Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

The Minister says he can do nothing without a scheme. My reading of section 6(4) of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008, however, is that the Minister can proceed to provide financial support in a number of ways, namely, by individual agreement, by a scheme made by the Minister or otherwise. It continues to state that where the Minister proposes a scheme he must get the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, he has the other routes of individual agreement and the unspecified "otherwise" to proceed.

While my belief is that the Minister will not extend this by individual agreement, from a strictly legal point of view he is not correct to state that it can be done only by way of a scheme with the approval of the Houses. This is why we on this side of the House feel that the Minister has not sought to delimit in any way the potential use of financial support after September 2010. He has not stated that it is confined to this very narrow range of issues. He is seeking this blanket approval and while on most occasions he would have to return to the House, this is a bad way to legislate.

As I stated in my Second Stage speech, to proceed and obtain permission now and then to enter commitments through negotiation with the EU and banks and then to return to us with a scheme would effectively be a fait accompli. The Minister would tell us that we could not pull the rug out from under him as he had had negotiations with the EU and the banks and that he had been to Basel and Frankfurt and that everyone was in on it and only the lousy Opposition in the Dáil was holding out against him. I may be facetious in portraying it in this way but essentially it is the process in which we are engaged. We would have preferred to see a delimitation of what the Minister seeks in the Bill and an understanding as to the nature of the scheme for which the Minister would return to seek approval rather than how he is proceeding.

I do not pretend for one minute that my amendments are perfectly drafted or would pass the draftsman's test but I am not reassured by the Minister's request to have faith and everything will be okay. This is the last chance we will get. The Minister and I know that much water will have passed under the bridge by the time he returns with the scheme. I am not happy with this process. I do not want to delay matters because there are many amendments which people will want to discuss but my intent is clear even if the drafting is not perfect.

See this speech in context