Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I welcome this change. It seems the Minister in the original drafting had inadvertently thrown the net too wide. How did this happen? As I understood it, there was a lengthy consultation period and I presume the regulator was aware throughout that period of the breadth of the provision being proposed. Why, at the eleventh hour, did it suddenly dawn on people that what was being proposed was not the correct instrument for dealing with this matter?

I found dealing with the Bill a rather unfortunate process in that one must go back to a number of Central Bank Acts to try to discover precisely what regulations are being imposed and on what bodies. This was made somewhat difficult because we do not have a consolidated piece of legislation with which to deal.

I would like to have assurances from the Minister that the regulator has on this occasion absolutely clarified that what is now being proposed is robust and satisfactory and that, by moving rapidly to fill this hole, which is welcome, we are not inadvertently overlooking the need for full regulation of bodies where these practices which have disturbed financial markets in recent times have become prevalent. While I do not dispute the Minister's amendment, I would like to know how it happened that the net was thrown more widely than is now proposed and why it is only at this stage that the error of the approach has been identified.

See this speech in context