Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Like previous speakers, I will speak about the proposed new section in the context of the need for transparency and accountability. The details of the scheme the Minister proposes to enter into with the financial institutions, or has already entered into, need to be available to the House in full. Over recent days, the Government has made repeated appeals to Opposition Members. References have been made to the Tallaght strategy and other things. It was obvious that something was coming down the pipeline. We all should have been made aware of it.

Like other Members of the House, a few years ago I served on a committee that thoroughly investigated this country's banking institutions. I think Deputies Ardagh and Rabbitte are the only two members of the committee who are still in this House. We investigated the procedures and practices of the financial institutions at length over a three-month period. We were given numerous reassurances that the situation which unfolded at that time would never be repeated. We examined all the practices which had taken place, some of which were still taking place. Deputies will recall that the various flaws in the system were supposed to be corrected. We were assured that what happened at that time could never happen again. We were told it was impossible that the Government or a Minister would be oblivious to what was going on.

Great emphasis has been placed over recent days on the suggestion that this difficulty developed as a result of the international credit crisis. It did not arise from that source — it arose in this jurisdiction. If the Minister does not recognise that, he is avoiding the facts. He can appeal to this side of the House as much as he likes. We were told repeatedly that the fundamentals were sound and in good order. This proves that was not the case. They have not been good for several years. The Minister can laugh if he wants to, but the fact is that the dogs on the street knew what was happening.

Well-placed economists who knew what they were talking about were rubbished. They were ostracised, set aside and dismissed, yet people should have asked questions at that time. For instance, why was a house in New York or Texas cheaper to purchase than a house here? This is a simple question. Why was that happening? It was an extraordinary situation. The same was true of a house in France, a big country with a large population and a long-established economy. What was happening here? It is still happening.

Obviously, the economy was inflated. What the Government decided to do was to pour more petrol on the fire. During the past eight years, when the Minister for Finance came into this House and read his budget speech, what was the reaction from the Government side of the House? All of the backbenchers with one accord rose from their feet and gave a standing ovation. They cheered and called for more.

The Government has the audacity to call on members of the Opposition to support it blindfolded without giving them the information, telling them into what agreements it has entered or giving any indication to the House as to what the liability might be. Does anybody realise what the consequences of this will be?

As one who has been through this arena already, I would like to see clear evidence as to what arrangements the Minister for Finance has entered into with the financial institutions, what undertakings he has received from them, what indication he has received from them as to their liabilities and how they intend to proceed with the backing of the taxpayers of this country. This is not to be taken or given lightly and one should not in any way be flippant about it.

What worries me most of all is that there is a tendency on the Government side of the House to dismiss anybody who has any reservations, and state that this is big finance and that only certain people understand it. I would not go there, Minister. All the mere plebs in the country and in the House know full well what the implications are and they do not need any explanation or guidebooks to tell them. We have been there before. We read and saw it all and we know what the consequences were.

At this late stage, instead of depending on and asking the Opposition to come in and accept something as a fait accompli I would like to see thorough and proper investigation into how these things happened and what will happen from here on in. If these issues were addressed it would reassure not only Members on all sides of the House but also the general public and consumers, and one must remember that this is all about confidence.

The fact that there is a need for this legislation and the intervention of the Government is a clear indication that if it can go right it can also go wrong. Let us be quite clear. I do not want this situation revisited all over again in a couple of years when we look into our hearts and state we should have asked these questions at the time or that we should have got an undertaking from the Minister or that the Minister should have sought clarification and undertakings but did not do so. We have no way of finding this out. Nobody can reassure us.

What has happened is something that should not have happened. It was totally within the control of the institutions here, namely, the Minister for Finance, the Central Bank and the regulator. Where were they? What happened? Did the Government tell the Central Bank to go easy? Deputies who were members of the Committee of Public Accounts all those years ago will remember all the nods and winks and understandings from time gone by. Was there an understanding that nothing would happen which would in any way arrest the upward trajectory of the economy as it was seen at the time? What were the consequences of this? What are the implications and liabilities now? Why did the regulatory system not work?

During the past seven or eight years, I heard arguments that interest rates were low internationally and it was a great time for the development and expansion of economies and a great time for everybody. However, it was stated that the Governments of Europe did not have the same control because in the eurozone we had low interest rates which were determined by the ECB. There was nothing to stop Governments from having some type of credit control. It was available to any Government at any time. This was the most simple and most obvious thing to do.

There is a great deal of talk about negative equity and sub-prime lending in the United States. A hell of a lot of this also went on here. In these circumstances, I would like to hear from the Minister at the earliest possible stage what he intends to do to bring more confidence back into the system. This can only be done by whatever undertakings he can give to the House today.

See this speech in context