Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

——when the former is given little time to examine a document. This is the case no matter which party is in opposition. In fairness, we only received this document at approximately 9 p.m. last night. None of us has had much time to consider it. All parties supporting the principle of the Bill are to be congratulated on engaging with the spirit of this endeavour. That is essential. Anybody who watched the news on Monday night knew something had to be done and that Tuesday would not be a pretty day.

Amendment No. 1 is not feasible in any sense. Section 6(4) refers to two elements — an individual agreement and a scheme. I understand the former refers to an individual agreement with an individual financial institution, whereas a scheme would be a general scheme applicable to all financial institutions. One speaker referred to the Bill as a skeleton. If the skeleton is not there, one cannot put the flesh on the body. There is a logical flaw at the centre of the amendment. One cannot simply say that the Act, excepting section 7, will not come into operation until the Minister has devised a particular scheme. This simply does not make sense. However, I understand Deputy Burton's intention in this area. Deputy Shatter acknowledged the same before expressing his lack of enthusiasm for the amendment.

As I said, section 6(4) makes reference to an individual agreement and a scheme. Given an individual agreement, is it being suggested that in a situation where a credit institution was in financial difficulty the Minister would have confidential discussions dealing with its core viability and would then lay the details before the House for adoption or otherwise? Again, that is not a runner. No commercial organisation could afford to bare its soul in the public gaze in such a way until agreement was reached with the Minister. The same argument goes for the scheme.

I refer to the comments of Deputy Shatter concerning the delegation of legislative powers. I believe his views on this matter are incorrect, because he was referring to the delegation to subsidiary bodies of legislative powers. However, this copperfastens and underlines the Minister's executive powers. In so far as the Minister for Finance performs functions under this Bill he is performing executive powers. It is the case that his powers are being increased. However, I cannot see any constitutional bar to this Bill indicating that the Minister shall have new powers x, y and z under this Bill, yet completely within the constitutional circle of the Minister for Finance, who gets specific recognition in the Constitution. Deputy Shatter's argument is simply erroneous. The Minister for Finance must be accountable to the House and this is only proper.

By the way, it should be noted that section 6(5) only necessitates that the scheme be laid before the House. It does not specify that the individual agreement referred to in section 6(4) be laid before the House, which is an important distinction.

See this speech in context