John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am not unless you want me to, a Chathaoirligh.

The liquidation of IBRC has been compared to the liquidation of a non-financial corporation and questions have been asked as to why it is necessary to bring the legislation to the Houses at this time. The liquidation of a non-financial corporate institution could take place at any time under normal circumstances, but when ¤12 billion of taxpayers' money is at risk, we must move carefully to put in place structures to protect the people's asset - the State's asset. The window between the close of business today and the opening of business tomorrow - perhaps it is now the opening of business today - has allowed us the opportunity to do this with the minimum of risk to the taxpayer and to the people. As the Minister said, when information came into the public domain, the Government moved swiftly to secure the assets, which were national and international, because otherwise these assets could have been vulnerable.

This is no ordinary liquidation. IBRC's banking licence will now expire, a point I will address shortly and to which the Minister might respond. Managing risk is a necessity and the decision to secure the public asset was taken in the public interest. We look forward in the coming days to the time when the second necessary step to find a satisfactory solution to the issue will become visible. We are confident the resolution the Minister is negotiating will be widely and warmly welcomed by the Irish people.

I would like the Minister comment on several issues. IBRC's consolidated balance sheet in its 2011 annual report contains an entry on the liabilities side entitled "Debt securities in issue". To assist the Minister's officials, that is on page 34 and it is accompanied by note 39 on page 93. The value of these debt securities in issue is ¤5.3 billion, all but ¤900 million of which has already matured. Are we to take it that this ¤900 million, which is not going to mature until 2015, might be the subject of burden sharing with the private sector? On the liabilities side, does the Minister see any liabilities that we might be able to share with the private sector here to gain further advantage to the taxpayer? There are other elements in the balance sheet which it is possible to liquidate. I will not talk about section 17 at this point; I will wait until the next Stage.

What becomes of the banking licence on foot of this liquidation? Does the existence of the banking licence have any bearing on the necessity to bring the legislation here? In other words, is the banking licence in any way an impediment to the ECB's doing business with the IBRC, or is it just a technical matter? In addition, what is the status of the Minister, or how does the Minister rank, among the unsecured creditors?

I am reassured by the Minister's comments in regard to the staff of the IBRC who will find themselves out of employment tomorrow. I am glad the Minister has said that many or most of them will, he understands, find employment where their undoubted experience, expertise and loyalty will be utilised by NAMA.

I welcome the legislation and I acknowledge the work of the Minister's staff in producing substantial legislation in the timeframe achieved. I will, of course, be supporting the legislation.