Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I support Senator Alex White and this group of amendments. The Fine Gael amendments are similar to the Labour Party amendments in this grouping in that all of them seek to offer a measure of scrutiny and oversight, as Senators White and Twomey said. There is also an important aspect to the Labour Party's amendment No. 1 in that, in addition, it provides for review of the Act. I will deal with that amendment first, as I note that review of NAMA is provided for in Part 14 of the Bill, but it is a very minimal review at present. Section 223 states:

(1) As soon as may be after 31 December 2012, and every 3 years after that while NAMA continues in existence, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall assess the extent to which NAMA has made progress toward achieving its overall objectives.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall present a copy of that report to the Minister as soon as may be and the Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

That review will take place every three years after 2012, and section 224 has an additional provision for review by the Minister every five years. That seems to be an insufficient amount of review. One of the merits of amendment No. 1 is that it requires not only the appointment of an oversight committee within the Houses, but a review of the operation of NAMA every 30 days. Given the significance of NAMA, I would have thought that the review provided for in Part 14 is insufficient. The amendment proposes a higher level of review as well as scrutiny by an Oireachtas committee. Whether it is the Labour Party oversight committee or the Fine Gael Oireachtas committee on NAMA, the principle is the same. There must be scrutiny and there must be accountability through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Studies carried out on the operation of asset management agencies elsewhere have shown the need for such agencies to be kept under close review and to operate in a transparent manner. This is not about the minutiae of running NAMA. Clearly that is not something in which an Oireachtas committee should intervene, but it is about ensuring that NAMA acts in such a way as to facilitate the public interest. Given that NAMA is the Government's chosen mechanism, we want it to be effective and we want it to allow the banks to free up the flow of capital, to free up the flow of credit to individuals and small businesses.

Last night, I and others on the Labour Party benches argued for the temporary nationalisation model, and I am glad the Minister addressed that in some detail in his speech. I felt his preference for the NAMA model over nationalisation could be summed up by saying that it would look bad internationally if we went for full nationalisation. That seems to be the core reason for choosing this NAMA model over the temporary nationalisation model. We all understand the need to increase consumer confidence and the perception of strength in the banking system, yet this may not be a sufficient answer.

Given that we are moving to the NAMA model, it is essential that NAMA allows for the flow of credit. That is not a necessary consequence of NAMA, nor would it be necessarily nationalisation, but we must ensure that the mechanisms are in place. Whatever model we use, we must ensure that a consequence of that model is the flow of credit and that the banks are working again in the interests of small businesses and individuals throughout Ireland.

I mentioned the French example last night, where economic minister Christine Lagarde has set up a credit mediator scheme. In this scheme, banks are not only encouraged in rhetoric to start lending again and free up the credit flow, but they are named and shamed if they do not lend to viable businesses. There are figures in the weekend newspapers which show that 10,000 small businesses have been assisted since this mechanism was put in place. I am grateful that the Minister answered my point. I understood him to say that he was planning some kind of mechanism that was similar to the French model. I am not sure what he is indicating right now-----