Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

A potential for risk accompanies any asset management agency. However, at least such an agency can attempt to make some money back. It is one thing spinning the roulette wheel and hoping that the ball lands in the black and not in the red. It is another thing to overturn the roulette table completely, which is what Mr. McWilliams advocates and which is what is contemplated under the Labour Party's plan for nationalisation.

I wish to focus on the issue of long-term economic value. Regardless of whether we like those who are in charge of the banks or we think they got away with it and regardless of the fact that the citizenry is apoplectic with regard to this matter, if one acknowledges that the banks must be recapitalised in the economic interests of the country, the only question that arises is what is the least expensive means by which to achieve this goal. In that context, we do not know what will be the long-term economic value of the assets that will be transferred to NAMA. The Minister made a guesstimate in this regard, based on information available to him at the time. However, we do not know what will be the estimated actual value when the line in the sand is eventually drawn. In addition, we do not know what will be the amount above that market value. This is the gamble we are taking in respect of whether the value of the assets will rise over a ten-year period.

Unlike some Deputies, I am of the view that the question as to whether they will rise in value is completely irrelevant. I say this because if one accepts that the banks must be recapitalised, then one must also accept that, one way or another, the money must be paid. If there was no asset management agency and if we recapitalised the banks, it would still cost X amount of money. If, as with NAMA, the banks are recapitalised through an asset management system, it may be possible to recoup some money, break even or perhaps make a profit.

See this speech in context