Alex White (Labour)

There is no point in, as Senator Boyle said, planning the future on the basis that we hope the public will gradually gain confidence in this process, which is a flawed basis for proceeding. Unless there is confidence in the taxpayers and the public committing themselves to what is proposed now, and unless that confidence is sought and achieved now, it will fundamentally undermine what is being proposed in our name and what looks likely to be enacted in our name. This is not the kind of project which is amenable to a "let us suck it and see" approach or to hoping that people will come around to it after a few months or years. While there are some elements of public policy where that case could perhaps be made, this is not one of them.

The taxpayers and the people are being asked now to make an irrevocable commitment. It is not an exaggeration to say it is a commitment of historic proportions in terms of the amount of money which is being committed for this generation and for at least one if not two future generations. I can understand Senator Boyle hoping that people would come around to this as the months and years progress. I can see where he is coming from given his political point of view of wanting things to change and wanting people to develop confidence in the future. However, as he rightly acknowledges, there is little or no confidence in it now. This is not the type of proposal where it is acceptable for us just to hope that people will change their minds.

I have been listening for some time for an explanation or clarification from the Green Party in government about the so-called social dividend. Where is it? Where are the amendments? Where is the social dividend that was trumpeted by the leader of the Green Party as being something they would put into the heart of this process? We were listening to this for days at the time of the negotiation of the renewed programme for Government. Speaker after speaker said that the programme for Government would be transformative and that, in particular, the social dividend would be put into the heart of NAMA.

I may be mistaken in what I understood Senator MacSharry to say when he referred to the social dividend. It did not sound to me as if he was referring to it in particularly warm terms, certainly not in any sense that was informing me as to what is meant by it. The lack of confidence among the public in the NAMA project, as acknowledged by Senator Boyle, points to the fact that, regrettably, there is no social dividend on the table in respect of NAMA. A very large bill is being handed to the Irish people and taxpayers in respect of what is about to occur. All of this fig leaf talk about social dividends is precisely that.

There has been vague talk about changing the planning system. I agree the planning system needs to be altered fundamentally and I agree with some elements of the Bill currently before the House, which represent an improvement. However, the NAMA legislation is not a planning measure and there is very little in it which concerns planning. That is not the type of measure the NAMA legislation is or purports to be. There is no point in people trying to mislead and add further to the undermining of confidence that has been referred to by suggesting that some so-called social dividend will emerge from this process.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, for his address and welcome him to the House. Several points arise from his address. With regard to the course of the debate in this and the other House, I am sure the Minister of State will say he was not suggesting - I hope there is no suggestion from the Government or from Senator Boyle in light of his comments on the Order of Business earlier - that the debate will in any way be curtailed in either House. I ask not only that it should not be curtailed but that the Government should take the view that the maximum amount of scrutiny and debate should occur in this and the other House in the next week or two. If there is any hope of the Government bringing the people with it, one of the ways of doing this is for the Government to be prepared not to carp and appear to get irritated - as it did last July, for example, when we wanted to debate measures under the completely different heading of justice - by what is sometimes called undue delay, which was referred to by the Minister of State in his speech.

I remind the Minister of State and the House that the original proposal in respect of NAMA was announced in the supplementary budget on 7 April this year, which is some considerable time ago. A consultative document was published in July, the Bill was published in September and it is only now, in the past week or two, that the debate is taking place in the other House. It is proposed to come to this House within the next two weeks. Of the time that has been taken up in devising and putting in place this scheme, the percentage of time it is proposed to give to Parliament in the context of those months of preparation, discussion and debate is quite low.

It is striking to consider just one aspect of the business plan which deals with the preparatory work that has been done. The business plan states there has been "intensive engagement with financial institutions likely to participate in NAMA", which is understandable. It also refers to discussions with interested third parties, including the foreign-owned financial institutions which operate and lend in the Irish property market, the Irish Bankers Federation, the Irish Bank Officials Association, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Construction Industry Federation, the Irish Property Council, individuals and organisations who have operated and worked with similar operations overseas, for example, in Sweden and the United States, as well as with the UK Treasury, the Bank of England, the UK Financial Services Authority, the Central Statistics Office, EUROSTAT and the European Commission's DG Competition. I can understand there would be a reason for the Government to consult with all of these bodies in their own right. However, it cannot have any basis for seeking in any sense to curtail or complain about proper debate happening in these Houses, given the length of time it has taken, perhaps understandably, to bring this complex legislation on to the floor of the other House.

The central argument in the Minister of State's speech and the one that comes across constantly from the advocates of the NAMA project is an objective with which nobody can disagree. The Minister of State in his speech stated: "one of the key essentials for our economic recovery is a healthy and functioning banking system that will serve the needs of the broader economy" and that we want "a properly functioning banking system". Of course, that is absolutely true, but how does this initiative deliver that? It is not enough for the Minister of State or the Government to rhetorically say they are doing it so we can restore the health of the banking system. I presume that is why they are doing it. Why else would they be doing it? I take that as read. What I want is an elucidation and elaboration as to how that will lead to the consequence the Government suggests it will do.

What basis does the Government have for saying the banks will start lending once the NAMA process goes through? It is not just a question of finalising the NAMA process, but also a of what Senator Boyle called the probable requirement for further capitalisation of the banks, which will also happen - Senator Boyle is quoted in today's The Irish Times as having said that. All of that having occurred, can the Minister of State give us an indication as to the basis for his believing the banks will turn around, change their lending strategy and genuinely become a functioning banking system in the interests of the country, taxpayers, small businesses and householders, rather than shareholders? I am not attacking shareholders and I understand how the system works but we should not restore the banks to health just so that the shareholders profit. I presume the Minister intends the plan to benefit the wider economy. Can he give us any proposal which ensures lending genuinely resumes to the productive economy?