Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The borrowing of money at a cost that is far higher than the value of the house itself is the concept of long-term economic value. To the Minister's credit, the amendments that have been made acknowledge that there must be some assets included under NAMA that can only be taken at current market value. Indeed, some assets that will be acquired have minimal and even zero value. Different classes of assets are involved, for example, finished houses, unfinished housing estates, undeveloped land and properties in different markets where the economic cycle is operating at different levels. The assets include property in the UK, Northern Ireland and the United States. On that basis, the figures that underpin NAMA are relatively modest.

One can anticipate party political points being made with every Bill proposed by a government but what has been unfortunate in the wider debate is the talk about the question of morality. That is way out of line. As Senator Ross said, the people who benefit least and will, in fact, suffer most in a punitive sense are the builders and developers who brought us to this difficulty. The reality is that we have been living in a culture that rewarded the property market to a greater extent than our economy could sustain. There is much catching up to do as a result of the excesses in the past. I do not see NAMA as a creature of any political philosophy or of the banks, builders or developers, and I have every faith and confidence in the civil servants who have been entrusted to run it. It will be a mechanism to repair previous excesses and to put in place something different that does not restore us to the bubble levels of the Celtic tiger but is sustainable. If we consider NAMA in those terms, I believe we have a vehicle that can achieve, restore and ultimately, because it must, gain the necessary public confidence for our economy and society to prosper.