Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

It is the bulls that have caused some of the problem, it is the bears that are now taking over and we are all in difficulty because of it.

In the context of the 1998 case, the scheme developed by the then Minister for Agriculture and Food by way of delegated legislation, that is, dividing the country into particular regions with regard to the artificial insemination of cows, an area in which I have no particular expertise, was found to be beyond his powers. During the case, the Laurentiu case was quoted: "The increasing recourse to delegated legislation throughout this century in this and the neighbouring jurisdictions has given rise to an understandable concern that parliamentary democracy is being stealthily subverted and crucial decision-making powers vested in un-elected officials." The Minister is of course an elected official but the court struck down the scheme developed by the Minister for Agriculture and Food because the legislation under which he operated did not expressly permit him to do what he was doing.

I would not personally cast any aspersions on the probity or decency of the Minister for Finance but have considerable doubts about the Government's capacity to make the correct decisions in the context of the terms and conditions. This is so because, in so far as the Government will now have to impose terms and conditions on banks, it is as clear as crystal that in the past 11 years the Minister and his colleagues in Government failed utterly to ensure that the banks were properly regulated and that the terms and conditions that should have been imposed were imposed.

A litany of warnings came from respected financial institutions across the world, as well as from our own Central Bank, which bleated every so often about the extent of borrowing but, as a regulatory force, went back to sleep until the next report was published. Regardless of the terms and conditions, the taxpayer and economy must be protected. The Minister should ensure that banks do not go off on the insane adventures in which they have engaged for far too long under the benign eye of the Government.

The Government, the banks and the construction industry have been engaged in the most startling example of pyramid selling ever seen in this State. Banks have been lending excessive sums of money to first-time home buyers and so-called investors to purchase grossly overpriced properties. In many instances, the properties were being purchased from developers to whom the same banks had originally lent money. The Government did absolutely nothing about it because of what it was accruing through stamp duty.

The Government is not guilt-free in respect of where we now find ourselves in so far as the problem derives from concerns about the banks' lending practices and the value of the assets they retain by way of security. The Government does not come to this House with clean hands in respect of this issue; until this week, it had shown itself to be incapable of addressing the issue of conditions and regulation with regard to bank expenditure. I am not confident, despite my personal liking for the Minister, that he and his Government colleagues will get it right. This House should be approving and not simply sitting back with the possibility of nullifying any scheme produced to ensure it will achieve what we require it to do. While I accept the principle of this legislation, I am not satisfied it properly implements that principle. There are no parameters laid down or principles enunciated in it to determine the types of conditions that might be imposed by the Minister by way of a scheme under section 6.

See this speech in context