Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact that Mr. Carrigan said he was not ruling out the buffer on the behalf of the State. All the other enhanced regulations are important, but unless the industry has a capital reserve to deal with losses, it does not make a huge difference. Losses have always occurred, but sponsors have stepped in, or there is enough time for assets to appreciate again and offset the losses.

Can I ask witnesses from the Central Bank a final question?

The Department can answer this as well. If the State did not have over 70% of the European market in this type of fund, would we be arguing against a 3% buffer? The reason I put this question is that I believe the Department is blinded by the fact that 70% of the European market is located in this city. Such companies pay very little tax because they adopt elaborate tax avoidance measures. They employ a number of people, which is really important, but we could be back in 2007, when the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator were completely asleep and unaware of what was happening at Anglo Irish Bank because that bank was creating liquidity for the Irish economy, which was creating jobs and providing a tax return, and the view was that one should not worry about such matters. If that bank had been located in France, Spain or somewhere else, and we were asked to look at it, we would probably be raising a red flag. My question is if we were France, for example, which has hardly any of these funds but which has the variable funds, would we be arguing against a European Commission proposal for a 3% buffer, or would it make sense that there should be a minimum 3% buffer to allow for losses?