Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)

Of course, I support the thrust of these amendments and the Minister has indicated he is keen there will be some civic benefit from NAMA. However, as Senator Quinn already said, accepting these amendments would be contrary to the purpose of the NAMA legislation. If accepted, they would dilute the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency to operate with a sole purpose.

That raises another contradiction which Senator Donohoe spoke about earlier. This legislation is all about a civic purpose in bringing about a strong banking sector in the national interest. It is also, as Senator Donohoe said, a purpose of Government to provide houses for the people. When we had plenty of money, we still had housing lists which tended to lengthen because of costs. In a declining market, the State has an opportunity to purchase houses cheaply. In a roundabout way, the Bill's civic purpose is still there. In one sense it provides the country with a good, strong economic basis. Its civic benefit is being able to provide housing for local authorities at much reduced rates.

While accepting these amendments would tie up NAMA's singular purpose, we need to see some way in which the public will benefit from NAMA in other legislation. It is easier for the community to buy into the NAMA model if there is a clear way as to how it will benefit.