Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegations for giving us the benefit of their views on this subject. I agree with many of their views, but, equally, I strongly disagree with many of them, as Fr. Healy will attest from past experience.

When the economy collapsed, we had to start somewhere. Putting the house in order was one of the things that needed to be done. This is no longer a closed economy, protected by tariffs. We have to trade and to trade in the market, we had to put the basic fundamentals in order. From 2002, I was raising questions in this House as to whether the economic fundamentals were in order. They were not. One Minister famously replied to the effect that they were not. We refused, however, as a nation to accept reality. As long as everything appeared to be going well, we went for it. Unfortunately, we reaped the benefits of that approach. Unfortunately, too, those less privileged in society are the ones who pay most in these situations. When economic crises occur, it is the poor, the less well-off and those at the bottom of the social agenda who pay the highest price. That is in the nature of things. We do not have the resources to protect them at this time.

Today the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform informed me at Question Time that he was €1 billion below the expenditure figue by the end of October, despite having fewer people working in the public sector. This did not come without sacrifice but at great cost to the people and it is to be hoped the economy will reap the whirlwind of benefits. It was our inability to take corrective measures in time which brought us to where we were several years ago. We got there by ridiculousness and not noticing the indicators. As a result, many of the people have suffered.

I agree with the points made by the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, but how we deal with them is where we differ. I am one of those with a strong social conscience. It grieves many of us greatly to find ourselves where we are. It is not a question of ignoring people’s concerns, the fact that they have been under severe stress and are in debt. It is a fact of life about which we can do very little.

I have had many of these conversations with Fr. Healy duirng the years and neither of us has changed. I disagree with his analysis because it flies in the face of what I suggested at the beginning was the cause of our problem - refusing to accept reality and take action. Action taken at an earlier stage would have made a huge difference to the extent to which the people have had to suffer what is now called austerity. It is the wrong name for it. It should be called good housekeeping, with very few resources. A Minister said in 2007 that there was too much money in the country and that the then Government did not need all of the money available. Why? It was coming from the construction sector, with its massive inflation rate and house prices increasing by 500% in seven years. That is what Angela Merkel has been talking about. The market, regardless of whether one likes it, takes cognisance of the stability of the economy. As we do not have control over is, unfortunately, we are vulnerable. I agree with Fr. Healy on the issue of regulation. However, regulation after the event is no good. People talk about bondholders and foreign banks, but this is about money borrowed by someone in this country from foreign banks who presumed there would be no need to pay it back. That is not done. Again, however, the ones who have paid the price are the unfortunate individuals at the bottom of the social scale, families and poorer people.

I have no problem with the financial transaction tax. Maybe Dr. Healy and I agree more than ever before. It could happen. The financial transaction tax must be accepted and applied by everybody. It is no good one country doing it. Financial services in this country, and all that goes with it, would be gone in the morning if we applied it alone. I understand the counter-argument on that.

I worry a little about the elimination of tax havens because in recent times a few people who have visited this country have referred to tax havens in this country. This may not be what Dr. Healy is referring to, but they have criticised the way we do things suggesting we operate tax havens here, but nothing could be further from the truth. It has been very damaging to this country's reputation abroad. Some companies which are not manufacturing or making a profit in this country reroute their profits through this and other European countries, and have been doing that for years with encouragement.

The need to tackle financial fraud goes without saying. I am shocking myself with the extent to which I agree with Dr. Healy, and I know I am shocking him. We do not have to go into all that. We accept it all. On the separation of commercial and investment banking, the two are a little interlinked and interdependent and one cannot always do the one. The length of social housing waiting lists is very dear to my heart. Dr. Healy will remember 15 years ago across a board room table I indicated to him that this would become the most important issue in this country in the future. I do not know if he agreed with me at the time.