Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The Minister must be aware that this is possibly the most far-reaching and significant financial legislation to come before the House. It is potentially so far-reaching and draconian that it contains a sunset clause. He must also be aware that a Bill of this intricacy and complexity requires far more time for discussion than has been allocated. In fact, we only received a copy of the Bill at lunchtime yesterday so it is impossible to get a full idea of the intent of the legislation, much less give it the type of scrutiny it requires.

It is ironic that this legislation is being brought forward in such a rushed format when at least two of its main provisions provide for policies that were totally rejected by the Government when they were recommended by this side of the House over the last two years. We were assured that Anglo Irish Bank was of systemic importance, could not be wound down and had to be maintained. Billions of euro of taxpayers' money were pumped into it to ensure it could continue as a going concern. Two and a half years and billions of euro later, we are confronted with legislation to provide for what the Minister originally rejected. It is a pity he did not listen to the dissenting voices two and a half years ago. We could have saved all those jobs and all that money and, possibly, prevented many of the forced emigrations as well.

We were also told there could not be burden sharing. There was no question that we had to cover all of the recklessly acquired liabilities of Anglo Irish Bank and the other banks. Now we have legislation before us that will not only encourage and permit deeply discounted liquidity management exercises but which goes much further to permit a coercive approach. In short, the Government that would not consider burden sharing is now introducing legislation which goes far beyond what was being proposed by the Opposition. Again, it is a complete turn in Government policy and, again, it is a pity that the Government did not accept the inevitability of burden sharing before it paid off, at face value, all the billions of euro of subordinated debt over the past two and a half years.

Hardly a week passed without the Government telling us what a good job it was doing and how the rest of the world saw Ireland as a headline for how to manage the financial crisis. It is strange that the countries which we were told thought we were so wonderful are now forcing us to do the opposite and precisely what the Opposition recommended at the time. It is too little, too late. Again, I wish to point out the folly of not even providing in legislation for burden sharing with senior debt-holders. This insistence on wrapping senior debt-holders in cotton wool and protecting them from the consequences of their reckless investments is wrong, and will continue to be wrong. I wonder if those in the EU who enforced this position on us, if it is the truth that they did enforce it, recognise that they are ultimately imperilling the repayment of senior debt and, indeed, the loans they are providing to us under the bailout.

My fundamental opposition to the Bill is based on the way it is being rushed and the lack of adequate scrutiny.

There is no indication of the Government's intention in respect of disposing of the banks. There is no opportunity to debate the which, the how and the when. I presume the idea of this Bill is that whatever is ultimately left of the zombie banks will be for sale to foreign banks.

The primary reason for opposing this Bill is the draconian powers it gives to the Minister of the day. We have absolutely no confidence in the current Minister for Finance or his predecessor, so how can we have confidence in passing these powers to one man without even the opportunity to scrutinise the details of what is being proposed?

See this speech in context