Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The Minister in particular drew our attention to sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Bill. I will start at the back and make reference to section 12, which concerns the amending of the Markets in Financial Instruments and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2007. In his script, the Minister drew our attention to the fact the purpose of this is to provide in particular for the situation that has risen with regard to contracts for difference, CFDs. It could theoretically apply to other instruments and derivatives already in existence, or perhaps yet to be created, but in particular it is intended to deal with this issue of CFDs.

I welcome that measure. It introduces a badly needed element of transparency and obligation on the person concerned to disclose certain information. While I do not know on whom is the obligation to disclose certain information relating to such transactions to the market, the Financial Regulator and the public — whether it is on the person accumulating the CFDs or on the company — I certainly welcome it as a step forward.

I do not have any wish to criticise Mr. Seán Quinn who is a major employer in this country. When I was Minister of State with responsibility for commerce, I had occasion to authorise his insurance company and I have had the opportunity to visit it and see the very large number of people employed there. He is a very important employer. However, what happened in the case of Anglo Irish Bank has done untold damage to our reputation outside of this country. Even Fianna Fáil has gone from describing it as "disappointing" on day one to describing it at the weekend as being akin to the damage wreaked by Cromwell, which is one hell of a distance to travel in a short time. However, it is a positive measure in the Bill.

I wish to come back to the point made by Deputy Burton in regard to the covered institutions. Will the Minister when replying deal with the issue of what now is the position with regard to the mutuals and the building societies? I was horrified to find that even a well-managed, conservative organisation like the Educational Building Society had decided to get in on the property business at the height of the market, just in sufficient time to make significant losses in the context of that company's overall loan book. If assistance is required for the EBS or Irish Nationwide, where one reads it will definitely be required, how will the Minister support that? Will it be by way of guarantee or by way of underwriting a bond? We would need to be told how he proposes to deal with it.

I also ask the Minister to address the issue touched on at page 5 of his script, where he draws our attention to the fact the commission can only accept contributions from the Central Fund and explains that this section will enable the commission to accept funds or assets for the benefit of the fund "from sources other than the Central Fund". What is envisaged in this regard? Is the Minister anticipating there that moneys may be forthcoming from sources other than the Central Fund? Does this envisage the disposal of State assets elsewhere? Does it envisage the disposal of State holdings in, say, a company like Aer Lingus or the privatisation of other State companies, for which there is occasionally a clamour outside and inside this House?

I would like to know what is the position because when one looks back at the Act we enacted before Christmas, one will find the Minister was laying the ground then for the possible recapitalisation of the covered institutions, notwithstanding that he vehemently argued at the time that he was not and that recapitalisation was not required. Now, when one looks back, that is the main Act and this Bill is really only invoking its terms.

In that regard, I draw the Minister's attention to the question raised by Deputy Burton on whether €7 billion will be adequate. She made a compelling case for the Minister to come to the House to give a considered reply to that question given the history of this entire saga since 29 September. Is the answer to Deputy Burton's question that the Minister intends to come back? It is very interesting to note that, under the original Act, if this is done by way of scheme, the Minister must come back to the House but if it is done by agreement with the individual institution, he is not required to come back to the House. If Deputy Burton is correct and the figure is inadequate, then the Minister, without reverting to the House, can enter into an agreement with a specified covered institution. Notwithstanding the enormity of the decisions we are now making, somewhat casually, the Minister is not obliged to revert to the House at all. We have grown accustomed during this crisis to making such decisions. I recall that we won a commitment from him for a scheme on the floor of the House, although I understand this was not originally envisaged by his minders. Nevertheless, he conceded given that he is an agreeable man. However, the position is that he can extend the €3.5 billion to a particular institution, or he can cause it to be extended to a new covered institution, provided it is not a mutual institution, without reverting to the House at all. We should hear from the Minister on that matter.

See this speech in context