to provide such information every 30 days.

See this speech in context