Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I have been listening to the contributions from all sides of the House, some of which were very good. In fact, the more I listened, the more confused I became. If I did not go away and do my own thinking, I would agree with points made across the board on various issues. However, a time comes when one must do one's own thinking on it.

I started with the history. Why do we have NAMA? The banks nearly collapsed and the economy was under huge threat. The guarantee was provided, which gave access to funding from the international markets. It was also necessary to protect customers by ensuring their deposits would be secure. The second issue was the vulnerability of the banks due to their over-lending to developers. As a result, the property market collapsed. I listened to the points made about the good bank-bad bank concept and they were worth thinking about. I also listened to the argument for short-term nationalisation. One could say the jury is out on that concept. I continued reading about it and noted that the NAMA proposal had received the backing of the IMF, the ECB and the OECD. That is good enough for me. It is the way I believe we should proceed.

One of the necessities for economic recovery is a good banking system to serve the needs of the wider economy. We must also try to retain and create jobs. Otherwise, the economy will collapse. That is my base for proceeding. The objective of the Government is to facilitate the flow of credit to business and ensure Ireland is best placed to take advantage of the global recovery when it occurs. The interests of the taxpayer must be protected to the maximum extent. That is the core of my thinking. The purpose of NAMA is to take the at-risk loans from the banks' balance sheets, to free the banks to facilitate the flow of credit to the real economy and to promote lending to small and medium-sized businesses. That is the top priority.

I compliment the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. He made this proposal last April. The newspapers and the media have been discussing it daily. The draft Bill was produced in July and there were further discussions on it. Nothing has been debated more, yet we have not drawn final conclusions. I compliment the Minister on taking the lead and having courage. He produced the Bill and listened. I listened to all the debates in the Lower House and the Minister took on board many of the points made by the Opposition and some Government backbenchers. We must examine this proposal and do our best to bring about global thinking in the Oireachtas. The jury is out and we are all rambling around.

The Opposition claims this is a bailout for developers and the bankers. It is not. What is borrowed will not change. The loans will be transferred to NAMA and the agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers' return. The Bill provides the agency with the powers it needs to pursue borrowers and enforce security. I read that in some cases this will mean the borrower's personal assets will have to be assumed by NAMA. I do not like the use of the term "in some cases". If the agency must pursue borrowers and delve into the private assets, it should do so.

It has been said we are paying too much for the loans. Of course, it is a gamble. What will be the long-term economic value? I listened to Senator Ross speak this morning about this fantasy world and how it was not possible to know what would happen in the future. God knows, none of us knows what will happen in the future. We do not know whether we will be alive to determine where we are going with the NAMA concept. He suggests this is all wrong for ten years into the future. Nobody can make that statement or say it is a fantasy or make-believe world.

The objective of NAMA is to provide a flow of credit. The banks are in the best position to make credit available. The Bill is not flawed. I congratulate the Minister for giving a lead on NAMA, on which he has consulted widely. I was interested to hear Senator Harris describe the SPV as a car taking us on a journey. It might break down and if it does, we will handle it. However, if we complete the journey, we will reach our objective. The SPV is that mechanism and we should think of it in that way. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the SPV mechanism and look forward to further discussion on it. I am worried about whether NAMA has total control. It will have the final veto on its work and about the debts. However, who are the people who will take over the management of this mechanism? That concerns me a little.

I do not have much more to say on this issue. The future of the economy is at stake whether we use the good bank-bad bank concept, nationalisation or the NAMA proposal. After listening to the debate, I believe NAMA is the way forward. Let us go with it and put the mechanisms in place to make it work. Let us pull together on the issue. Ultimately, we must protect the taxpayer, the economy and create jobs.

I did not read the relevant section but Senator Leyden raised the appointment of the board of the agency. Former Deputies and Senators are excluded, as well as councillors, who are very bright and would be an asset on the board. We should change this and not just decide that nobody who was a public representative should be on the board. I cannot understand the thinking behind that provision. Why is this? Is it believed we are corrupt in some way and would influence the board? I support Senator Leyden's statement on the issue.

Senator Leyden also referred to lobbying. This is also a matter of serious concern, particularly when one considers that all Members are lobbied all the time. If the legislation is passed, will this mean Members will be out of order if they have discussions with people who want them to make representations on their behalf?

My main point is that NAMA offers the best route forward. I accept it is a gamble. However, life is a gamble. I am of the view that ten years from now property values will have increased somewhat because nothing remains fixed. Such values may fall further in the coming months but they will also rise again. We should not criticise the Minister. We should instead wish him luck and hope he gets it right. The Minister is a good listener and knows what he is doing. I wish him the best of luck in having the legislation passed and in ensuring the activities of NAMA will be properly monitored.