Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I realise that but in considering the amendment before us it is important that we know we will have a chance to have a positive role in approving or disapproving of the scheme.

I also wish to make it clear to the Minister that Fine Gael wants this scheme extended beyond what the Minister is now stating. The Minister has stated it will have the basis of charges and the revenue raised and the conditions under which it is granted to institutions. We are clear that in this scheme we want some detail of the new regulatory approach. The Minister outlined some of the content that might include, which is encouraging.

I would welcome codes of practices for risk committees. That is something we have demanded consistently. It is vital that a person representing the public interest is appointed to these boards. I notice that already the regulator has stated this will happen. There needs to be clarity about lending practices for enterprise and checks on commissions and rewards. When this scheme comes forward we need to have not simply the basis on which people enter the doorway to this guarantee but also some of the rules which will apply when they are inside the doorway and the taxpayer is underpinning their performances.

I welcome the potential extension to other applicants. However, I am aware of the difficulties which the Minister has outlined. I do not underestimate these difficulties. There is a problem with us underwriting the ability of institutions which are substantially based elsewhere to raise money with our guarantee. We need to know we will have the regulatory control that is necessary and on which we are insisting even with regard to our own six banks. We must ensure we have these regulatory conditions and application with regard to the extension.

I welcome the extension, however, as there are significant players who are important to the competitive environment that exists in the banking sector. For many years, we lamented the lack of competition. It has improved in recent times and we do not want to see the ground gained in terms of competition being lost inadvertently. I am cognisant of the difficulties and I hope the Minister's work will succeed.

Will the Minister explain the €80 billion which he stated stands in the way of the taxpayer being called upon. Perhaps I am wrong but I understand this €80 billion is partly made up of approximately €25 billion in shareholder capital, and this is a buffer. However, some of it is made up of ECB loans. It is true that ECB loans are a buffer in one way but they are backed by an equivalent amount of premium assets on the other side of the balance sheet. The only reason the ECB has come in there is that it has pre-empted the premium assets on the other side.

One cannot subtract the €440 billion from the €520 billion and state there is €80 billion. One must subtract from the €520 billion that the ECB has pre-empted some of those assets. For that reason, it is my belief that the buffer is not as wide as the Minister stated. The Taoiseach was very clear that he was including the ECB loans. They have pre-empted the premium assets in the balance sheets of those who offered those assets to the ECB to get the loans. The Minister's subtracting one from the other to get €80 billion is not robust.

If it is clear the Minister will return to the House with the scheme and that we will have an opportunity to debate it. We will not support this amendment because we feel the guarantee scheme should be allowed. It has brought stability and should be allowed to continue. We can return next week and debate the scheme. However, I want the scheme to be broader than the very limited terms which the Minister suggested it will cover.

See this speech in context