Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

Capitol Hill takes its legislative function seriously. Would it not be wonderful if Paulson's blank cheque were rubber stamped and all were hunky dory? Parliament does not work like that because it is the people's assembly and its job is to ensure we make laws, as we are constitutionally charged with doing.

I am worried about two principles that underpin this entire scheme. First, the Dáil is being asked to hand over to the Minister its constitutional prerogative to make law. We are providing for considerable potential in secondary legislation for the Minister to craft law. The Supreme Court has already spoken on this in respect of another issue. It is for us to make law, not to give authority to the extent envisaged in this measure to any individual.

The second worrying principle is that we are being asked to give the assets and future assets of the State to the Minister for a stated purpose. The purpose is good but what is being asked is incredible. It literally involves a blank cheque and a volume of demand that has never been handed to any Minister for Finance in the history of this State.

A few reasonable questions were asked this morning by the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Joan Burton, in moving this amendment, on the scale of the liability. To request knowledge of the scale of the liability is reasonable and we need to know it. I imagine the liability is changing by the hour as more funds move into our banking system — this is welcome — but we need to know what exactly is being guaranteed and the extent to which it is being guaranteed.

Many Members, in their contributions on this amendment, stated we must have regulation. However, regulation must have concrete form. It is no use having the Minister say to us it is referred to in the Bill. There will be regulation, an equity stake and a cost to the banks but we do not know the scope or nature of any of these. We do not know the amount of money to be underwritten and we do not even know the yardstick by which the cost is to be measured and recouped to the State. Having listened to different Ministers, I note the goalposts have moved several times. Some say there will be no payment unless there is a call on the funds and others say there is an insurance-type scheme on foot of which there will be a real charge.

The Minister acknowledged last night that there is a real cost to the State in respect of our ability to borrow and the cost of borrowing——

See this speech in context