Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We are having a week-long debate on this issue. As I was saying before I was interrupted by the two lads, Sinn Féin had the first debate in this House on the promissory notes. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter again. Many serious issues arise from the passing of last week's legislation. It should have been properly debated. I will speak later about the fate of the IBRC workers. We need to reflect on the legal and commercial impact of the Bill. There is no doubt that last week's events were shoddy by any parliamentary standards. I genuinely believe that if Deputies put their hands on their hearts, very few of them would deny that what transpired in the early hours of Thursday morning in this Chamber was nothing short of shoddy and disgraceful.

Questions must be asked about why this procedure was rushed through. I am not convinced there was a requirement for it. Section 6 of the Bill, which is now under scrutiny in our courts, is highly controversial. Like all the other sections of the legislation, we should have had time to deal with it in a proper and thoughtful manner. We should have been afforded the opportunity to seek counsel on it and to make amendments to it if required. Highly contentious political and legal issues arise from the legislation. It is the type of thing we should be avoiding. It is embarrassing that when this issue was before the High Court last week, a judge did not even have access to the legislation that had been passed by this House and enacted into law. Serious questions need to be answered about why a judge in one of our courts was unable to access legislation which is now on the Statute Book with legal effect, and which the President was rushed home from Italy to sign into law. Questions have been asked about the constitutionality of the provision that ensures there is a stay on all legal proceedings against IBRC. The genuine questions that have been asked by other speakers, including Deputy Mattie McGrath, should be answered. This legislation puts a stay on all proceedings against IBRC even though there is precedent in the courts in this regard. It was ruled in a famous court case relating to Sinn Féin funds at the time of the creation of the State that legislation could not put a stay on legal cases in this way. It is unfortunate that these matters will be teased out before the courts rather than in this House.

Other questions relate to the staff of IBRC, who are employed by the State. As I said on the night we debated this legislation, many staff in IBRC and elsewhere in the banking system are overpaid. We are still waiting for the report on banking remuneration, which the Minister was supposed to have last Christmas. It has not yet seen the light of day. Ordinary workers in the bank who are on low wages or mid-range wages have been made redundant. Questions need to be asked about the impact of this legislation on employees outside the State. Are those who were employed by this bank being treated fairly? There was no statement of undertaking, which means that the rights and entitlements of ordinary workers in the bank who were not part or parcel of this have been extinguished. As the Minister said in his press conference, those in lower positions on the food chain did not cause the crisis. Regardless of what Deputy Howlin says, I do not know how the Labour Party can applaud itself for eroding the rights of State employees in this manner in the year of the anniversary of the Dublin Lock-out. It is seriously questionable. Other questions need to be asked about the decision to appoint KPMG as the special liquidator. Even though the same company failed miserably to properly oversee an audit during the height of the banking crisis, the Minister and the Government have turned to it yet again. Everybody in this House and throughout the country is aware of Sinn Féin's position on the promissory note and the toxic debt of Anglo Irish Bank.

See this speech in context