Joe O'Toole (Independent)

There may well be a question of width, but in terms of quality, the guarantee was necessary.

We are making a huge mistake with this legislation. I have seen this happen before with rushed legislation. I note we are amending the Building Societies Act 1989. It was rushed through this House and caused problems thereafter.

I do not understand what the Minister refers to as the recitals in the first two pages of the Bill, which I presume constitute what we used to call the Long Title. Issues arise in this regard. There are points in the Bill that I do not understand and on which I would like clarification. While there is no chance of my seeing the early drafts of the recitals, I would love to. I would love to see what was intended and how the drafts were changed.

Is this the third time we have seen the phrase "in the public interest" in the Long Titles of Bills recently? The phrase seems to have gained a legal personality all of its own. This is new to me as a legislator. I am not saying I do not welcome this but I would like to have it explained to me where it fits into the broader scheme. It is very handy for our friends down in the courts to rely on this phrase when they want to make a pragmatic judgement that may not quite be in line with their interpretation of the law as it has stood heretofore. It is very difficult for any of our legal friends to make a finding against the phrase "in the national interest", now referred to as "in the public interest". What is the legal history of the phrase and how did it obtain a legal personality all of its own?

When I read phrases such as, "AND WHEREAS THE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS ACT ARE NECESSARY TO SECURE FINANCIAL STABILITY AND TO EFFECT A REORGANISATION OF CERTAIN CREDIT INSTITUTIONS", I believe the Government is anticipating a legal challenge. I do not know whether it is appropriate to have such content in the Long Title. I do not have any problem with the Government anticipating a legal challenge and doing all that is required of it to meet it.

What worries me most about the Long Title is the phrase, "AND WHEREAS THE COMMON GOOD REQUIRES PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS, INCLUDING PROPERTY RIGHTS, OF PERSONS". The Minister is asking us to pass legislation that may stand the Constitution on its head. There is much legislative precedent for interference with property rights. Property rights, as dealt with in the Constitution, have been discussed many times, but one should not interfere permanently with rights. Either one has a right or one does not. The only place one can deal with this is the Supreme Court by way of interpretation where there is one right in conflict with another. This is dealt with regularly and a judge must make a decision.

The Minister is asking us to do something that I, as a legislator, believe is impossible. I would be prepared to state, "AND WHEREAS THE COMMON GOOD REQUIRES TEMPORARY INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PERSONS". I could well understand that as it would make sense, but stating "RIGHTS" and adding "INCLUDING PROPERTY RIGHTS" goes far beyond what legislators are entitled or empowered to do. It is inviting a legal challenge. I would like to know the legal history and precedent that provide the basis for our being confident and comfortable about going down this road.

I completely agree that there needs to be urgent reorganisation. Restructuring is very difficult but I have no idea how it can be achieved. We passed the Building Societies Act and other banking legislation to ensure people could not take shortcuts through legislation. I would like someone to explain to me how one can include two building societies and a bank in one unit. What is the legal process and what issues need to be dealt with? Who will advise us on and guide us through the process? To what kind of person does one go for advice on doing this job, however worthy the objective? I agree with the Minister of State that the objective is good and do not want him to tell me I believe otherwise. I am all in favour of the objective but wonder how it can be achieved.

I support the need for this legislation although I have serious difficulties with it. While I cannot go into detail, I believe we should be teasing out the legislation section by section. It should take time. All who spoke on this side of the House made that point. There is far too much in the Bill to rush it through. Problems will arise and we need to address them.

Let me outline the reason for the legislation. I hope the next Government, irrespective of its flavour, shape or colour, will have only one remaining economic variable to deal with, namely, the issue of growth. I hope all the other problems will have been known about and understood and that we will have known our approach with regard to austerity measures in order that the new Government will be able to concentrate on growth.

This legislation may land us in the courts, although the courts will ensure, in the public interest, that cases are taken pretty quickly. We are inviting court action, court statements and prolonged legal challenges on foot of the legislation. It is trying to do too much and our approach is not safe. It is unsafe legislation.