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

A couple of issues come to mind. We all accept the fact that banking has a duty to make profits in order to function. Banks are not charitable institutions. They have to make profits and have returns by the end of the year. If there are indications they are losing their profit, or there is a lack of focus as a result of losing profit, they will be out of business. That is the ultimate situation, which is what happened in this country. However, a few contributory factors could and should have been identified at the time. I am looking at a couple of notes. We had a lot of incoming competition, which was not wise. There were missed opportunities at the end of the boom period. Banks across the road from me were lending money as if there would be no end to the boom. It was obviously not the case. That went on. I and others had to negotiate between borrowers and banks to try to hold the line when the crunch came. There was a grave danger for a long time that the entire banking system was going to collapse and the country with it. Ultimately, however, the public, people and taxpayers had to pick up the tab to secure what was happening.

We accept all that, but that does not mean we could not have practised better. For instance, two banks provided credit at an alarming rate, which undermined the existing pillar banks here. I do not know why that happened because they were all supposed to be under the supervision of the Central Bank, which was supposed to be under the supervision of the ECB, where we were represented on the board. That did not happen. A sequence of things in that regard worried people and still worry them. As I recall, many people could not access their own money at that time. When the country was going broke, the inquiries were thick and fast regarding the few investments people had from the sale of a property, or a relative's property or whatever, which were put into some banks that I will not mention, in deference to them, and which was not a good idea. All people were then concerned about was how to rescue their own funds.

The lesson to be learned from all that is economies do not function unless they can make a profit. They do not have to do a rip-off but they have to make a profit. There has to be stability. A lack of stability undermines any economy very quickly. The thing we all have to remember in this country is the rapidity with which the house of cards fell. The speed with which action had to be taken, and the limited action that could be taken, was frightening. The IMF then came. During the time before the IMF came, everybody was asking where we were going to go from here and what would happen. There were a lot of worried people who could not access their own money. It was not possible for them to access it because it was frozen.

We subsequently had a situation where a number of these banks left the country. Their initial intentions were not as honourable as they should have been.

It exposed the country and our banking system. It did a great deal of damage to the credibility of the banking system and to the general public's regard for that system, on which they relied. It was all downhill in the context of where we were going at that stage. People now do not think about that time. We recovered, or at least we are in the course of recovering. It has not gone away either. It is still there. We continue to carry the burden.

One of the lessons we learned or should have learned on foot of that crisis was that some people did what they thought was the right thing to do, even though it might have been the reckless thing to do. We all heard the stories about banks offering people who were buying houses Mediterranean cruises or things of that nature. That was outlandish. Those banks knew full well that the cruise could be over in two or three weeks, at the best of times, but that the debt would remain for 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years. We continue to carry that debt. The thing we have to learn about that is that we cannot spend at will and put the country at risk. This is because people other the individual who is spending at will are going to be affected. We have to keep an eye on that.

I welcome that the witnesses are going to restore the peculiar little machine that used to dispense cash to the Members of the House. It was not a whole lot of cash; we did not look for much. The ATM was also for the use of the staff of the House, however, of whom there are many. It is good courtesy to the staff and Members of the Houses of Parliament that our guests recognise that some fairly considerable business takes place here and that, as a result, they will reward us in a small way for our diligence, activity and, sometimes, criticism. I sincerely hope that these meetings are a prelude to that. I hope that both our knowledge of where we have come from and what we have learned along the way will stand us in good stead in the time ahead. We do not wish to use ATMs to rob the banks. We want ATMs to serve the customer. The customer is the most important person in this equation. We want satisfied customers who know they can rely on the banking system and who can get cash out of ATMs when they want. We do not want ATMs showing messages to the effect that they are temporarily out of service. That is not a service at all. It gives the banks a bad name. It also reduces the level of trust, which is one if the things financial institutions, be they small or great, have to depend on.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I also thank the members. We are few on the ground, but we make an odd impact now and again. Sometimes we give a good account of ourselves. Our performance in that regard is not dependent on the weather, I hope. I thank everyone very much for being with us.