Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

It is a pity we cannot have proper dialogue on the matter, which is another difficulty facing this side of the House. There has not been an arena to examine the matter seriously. We appear to be rushing headlong down the road without seeing anything.

The proposal also plunges the State into letting professional investors off the hook. If we go down the NAMA route, shareholders will burn because of the haircut but professional investors will not. We are moving to a situation where we are effectively underpinning professional investors. I realise that many take the view that Ireland cannot afford to burn professional investors. However, if we allow some time, we will see many countries take the view that they cannot save everyone because the taxpayer's shoulder is not broad enough to bail out professional investors. Such people invested money knowingly in banks which engaged in securitisation in other countries and property lending in this country at a time of much economic activity. They were big boys and knew what they were doing. Why should ordinary families and taxpayers shoulder the burden? I understand the Government might state it does not wish to pioneer the burning of these investors. However, we should allow time, take the approach of refinancing what it is we wish to get going but take our time in respect of what will take place in the rest of the banking sector and who will take the hit. We should allow ourselves time to see what other countries will do.

I refer back to the idea of 20/20 Foresight in this impossibly uncertain world. If we take small steps, we can begin to see the landscape ahead of us more clearly. I am genuinely concerned that the Minister may expose the taxpayer to very substantial losses and that we do not know enough about the matter. Theoretically, it is an attractive proposal and I understand how a professor of economics would be delighted to have it as a tool on his or her desk which he or she could wind up, let off and produce results. However, we are living in the real world in which the decisions we make may hurt families and businesses and we must be very careful. It is not a question of being partisan; I am genuinely concerned that this is not the correct roll of the dice for us. We should be more prudent. Some elements may work but I would rather begin with an agency buying good loans. Let us see if we can get liquidity moving in the banks and let us give them an outlet for new lending such that they will not be so cautious about shrinking their balance sheets for fear of what may appear on the balance sheet of a wholesale State bank.

There will be plenty of time, probably too much time, on Committee Stage to discuss the other sections of the Bill. However, I have made some general comments concerning the challenges we face. I hope our debate on the Bill will be successful. I will put questions concerning the extension of the property based scheme for private hospitals to 2013. It seems once such a hospital has applied for planning permission, there will be a window up to 2013 in which to build it, which is a flawed policy. The building of a private hospital on the grounds of Beaumont Hospital is not what that hospital needs. This is a legacy of a failed policy which should be jettisoned at a time when we are examining new sets of priorities.

See this speech in context