Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

We support both amendments and are happy to see the Government accepting No. 5, which provides clarity on the position outlined by the Minister of State.

Regarding amendment No. 4, the word "certainty" gets to the heart of the matter. The Minister of State just made a point about not creating doubt in the markets. The difference between the proposal as it stands and as it would be if Deputy Pearse Doherty's amendment were accepted is that the power would transfer from the Minister to the Oireachtas. The point is valid in that there is no certainty for the banks, full stop. There could be a new Government, for example, or the current Government may decide not to provide the money, which means that there would be no guarantee. The banks cannot just cash the cheque because the Minister must agree to provide it. However, it is clear - it is not implied, but is effectively said - that the problem is the extra uncertainty added by an element of democratic oversight in the Oireachtas and the need for a vote. I do not accept that timing is an issue. The danger is that this will happen in a time of major crisis, with a significant discussion in society about it and people potentially saying that they do not want to give €1.8 billion to bail out banks. Pressure will come on Deputies and there is the potential of the vote not passing. Fundamentally, is this not what is being said? Although it should be a basic matter for the Oireachtas to get to vote on transferring such a large amount of money effectively to bail out banks, the Government does not want to allow that out of fear that this democratic stage would not provide the markets with certainty and, therefore, it is easier to keep the decision in the hands of the Minister. The markets would be more confident in him transferring the money because they are less subject to democratic pressures, but is that not precisely the problem that means the amendment should be supported?