Alex White (Labour)

Before we were helpfully interrupted before lunch, I was responding to a reasonable point Senator Norris had made about scrutiny and oversight. He was so impressed by the Minister's performance last night that he found it reassuring, although I am not suggesting he thought that satisfied the point. That is fair enough but oversight and scrutiny are not a sign of a Minister's performance. No matter how dedicated and well briefed a Minister is that does not avoid the need for proper public scrutiny and, in particular, information to be made available in order that the people can understand, appreciate and, as appropriate, support what is being done in their name. That is the basis on which we brought forward this amendment which would provide for an oversight committee.

The Minister has said the NAMA board is charged with oversight of the NAMA process. That rather spectacularly misses the point of the amendment because the NAMA board runs NAMA. Of course, that includes an element of oversight, as would be the case in any board, whether in the public or private sector. However, the people who engage in this are not necessarily the best ones to explain or answer the complex questions that might be asked about their actions.

There is always a sense of ownership of a decision. We must all accept this, no matter what walk of life we are in. While one may have a disagreement with colleagues about a decision, such as happens in the Cabinet or on the board of a company or school, once a decision is made, people rightly pull in behind it. We do not want to be told about a decision and the bald facts underlying it. This is particularly true of NAMA, in respect of which there is so much at stake. We want more information in order that the public can make its own judgment on the decisions being made on its behalf.

Senator O'Toole and the Minister have invoked sections 58 and 59 and stated they deal with this query but they do not adequately deal with the oversight that the Labour Party wants to see. The content of these sections does not represent an innovative approach to the dissemination of information and the possibility of real Oireachtas scrutiny. It is the tried and tested method which is useful in many cases but NAMA, the use of the people's money and the binding of future generations constitute a new ball game. We want the maximum possible level of transparency, oversight, scrutiny and information. There is not much in the Bill that creates an innovative or new level of scrutiny.

Part of this debate may be for another day, although it is relevant to this discussion, being about the level at which the Oireachtas can engage in meaningful scrutiny and examination of what is happening. It is important for politicians to equip themselves with expertise as best they can. They have a responsibility to research issues and ensure they increase their knowledge and expertise. However, their backgrounds and knowledge will not always be such that they can ferret out the information. Saving the presence of my Fine Gael colleagues, it will also get past the concern of being met with the answer "You did not ask me the correct question". The former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, was not the only one who approached issues in such a way, as all Governments have tended to take that approach. The longer a party finds itself in government, the less enthusiastic it is to part with detailed information. Will the Minister reconsider his position on these amendments?

The Minister believes there should be an inquiry into developments in the banking system over past years but now is not the right time. I sighed when I heard that. Why not now? When does the Minister have one in mind? The notion that this is not the correct time is wrong. As the Minister pointed out, some of the major players are no longer active in banking and are, therefore available and could be made amenable to an inquiry. As Members will appreciate the longer one leaves complex issues to inquire into, the harder it is to get to the truth. Documentary evidence does not necessarily go missing but becomes less available. People's recall is less clear as the months and years pass by. I do not see any reason there should not be a full inquiry along the lines many, including Colm McCarthy, have suggested.