Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

We previously engaged in a good discussion on the need to review the activities of NAMA continually to ensure it delivers on the objectives laid down in the Bill. Section 224(3) states:

As soon as may be after 31 December 2012, and every 5 years after that while NAMA continues in existence, the Minister—

(a) shall assess the extent to which NAMA has made progress toward achieving its overall objectives, and

(b) shall decide whether continuation of NAMA is necessary having regard to the purposes of this Act.

Is five years too long a timeframe in this regard? If a decision is going to be made under this section with regard to whether the continuation of NAMA is necessary, surely the position should be reviewed annually or perhaps every two years.

Section 224(3)(a) goes to the heart of the matter. Under it, the Minister will be obliged to assess whether NAMA is working and make public the findings in that regard. In my opinion, the matter should be reviewed more regularly than every five years. Why was it decided to review the position every five years? Is there not a case to be made for reviewing it more regularly?