Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I am glad that Deputy Ring did not work himself up into a state of anger. God forbid what that might look like. I agree with many of the points Deputy Ring made regarding regulation, a separate issue in terms of this amendment.

We all share the multiple objectives of wanting to have appropriate oversight and scrutiny, which will be the objective of the committee to which these reports will be sent. We also want to ensure NAMA will be an effective operating mechanism and this is a key objective of the legislation. Again and again, we must make the distinction between this House as a Parliament setting down policy and NAMA as an instrument and creation of this House carrying out the aims, objectives and policies of this legislation. This House, nor a committee of this House, will be NAMA. That is another objective. Transparency is the third objective we seek.

The issue that arises in the context of the amendment before us is how we balance those three competing objectives and give appropriate weight to them? The issue is the effectiveness of NAMA versus the scrutiny of the House.

I thank Deputy Burton for her amendment, but the Government is clear in the view that the proposed Labour Party amendment whereby NAMA would report to the Dáil every 30 days of its existence for ten years, setting out details on all assets acquired over €100,000, would result in an enormous administration burden on NAMA that would have the potential to seriously impede its ability to operate and perform the functions provided for. That sort of obligation would make it impossible for NAMA to carry out its functions. A 30-day reporting period was debated at some length on Committee Stage. Such a limit for the duration of a ten-year period would impose a substantial burden, not only on the agency but on the relevant Dáil committee appointed to examine it every 30 days. Having taken account of the debate on Committee Stage, the Minister has agreed to introduce a Report Stage amendment increasing NAMA reports to quarterly rather than biannual reports. I accept the point made by Deputy Morgan, and this is a genuine attempt by the Minister to reflect the debate which took place on Committee Stage. I will speak on the amendment shortly.

The second aspect of the Labour Party amendment relates to the quality of information that would be supplied were the amendment to be accepted. NAMA'a commercial mandate, which is enshrined in the legislation, would be undermined if it were required to report on the identity of owners or the value of individual assets. That would hinder efforts to receive a commercial return on behalf of the taxpayer. We must keep the taxpayer in mind. Our sole objective is to get a return for the taxpayer.

Deputy Burton rightly introduced the issue of confidentiality between banking institutions and customers. Deputies Burton, Rabbitte and Bruton are right to say this is an extraordinary measure. However, that is no excuse to trample on the rights of people who are engaged in contractual relationships, such as loan and mortgage agreements, with banks and institutions, where their rights are enshrined in those contractual relationships. Where there are performing loans, the agreements are explicit that if customers perform their side of the bargain and carry out their side without any cost to the taxpayer or State, they are entitled to confidentiality. I would draw a parallel. In existing banking institutions where loans are not transferred over to NAMA, is there any difference between those loans and the performing loans transferred to NAMA?

See this speech in context