Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

First, I thank Members for their diligence in attending to this legislation, which did not commence in this House until after midnight. I understand this is the first time since the foundation of the State that Seanad Éireann has sat and considered all stages of legislation after midnight. There is a reason for this. Markets are watching Ireland all the time and it is important that we send out appropriate signals. This is something the United States has failed to do in recent weeks but is something we can do for our country. I am grateful to the Opposition parties, and to Seanad Éireann in general, for the co-operation they have extended on this matter. As a small country, it is important that whatever we do should be done swiftly and this has been done. I appreciate the strain it places on Members who are attending at this hour and I appreciate the large attendance this evening to discuss the matters before us.

Senator Burke raised the interesting question of the reason the State did not acquire shares in a bank. Under this legislation, it might be possible on some future date to so do. It may be essential for the State to so do on some future occasion. However, to do so in effect would be to bail out a bank. I do not want to hear the verb "bail" again because it is not accurate in respect of this legislation.

As for the scheme that will be brought before both Houses in a matter of days, it is not a bail-out. The legislation is clear that the guarantee must be paid for and I will insist the banks pay the correct charge. The proposals will be brought before the Government. The Central Bank is involved because its staff are our technical experts in this field and, with the National Treasury Management Agency, will advise the Government on what is the appropriate level of charge. The Government will consider the matter, decide what is correct and then stand over a proposal in both Houses. Senators will have an opportunity to comment on many of the details of that issue at that stage.

The reason I mention Senator Paddy Burke's proposal — I do not criticise him for making it — is that participation in a bank is participation in the risk of a bank. While we have not yet reached that point, it raises the interesting question of what approach we should take on this issue in the legislation.

Before I deal with that issue, I want to mention the subject of the past, upon which many Senators dwelt. From listening to the debate in both Houses, it appears the Opposition parties do not want any persons who work in the banking or building industries to support them in any future election. There are many good builders and bankers and while there are certainly people in both industries who have not covered themselves in glory, they are important industries in our national life.

The question of the culpability of various parties in this matter was well analysed by Senator Donohoe when he cited Alan Greenspan's famous words about the function of a central bank being to withdraw the punch bowl when the party is getting too strong. Our Central Bank has not controlled the punch bowl since we joined the euro and in any case it never had much control over the punch bowl because we have been in a monetary union since the early part of the 19th century.

While the Central Bank could have taken drastic measures to reduce lending, it was the Fine Gael Party which made abolition of stamp duty a centrepiece of its most recent election strategy.