Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Senator is entitled to do so. He is entitled to the opinion he holds in respect of the Bill. I have a different opinion. I want the Bill to proceed, although it does need to be amended.

On Thursday, the select committee will take Committee Stage of another piece of my legislation on insurance contracts. There is further analysis needed on the part of the Department of Finance regarding that Bill but there is reasonableness in the approach of the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, in respect of the Bill. We have agreed that the Bill to which I refer will go to Committee Stage. If it passes Committee Stage, it will fall to Sinn Féin to take Report Stage in its Private Members' time. I will not take it to Report Stage until that analysis has been done. We work together to get things done. That is the approach we should be taking in this committee. The reality is that for some members here this Bill has proceeded further than they expected. There is no money message required. The legal opinion is that it is not unconstitutional and, therefore, it now falls into the laps of Deputies and Senators to decide which side they are on and how we balance all of this.

There are issues in terms of timing and delays. The Bills Office has to make a final determination, which it cannot do until scrutiny is done and the report is laid. If we do not lay a report until September, the Bill is further stalled. Scrutiny is completed. If we wanted an independent analysis we should have asked for it three months ago. I do not mind if we have an independent analysis. I have nothing to fear in that regard. In terms of scrutiny, we agreed on witnesses, who should give written statements and who should come before us and so on. We now have an obligation to report. The fundamental problem is in regard to progress to the next Stage, which is Committee Stage, which we all know is where the principles of the Bill are dissected and amended, some of it fundamentally and some of it in a minor way. I agree that we should have the independent analysis before that but what is being proposed here is that this Bill cannot progress until the independent analysis is complete. I do not accept that. I think that it is wrong. It is a cute way of trying to scuttle the Bill while at the same time trying to sound reasonable because certain members do not want to be the ones who are blamed for doing nothing while thousands of people are being thrown to the wolves in the form of banks selling to the vultures.

Let us finish the scrutiny, following which a report will be produced. The scrutiny can make recommendations in regard to the Bill. By the way, the three observations by the Minister are only his observations. They are not my view and they are not the view of the legal team either in terms of issues being unsurmountable. There is a key issue here.

We need to lay it before the House. The memorandum of understanding clearly states that the scrutiny report may make recommendations on, for example, what should be amended on Committee Stage. That is why I have argued that the issue of securitisation needs to be dealt with on Committee Stage. It also allows the Minister to recommend an independent analysis, which is fair. The problem is that the Minister is suggesting there be no more progress on the Bill until that analysis has been completed. In my view, the reason is that he wishes to stop the Bill now rather than at a later stage.