Ivana Bacik (Independent)

We are reassured the Minister intends to issue guidelines on credit flow. In that case there is no reason why "may" cannot be changed to "shall". It would secure the Minister's contention. As Senator Donohoe and others said, it would underline the seriousness of this section and the core purpose of this enormous risk-taking mechanism - that credit needs to be made available.

I am glad the Minister is open to the French credit mediator model. On Second Stage, he said an independent appeal mechanism is planned where credit is refused by a bank. It is precisely because the banks cannot be directed to lend to a particular individual that some form of independent mechanism is necessary. In France, the credit mediator was introduced to ensure a business, which believed it was wrongly refused credit, has a form of mediation and appeal. The sanctions and mediation process in France which we could adopt here is that banks which wrongly refuse to lend to viable businesses are named and shamed. It is a constructive suggestion from this side of the House to ensure the key purpose of NAMA is achieved.

I ask the Minister to strengthen the wording by substituting "may" with "shall" in section 210(1) and also to strengthen the vague idea in paragraph (b) of that subsection which states the guidelines shall relate "to the review of decisions of participating institutions to refuse credit facilities". We need to see something a little stronger to ensure there will be an independent mechanism to which people can go when they are wrongly refused credit.