Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)

If the Minister accepted Fine Gael's amendment in respect of a home owners' support scheme, NAMA would be allowed to take an equity share in a property when it had negotiated a write-down in respect of the outstanding debt with the relevant financial institution. The property owner would then be in a position to service his or her remaining share of the debt and pay a rental fee to NAMA in respect of its equity share. He or she would, in time, also have the option to buy back that equity share. If the property were sold, NAMA would receive a share of the sale price.

Why does the Minister not make NAMA work for ordinary people and families and not just the banks? The banks are offering us nothing, least of all certainty. Why is the Minister not in a position to require them to provide certainty in respect of, for example, home ownership? Those who paid stamp duty in recent years now find themselves in negative equity and at risk of losing their homes. These people paid Celtic tiger prices and I am obliged to ask what the Minister is going to do for them. If he takes away their homes, he will also take away their dignity. I have never experienced anger similar to that which I have witnessed recently. I fear that there may be social unrest, particularly when the budget is introduced. Unless the Minister provides people with something in return for what they are giving, then why would there not be social unrest? He is ruining these people's futures.

The Government also rejected the amendment Fine Gael tabled on Committee Stage in the Dáil in respect of the establishment of a national recovery bank. On Report Stage, the Minister then introduced an amendment relating to the provision of credit to businesses. Under this he will be given the power to set down guidelines. I understand the banks will be obliged to accept such guidelines, which is good. However, the position is unclear with regard to how these guidelines would operate or how adherence to them would be audited or measured. We just do not know whether such guidelines will provide a workable solution. Why is the Minister so keen to allow the banks to have the upper hand? Why is he not considering the needs of citizens? Ultimately, it is citizens who pay the piper.

Has adequate research been carried out in respect of the viability of the business plan? There are concerns with regard to whether adequate time has been devoted to testing this plan. I am not stating that we should delay matters. However, I am of the view that there has not been enough time to test the plan in the context of the model that has been put forward.

Professor Ray Adams, a world-leading expert who works with the Australian Council of Educational Research, ACER, has stated that the nature of economics is that it is not static and that trends change all the time in light of emerging information. Is NAMA flexible enough and capable of adapting to changing circumstances? As Senator Fitzgerald stated, it is unlikely that the vehicle with which we are being presented in this legislation will be quite the same in a few years' time. When the Minister announced the details of NAMA in September, his figures were based on property having bottomed out. Since then, property has fallen by 1% each month and there is no sign of a slowdown. How, therefore, can the people trust the Government and put all their eggs in one basket behind NAMA? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.