As I go around the country on the Lisbon referendum campaign seeking an endorsement for a strong "Yes" vote, the number of people who express genuine concern about the NAMA legislation is quite astonishing. No Bill that ever went through the House cost anything remotely in the region of what we are talking about here. This Bill does not have the support of the people. It amounts to an act of economic madness to attempt to shift a burden of possibly €40 billion, €50 billion or €60 billion on to the taxpayers' shoulders. There are alternative ways to have liquidity flow into the banking system. When the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, rang me last year and asked me if I would support the guarantee scheme for the banks, I said "Yes" because I believe in a vibrant, competitive and energetic banking system. There are alternative ways of having liquidity flow to business besides what is being proposed in the NAMA Bill.

There is a growing body of opinion, both at home and internationally, from very respected people and institutions, that what the Government is doing is wrong. There are a number of ways by which an alternative can be produced that would be fairer, would protect taxpayers and would not involve paying over the odds. In addition, it would allow liquidity to flow into business for the protection of Irish jobs. I am not dogmatic about my party's proposal. which was put out some time ago, because there are no perfect solutions here. I know that. In the interests of our country, however, and all the taxpayers, including those who are working and fearful for their jobs, and families watching these proceedings, let me make the Taoiseach a proposition, as leader to leader. If he is willing to withdraw the Bill, and there is time to do so, my party, for one, is prepared to sit down with the Government to work out a more acceptable and fairer alternative that will not involve taxpayers being exposed to an enormous liability. It would be fairer, in everybody's interest and would allow for liquidity to flow into the system so that jobs can be protected. The Taoiseach said earlier that he was open for business. There is a choice here. There will be a long Second Stage debate and a long Committee Stage debate also. He can still withdraw the Bill and do this another way in the interests of all the alternatives and opportunities that exist. In that way, he would not be locked into a cul de sac and pulled by the nose by the banks in one direction only. I am making a proposition to the Taoiseach in the interests of Ireland and all our people. If the Taoiseach is prepared to withdraw it, I am prepared to sit down with him and work out a more acceptable and effective alternative.

Hear, hear.

Does he accept that proposition?

This Bill is being brought forward for one purpose, namely, to provide a stimulus to this economy by means of the mechanism we have devised. Making populist statements about it or misrepresenting it does not help anybody but if that is what the Deputy wishes to convey, I cannot dictate that.

Since last April the Minister for Finance has been very clear about putting forward this proposition and, as late as August, he made available to the Deputy an invitation to discuss these matters with his advisers and anyone else the Deputy wished within the Department. That offer was not taken up and that is a matter for the Deputy. The issue before the House is that we must take action now to bring forward this proposal. When we commence the Second Stage debate, we can hear what ideas are in this House but we put forward this proposal following due consideration and careful analysis, having sought advice both domestically and internationally and with the support of institutions that will provide funds for this mechanism in line with guidelines set out at EU level. This is a considered proposal by Government. It is being brought forward for the reason of confronting the challenge that faces us today and not for any fearful reason.

By bringing forward this proposal, we are giving an opportunity to Members to make their proposals and statements and we will put our position. We have had a view which, when I mentioned it earlier was regarded as patronising, but which is genuine. The Government has been open and has set out its preparedness, since it drafted the Bill and put it before everyone because of its complexity, importance and urgency, to listen to any views people have, to discuss them and to see how they wish to proceed. However, we have to do it in a way we believe has the best prospect of success.

The motivation behind the legislation on the part of the Government has continually been characterised in a very negative way by Opposition Members for their own reasons and I cannot dictate those reasons. I assure them that the motivation for bringing forward this proposal is to achieve the common good and to bring a stimulus to the economy in a responsible way and in a way which has the support of important institutions that are vital to making it work. That is our sole motivation and, rather than perhaps characterising it any other way, let us get on with the business now. There is a proposition before the House for discussion. Let us have a debate and meet, as the Deputy said, the concerns of the people, which are about moving forward, dealing with the issue and not continuing with paralysis by analysis. This is a considered proposal by Government, which is about to be brought before the House. Let us get on with the debate.

I am disappointed that, on an issue as fundamentally important as this, the Taoiseach has rejected an offer to sit down and work out an alternative, which can be achieved, and not proceed down this road of economic madness.

The Minister's offer has been open for months.

The Deputy did not have the courtesy to reply.

The offer has been open for weeks.

I believe this is the right proposal.

Deputy Kenny without interruption.

As the Taoiseach is set on this road, perhaps he might answer a few questions. We are proceeding to commence with a debate on the Government's NAMA Bill, which will not be the legislation that will emerge at the end of this process, principally because the Taoiseach's partners in Government and members of his own party have yet to decide what further changes they will demand.

Will the Taoiseach explain the circumstances in which an individual, Dr. Bacon, was chosen by Government to produce a report without any other economic analysis or input resulting in the Government being led down one road only without any flexibility to change? How much will the Government pay for the loans to be acquired? Will it be €40 billion, €50 billion or €60 billion? What discount will be applied? The taxpayer wants to know this and I would like the Taoiseach to respond to that.

Is the Taoiseach prepared to move away from paying the long-term economic value and paying over the odds for assets that, in many cases, are useless? What guarantee can he give that in the event of the Bill going through, the money acquired by the banks will be available for lending by them to businesses all over the country? Is it his intention, as reflected by one of his backbenchers, to remove the Minister for Finance from the valuation system in order that there would not be a perception — I do not suggest that the Minister would influence the system — of influence by the Minister of the day on the system? Is he prepared to deal with that? As we are proceeding down this road, the Taoiseach might answer these questions.

The position is we will commence the Second Stage debate and a detailed outline of the position will be given by the Minister for Finance in the next few minutes and I would like the House to hear that in detail.

Hear, hear.

This is about the Government presenting bonds, which will provide access to ECB funds to provide a stimulus to the economy for the purpose of improving the lending capacity of our banking system. Throughout the last session, week in and week out, we discussed the insufficiency of lending in the economy. We are seeking to address that issue through this proposal. We are not in a position to provide a fiscal stimulus to the economy because of the state of our public finances but a stimulus can be provided through this mechanism.

It is, therefore, also not correct to continually portray this as costing the amounts to which the Deputy referred since we are seeking to design a mechanism that will ensure we protect the interest of the taxpayer to the greatest extent possible. We have no motivation other than that in coming forward with this proposal and enacting it after debate having listened to what Members have to say and making sure we can get this as right as we can. It is important that it works and what we are seeking to achieve is that the management agency manages the assets in line with guidelines set down by the EU with the support of the ECB, which supports this proposal.

With serious reservations.

The ECB warned the Government about this proposal.

The Taoiseach without interruption.

This is supported by financial institutions, which will help us provide a stimulus to our economy. It is on that basis that we put the proposal. We have considered all the options as we have seen them. We have brought forward this proposal and we have dealt with all the issues in so far as we can. We are open to dealing with any issues raised in the debate in so far as that is appropriate or possible. We are seeking to look to the collective wisdom of the House. If parties want to proceed in a different way or have a totally different proposal, they are entitled to put their point of view on Second Stage. That is the way we conduct debate in the House. When we reach Committee Stage, it will be open to Members to decide what they wish to do at that point.

However, the bottom line is we must bring forward this legislation to deal with a fundamental problem affecting the economy generally, taxpayers and business.

It is flawed.

We have to do that and that is the total motivation behind this proposal. There is no other motivation behind it but that.

It is flawed.