Motion on the National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009 - 12th November 2009

Motion on the National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009 - 12th November 2009.
An Cathaoirleach: Yesterday, 11 November 2009, the Seanad returned the National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009 to the Dáil with 37 amendments to which the agreement of the Dáil was sought. The Dáil considered these amendments and agreed Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, and Nos. 14 to 37, inclusive, without change. However, it made changes to amendment Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, to which agreement is sought.
The Seanad must now decide whether it agrees with each of the amendments made by the Dáil to amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13. As the subject matter of these Dáil amendments is related, with the agreement of the House, Members can discuss the six amendments made by the Dáil together and the House can then decide on each individual amendment. I call on the Leader to move the first motion suggesting the action to be taken by the Seanad and will then call on the Minister of State to explain the decision taken by the Dáil. I remind Members that each Senator may only speak once on the motion.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I move:

That Seanad Éireann agrees to the first amendment made by the Dáil to Seanad amendment No. 11.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): These amendments extend the whistleblower protection provisions to employees of NAMA group entities. This amendment was proposed by Fine Gael in the Dáil earlier today and the Minister accepted it, as it is necessary that any employee of a NAMA group entity is fully protected by these provisions. I thank Fine Gael for its contribution.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: In respect of the motions on the amendments which have returned from the Dáil, I regret that the Government has not accepted more Fine Gael amendments during the debate on NAMA, as they would have strengthened the protection for the taxpayer. Without rehashing the entire debate on the Bill, I note that never before has so much money been handed over to so few people on behalf of so many, namely, taxpayers, for such an uncertain return. As I stated yesterday, while one must hope it succeeds for the sake of the country, it is a gamble. Fine Gael’s central worry pertains to the damage this legislation could do to the country, as well as the debt burden that will be placed on every family in the country.
The Fine Gael amendment tabled by Deputy O’Donnell which has been accepted by the Minister in the Dáil ensures the whistleblower legislation protection also applies to employees in the other group entities related to NAMA, about which Members do not know much just yet, that is, the SPVs. Its acceptance is good because it ensures an equality of protection for all employees connected with any entity of NAMA and is a step towards transparency. That is important because it is a step towards transparency in what Fine Gael believes is otherwise a fairly secret work-out process for the banks and those who have been associated with the toxic debts that have arisen. I thank the Minister for accepting these Fine Gael amendments and welcome their return to the Seanad today in this final stage of the NAMA legislation.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I echo what Senator Fitzgerald said by expressing regret that the Minister did not accept more amendments from the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Opposition in general. The Labour Party had and continues to have serious concerns about NAMA as an institution. I do not wish to rehash them but the main concern pertains to the level of risk taken on by the taxpayer. However, the Labour Party also expressed concerns during the debates in the Seanad and Dáil on the secretive culture, the lack of transparency and so on. It tabled amendments aimed at giving protection to whistleblowers in a similar style to this amendment. I welcome the amendment to the amendment, given that it will extend whistleblower protection to employees of NAMA group entities, as well as to those of NAMA itself. However, the Labour Party retains serious concerns about the running of NAMA. They pertain to both its basic premise and the lack of transparency regarding various aspects of NAMA such as the valuation panels, in particular. However, in so far as the amendment gives protection to whistleblowers, it is to be welcomed.

Senator Dan Boyle: I also welcome the acceptance of this amendment. Members find themselves using an unusual procedure to amend an amendment to a Bill that went passed all Stages in both Houses. However, it is a sign of the seriousness the Government attaches to ensuring the Bill is as complete and acceptable as it can be. I hear what the Opposition Senators say about the number of amendments accepted.
Several dozen Government amendments incorporate ideas expressed by the Opposition in the ongoing debate since NAMA was first mooted and the publication of the draft consultation Bill in July. The completed Bill is very different from that draft. I have concerns, as does everyone, about whether this will work but I have more confidence than some that it can work. We need to get away from some of the trite phrases about whether the taxpayer is being unnecessarily exposed. These resources depend on the country’s working and we all have an interest in ensuring that happens.

Senator Eugene Regan: We welcome the fact that the Government has accepted this Fine Gael amendment. A Bill which puts €54 billion of taxpayers’ money at risk should not be guillotined and that this type of amendment can emerge in a short debate before the guillotine in the Lower House today shows the pitfalls of rushing legislation and not allowing a full debate on each and every provision. The conflicts of interest and whistleblower provisions in the Bill are very important. This is the type of issue that got us into trouble in the first instance.
The entire project, however, depends on EU approval. The European Commission will pick up any Opposition amendments that the Government has not accepted when it puts its slide rule over the project.

Senator David Norris: I am surprised that we are back here. It may indicate that careful scrutiny of this legislation is important. I have only just seen the amendments but I understand they are intended to extend the protection of the whistleblower section to personnel under the NAMA umbrella who were not previously covered. That is very important.
I had not realised that this was a Fine Gael suggestion. It indicates that the Government can work well when it does so in a co-operative fashion. I hope there will be more of that.
I reiterate that I wish the impact of this Bill to be positive. I have certain doubts and reservations and for that reason voted against it last night. It is important that it does succeed. I am worried because I have just received a communication from a senior adviser whom I have mentioned before, Mr. Matthews, who has conducted a rigorous critique. He is concerned and I hope that on this occasion his conclusions are not fully accurate.
In the same way that the Government has listened to the advice of Fine Gael on this amendment and taken it on board, I hope it will be amenable to ideas in the form of a ruthlessly intellectually-based critique. I do not mean something destructively critical. We discussed the uses, beauties and inelegancies of language last night and I know the Minister of State here present is sensitive to nuance and knows that when I say critical I mean it in the sense of a critique that will be valuable. I hope the views of people like Peter Mathews will be taken into account. I have no difficulty in supporting this amendments.
I am rather glad to have been allowed to speak on it because the Minister of State will recall occasions when we dealt with some very antique and obscure Bills. There was a kind of antiquarian delight in that. I have been in this House for 22 years and have never experienced this particular manoeuvre before. It is like a boomerang effect. The Bill bounces from one House to the other, like a shuttlecock, to mix the sporting metaphors. I am glad to have been able to add to my parliamentary repertoire or CV this rather peculiar but interesting precedent.

Senator Larry Butler: I want to correct Senator Regan who said that the Bill was guillotined.

Senator Eugene Regan: The Senator can never resist doing this.

Senator Larry Butler: It was not guillotined in this House.

Senator Eugene Regan: I never said it was.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: It was in the Dáil.

Senator Larry Butler: We had a proper and high quality debate.

Senator Eugene Regan: On a point of order, I was speaking about the Lower House.

Senator Larry Butler: That is not a point of order.

An Cathaoirleach: It is a point of order.

Senator Eugene Regan: It is for the Cathaoirleach to decide what is a point of order.

An Cathaoirleach: As I heard Senator Regan he mentioned the other House.

Senator Larry Butler: I just wanted to correct the Senator.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: That is not a correction.