George Lee (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The troubles of our banks, caused by poor regulation, came upon us quite suddenly because we were being reassured by the Financial Regulator that everything was all right. We were assured all sorts of stress tests were done on our banks and that they were the most capitalised banks in the world. When we discovered the wool had been pulled over our eyes and the banking system was on the verge of collapse, we realised some big and difficult decisions would have to be taken.

I have been impressed by the amount of effort, work and time the Minister for Finance has put into this legislation and tackling the banking problems. Since last September he has been working flat out. I acknowledge the herculean effort he has put into it and it should not be under estimated. The amount of pressure and stress in dealing with these banks, which did not give him the full picture, must be acknowledged. The Minister has already been left in difficult situations to answer difficult questions with very significant implications, particularly with the public so distrusting of these banks. They have left him to hang out to dry on more than one occasion.

However, a big mistake was made with the NAMA legislation. The Minister has taken upon himself a very significant amount of responsibility. A decision has been taken which has implications for everybody in the country for a long time. There is still the potential that a very substantial bill could be lumbered on us at the end of this. We really hope it works out but we very much doubt it.

I have many problems with pushing ahead with this legislation, the first of which goes back to the beginning. When it became clear that something big had to be done, the Minister got an economic consultant to research the operation of an asset management company to rescue the banks. It has been a common solution applied to many banking collapses across the world and was one option to be explored.

What was most disappointing, however, was that when it came to announcing to the public that the Minister would go down this route during his April budget, he produced a summary of the consultant's report. It was like a fait accompli, the way forward. The Minister had not consulted any Member on this side of the House, people who have been given a mandate to represent the people. In turn this meant the people were not consulted. It was not announced fairly because he pulled it like a rabbit out of a hat.

When it came to the publication of the document, the Minister gave a short summary of the consultant's work as to how this model would operate. Once he set himself up to do that, he would hear no other debate on the matter. There are many options about how one goes about rescuing the banks. There may be sequences in which various actions can be implemented. It is still not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the end a bank may have to be nationalised. It is a sequence of events and no one has a monopoly of wisdom in it.

What bothers me most is that the Minister took it on his shoulders to consult the Department of Finance and the Department of the Taoiseach, the Financial Regulator and the bankers on the NAMA model. Many people feel these are the agents responsible for very poor decisions through the years. The collapse happened on their watch and for that reason many people have difficulty in believing that their advice is key to leading us out of this without a proper debate and analysis from the rest of the House.

I understand we have had many hours of debate but the Minister has been closed to all of the amendments tabled. He has been determined to push ahead with this with more items pulled like rabbits out of a hat. We did not get a proper debate about the alternatives because of the manner in which this legislation was published and the Minister intended to go ahead with it from his April budget. In April, we did not hear anything about long-term economic value. Once announced we have been informed it is an ordinary concept and the Minister resorted to European documents on the matter. The argument is that if one wants to rescue banks, one has to pay above the odds, otherwise, as the Minister described it himself, one does not get that effect. However, it is a difficult concept for people to grapple with. It came like a rabbit out of a hat. So too did the SPV.

See this speech in context