Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I worry about so many places in the Bill. The preamble states that, "Whereas in the achievement of the winding up of IBRC the common good may require permanent or temporary interference with the rights, including property rights, of persons". That theme goes right through it. I would ask whether we are worried about losing the Hall case in the Supreme Court. Why has the EU made us bring this legislation through this evening? What is the reason for this disregard for democracy and what is the reason for the disregard for the courts that features in many places in the Bill?

The explanatory memorandum says of section 11, that Part 7 of the Central Bank and Credit Institutions (Resolution) Act 2011, which makes provision for the liquidation of authorised credit institutions, shall not apply to the winding up of the IBRC. One has to ask the reason for the exemption. Earlier, it says of section 9 that a special liquidator shall comply with instructions or directions so received from the Minister and shall not be liable for anything done in accordance with such instructions or directions. What is the reason for these exceptions? There are two on one page. It says of section 7 that people operating under the Act may exchange information in respect of persons believed to be depositors of the IBRC notwithstanding any legal or contractual restrictions that otherwise prevent them from doing so. All of these things should be discussed, including the way rights are set aside repeatedly. When one comes to the very last section, it says that it is important to bear in mind that the provisions are not amended. They will continue to operate in their current form for other liquidations but their operation is modified for the purpose of their application to the liquidation of a body under this Act. That is done repeatedly in the Schedule. We need to debate these things in this House. Why are there extra powers for NAMA and the Minister? Why are rights, as the preamble said, set aside in this almost cavalier manner? Why is there no opportunity to have a proper debate and discussion here?

On page 19 of the Bill, it is stated: "No cause of action of any kind shall lie against a special liquidator in respect of anything done or not done in compliance with instructions issued or any direction given under this Act." Further on in the Bill, it is stated: "Part 7 of the Central Bank and Credit Institutions (Resolution) Act 2011 shall not apply to the winding up of IBRC." There are things we should be discussing here. On page 25, it is stated that enforceability may not be challenged by any person. Section 12(3)(c) states one cannot challenge it on the grounds that, in respect of the IBRC, it was ultra vires. Ultra vires means beyond one's power and authority. Is it not draconian to say that one cannot challenge the law because it was beyond the authority and was ultra vires? According to my reading of that section on page 26, that is what the Minister seeks. Why are we seeking to set that aside?

The ministerial directions include credit facilities under the Minister's power of direction. There does not seem to be any control by the Oireachtas over that. The Bill states that NAMA shall have the power to employ the staff at the IBRC. The problem is deeper than the IBRC; it is at the ECB itself at this stage. The power of the Minister to create and issue securities, as laid out on page 34, has no reference to the Oireachtas. Will we have these midnight and early morning sessions repeatedly? There is an amazing set in the Schedule where it states on page 53 that "submitted to the Minister for Finance" is to be substituted for "filed in the court" and that all other references to "the court" are replaced by references to "the Minister for Finance". Why are the Minister's officials advising him to bypass the courts? The substitution of the Minister for the court appears repeatedly in pages and is most worrying. It is also stated in the Schedule that ", with the sanction of the court or of the committee of inspection" is deleted. The Bill amends section 238 of the Companies Act 1963 by substituting "special liquidator appointed under section 7 [of the Bill]" for "court" in each place. That occurs repeatedly on page 55. On page 56, it states that the special liquidator may apply to the court to exercise all or any of the powers which the court might exercise if the IBRC were being wound up by the court. I am really concerned. There are so many sections which give the Minister extra power where laws are set aside, as the preamble says. We needed far more time to discuss this. I wish the Minister every success tomorrow but this is a bad night to be putting through this kind of legislation.