Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I raised this point in my speech on Second Stage. The Minister said then that part of the object of section 2 would be to resolve problems created by the financial crisis or facilitate the availability of credit. It may facilitate it, but it cannot actually require it. I would like the Minister to clarify this point, which cuts across the points that have been made by Senators Donohoe and Bacik. No matter how much money we put into the banks, they will be required to meet the regulatory tier one asset requirement, which involves the international Basel rules and regulations. Beyond that, however, our regulator might require the banks to have a higher level of asset retention. Currently, European markets in bank shares require an amount above that again. It is important for the Minister to go on the record of the House in this regard. No matter what the Minister does, credit will not flow from the banks until such time as their tier one assets are approaching 8%, 9% or 10%. It does not matter whether or not they are nationalised in order for it to work. That should be explained so people have no doubt about it. It is not that banks do not want to hand out money - of course they do because that is how they make profits - but they will not do so until they have a crock of gold sitting in the vaults.

I completely agree with Senator Alex White's argument, although I do not agree with the amendment. When the Minister published this legislation in July, I wrote to him and met with him to discuss five points of concern. One was the question of political accountability and oversight of NAMA's operations. During our brief discussion the Minister gave me a guarantee that he would examine that point. In sections 58 to 60, inclusive, of the Bill before us he has dealt with all the issues raised by Senators Twomey and Alex White. In terms of dealing with the constitutional officer, the Comptroller and Auditor General is the person to whom NAMA will to some extent be answerable. He dealt with the political issue on the basis that there must be a quarterly report to the Houses of the Oireachtas. He also dealt with the committee issue on the basis that they will deal with the constitutional sub-committee of the Committee of Public Accounts. He went further than that in making them amenable to every single select or joint committee that invites them in. My only objection to those sections is the remarkable drafting - the Minister should examine it - which does not allow the chief executive of NAMA to say anything that might upset or embarrass the Minister.