Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

We were given a figure of €4 billion and there was talk at an earlier stage of a larger sum being required. It was not clear at all stages that the Minister intended to produce the double contribution from the State in one year. I do not want to be made a fool of in this matter. There was speculation that the National Pensions Reserve Fund might have to sell some of its shareholding to be in a position to make this investment. This did not happen in the end, whether because the Minister decided not to do so or because the board informed the Minister that the losses would be too great or that it was locked in at a certain price or whatever.

These proposals were not of such extraordinary sensitivity that the Minister could not dream of whispering to the Members of this House that, by the way, more taxpayers' money might be required for the banks. The Minister, quite rightly, was open and willing in his announcements that the Government would stand by the banks and would recapitalise them from the National Pensions Reserve Fund. We on this side of the House have been asked to back off to some extent in questioning what we have been told is this very reasonable legislation because of its emergency nature. However, there is the question of the right of the House to have positive motions put before it and to have a chance to approve them. We were obliged to accept the legislation introducing the public service pension levy last week. In the case of the legislation to bring Anglo Irish Bank into State ownership, we accepted half a loaf where we were of the view that the Dáil was entitled to a greater say in how that matter was implemented. I suspect we are being sold a pup here and that it is not so highly confidential and critical an issue that the Minister could not say to the House that he intended to move from €7 billion to €10 billion or some other figure.

See this speech in context