Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

We are on amendment No. 5 which relates to banks operating in Ireland which are not covered by the guarantee. Will the Minister indicate the nature of the ring-fencing process that he envisages? Will he shed some light on how he hopes to set criteria for applicants which might seek this cover and how he will ring-fence the cover to ensure the taxpayer will not be exposed to guarantees that extend beyond the operations of these banks operating within the jurisdiction? Deputy Rabbitte and others have raised that issue.

While the Minister may not be in a position to answer the first question, he will certainly be in a position to answer the second, namely, whether the criteria and the ring-fencing approach will be set out in the scheme that will be brought to the House some day next week in order that we will know at that stage the details of how the banks that may be covered by the scheme but which are not among the six will be covered?

As we are dealing with sections 3, 4 and 5, I wish to ask the Minister about a provision in section 4, whereby the Central Fund will meet the payments the Minister may have to make. That will mean they will not be voted on by the House. If, for example, the Minister is availing of some of the wider forms of financial support, other than the guarantee outlined in the Bill, such as taking preference shares in some restructured entity or some other approach, how will the House become aware that has occurred and will there be an opportunity for it to debate the situation that has arisen, such that the Minister is taking preference shares or equity in any other shape or form? Dramatic things can happen where there is restructuring. For example, in the context of a merger, the Minister could find himself being asked to take responsibility for a certain portion of non-performing assets. We would like to know how that will be dealt with in terms of debate and what report-back there will be to the Dáil.

My final question relates to section 5. It is extraordinary to see such a section included in any legislation, as it gives power to the Minister to do anything that appears "necessary or expedient" to deliver his objectives in the Bill. Why does he consider it necessary to have such a belt and braces provision? Is there a particular power he may have to use the section to invoke that has not been provided for elsewhere?

See this speech in context