Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I wish to move an amendment regarding the Second Reading. This debate is occurring in the middle of what is surely the most serious economic and financial crisis in the decades of modern Ireland. There is no need to have a tutorial on it here but it is very difficult to envisage a situation that could be more serious and for that reason we have to try to rebuild our economy. We all know that we are not going to rebuild the economy unless we can stabilise the banks and get credit flowing again. This is the reason our banking system is so critical.

People outside this House who are outraged at what they have seen happening at the top of the banks and at the misbehaviour, if not worse, that we have all read about are fearful of losing their jobs, fearful for their pensions being damaged and, in some cases, fearful of losing their homes and they want to know what in the name of God is causing the Government to put taxpayers' money into the banks. We have to answer that question because it is precisely to maintain jobs and equilibrium in the economy that normal credit lines must be restored in the banks. For that reason, this debate deserves the full attention of this House for as long as it takes to answer the questions that require to be answered. The intolerance that has been evident on the part of the Government, and on the part of the Ministers who have fronted for the Government, is entirely inappropriate.

I wish to deal with the critical issue from which all of this arises, the situation on 29 September 2008 and the blanket guarantee. Ministers and their spinners are whispering about the position taken up by the Labour Party. The Labour Party took up the position we did for the reasons that are dealt with at some length in the debates since this crisis arose. There are two reasons. First, we again had a rushed piece of legislation and the law of unintended consequences followed; we were not given the necessary information and there was not the transparency that was required in such a debate. Second, we did not necessarily take the view that every bank was of equal importance to the Irish economy. We may well be persuaded of that, but so far I have not been persuaded that every bank is of systemic importance in the economy.

I did not have a copy of his script at the time but I noted the Minister reached for a page to deal with this question. The information is not in his script. He quoted some figures but these figures do not change my view. Anglo Irish Bank is one branch with three or four offices. It is not engaged in retail banking. It does not have offices on the high street. It is not part of the essential money transmission system and is not part of credit lines to small and medium enterprises. It is a specialist bank funded by its corporate depositors and funded from the inter-bank market. This is a distinctly different cup of tea than the clearing house banks which are essential to this economy, to maintaining jobs and prosperity in it. However, on 29 September 2008, the Minister went ahead and we had no real opportunity to consider whether Anglo Irish Bank ought to have been included in that blanket guarantee that bet the future prosperity of this country on the banking system. We did not have that opportunity, but the Minister went ahead and included the bank.

I heard the remarks made by the Minister and I wish to read them into the record. The Minister has a gifted bedside manner and unlike some of his crabbier colleagues, he has a very pleasant manner. However, when he denounces Morgan Kelly's latest contribution in today's The Irish Times, I would like to hear more detail. I would be very surprised if the Department of Finance did not have more than one strategy on 29 September and if it did not, then it should have. It should have anticipated what was coming down the track and I am sure it did.

See this speech in context