Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

While the Title of this Bill, Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, sounds very innocent, the Bill has quite large implications. I am very unhappy with the way in which the debate is being conducted. This is not the first time, in the course of the banking crisis, that we have seen both policy and legislation being introduced on the hoof, without the opportunity for proper debate. It is disconcerting. There has been an extension of the guarantee, recapitalisation and the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank, and on each occasion amendments have not been reached, guillotines have been imposed and sections have not been debated. In time to come, when people reflect on how the Oireachtas oversaw its responsibility, they will be aghast that sections of legislation that had huge implications were simply never debated.

The Minister pleads urgency. Undoubtedly, urgency can be pleaded in these cases. However, there is an old adage to the effect that the urgent often squeezes out the important. That can happen here. Ministers come to the Chamber in a flurry saying a measure is very urgent. There is a great rush but the important work of debate is not done. That is what we are here to do. We might be an inconvenient cog in the wheel that is not moving at the speed the Government would wish but we are elected to do that. It is our role.

There is a creeping sense of self-righteousness on the part of the Government and in the tone of its statements. It appears to be saying: "Here we are doing all these difficult things, and not one of you will give us an ounce of support." I have also seen instances of deliberate misinterpretation of what the Opposition has said to promote the notion that the Opposition is irresponsible and misunderstanding of what is really happening. I get worried when I hear Ministers and taoisigh pretending the Opposition does not understand instead of defending what they are putting forth. I have seen this happen repeatedly. Instead of the Government setting out the reasons for the guarantee, NAMA, the nationalisation and recapitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and keeping it as a going concern, it attacks everybody else, as if all of us are Balubas trying to destroy our international reputation. That is a dangerous basis on which to have a debate, and there must be a proper debate about these issues. It might be a good political tactic but it is a short-term gain.

Today, we are being asked to extend the guarantee beyond September 2010. To be fair, the exchanges with the Taoiseach began to clarify what the intention is, which is not clear from any of the legislative material that has been presented to Members. The Taoiseach attempted to make it clear that what the Government was going to extend was very limited. There is no such limitation in any of the legislative material we have seen. He said that a review had come to the conclusion that this is needed. No Opposition Members have seen this review. I presume we will have to take it on faith that our betters have read it and have drawn these very wise conclusions, but the Oireachtas should have access to these reviews if they are so important.

There is no report on the existing scheme, for which we voted. Payments are being made and this has substantially increased the cost to the Exchequer of borrowing. We have not received a report, yet we are already obliged, for understandable reasons, to vote through an extension of it. There is no legislative guarantee that it will be confined to the instruments the Minister mentioned. There is no sunset clause to establish how long it could continue. Yes, the Dáil will have the opportunity to approve the scheme when it finally emerges but there appears to be a cat and mouse game involved in finding out when that will be. Will it be brought before the House before the summer recess, when we will be bounced into approving it, or will it be a more leisurely development and not launched until the autumn? At times the Taoiseach gives the impression that this is highly urgent and that there are opportunities in the market which we must rush out and seize, while at other times it all sounds very leisurely, with much drafting and consultation with the EU and others required before we will see the scheme. Which is it? It cannot be both. It cannot be a case of opportunities being whisked from under our noses in the absence of this legislation on the one hand, and then claiming there will be plenty of time to consult and all that is required is statutory approval.

This is a little like our children informing us they want to go to a concert and asking us for our credit card number and expiry date to book tickets. That happens, but one can tolerate it from one's children. However, when a Minister comes to us seeking that type of arrangement, whereby we give him the credit card and he promises to return in a few months to tell us what he spent with it and what commitments he made that we will have to honour, that is worrying. There is an element of this-----

See this speech in context