Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the economic crisis to which this Bill is addressed. The people are anxious that we would be positive. We should know the character of that which has failed and brought us to this position, and be able to look at real options for constructing an alternative that would impact on their lives. Those most concerned are those who have already lost their jobs in the private sector, those whose jobs are threatened in both the private and public sector, and those who are now facing a reduction in meagre incomes as a result of this Bill, which will significantly reduce their capacity to participate in society, affect the opportunities available to their children, and affect their lives in the most basic areas.

Language is incredibly important, as it can mislead people or be of help to them. When we speak of solidarity, it is important to ask — solidarity with whom? The solidarity we need is that which would be at the root of a kind of citizenship that would see the economy accountable to political principles that are ethical in themselves. That version of solidarity is entirely different from the kind of solidarity that is present within the Irish business class. What do I mean by this? When one looks at the former directors of Anglo Irish Bank and the directors of other banks, as well as the members of boards right across the corporate sector in Ireland, one would see what we would call in the social sciences "a very dense network". It is where the chief executive of one body becomes the chairman of another body, and as the chairman vacates the chair, he becomes the member of the board of yet another company. The members of that circle have demonstrated significant solidarity with themselves.

It is shameful that the Government refuses to do what is necessary if we are to have public respect and a restoration of trust. If we are to reduce the size of the debt which we are paying in international interest payments, we need objectively to deal with breaches of the law and breaches of governance. Of equal importance is the need to send a symbolic message to state that the old circle is being put out of business and that a new kind of solidarity based on responsible citizenship — a genuine republicanism — is being put in its place. However, we do not see any suggestion that there will be such a sweep across the boards of institutions that have done such damage to Ireland and its future. We see little evidence that this will take place.

Being positive, I want to suggest it is a time for new ideas. Why is the Government unable to admit that the suggestion of regulation with a light touch was a disastrous tragedy which brought us into disrepute? Why is it unable to say that the worst Minister for Finance, former Deputy Charlie McCreevy, who is now a Commissioner and is regarded in Europe as a disastrous product of the neoliberal school of economics, has given it a poisoned chalice with his notion of regulation with a light touch? He has damaged the Office of the Financial Regulator, the Central Bank and the reputation of this country. The bill is being passed on to some of those who have the least capacity to pay. Will the consequences of Commissioner McCreevy's actions be carried by those who benefited under the so-called Celtic tiger? Will landlords with endless properties who are getting rental interest relief pay? No. Will the people at the top of the banking tree who have an unlimited capacity to purchase additional pension rights pay? No. Will those who have gained benefits from private hospitals on public hospital ground pay? No. Will middle-level public servants pay? Yes. Why is this so? This is very interesting.

I want to mention one of the most shameful things regarding solidarity because it is very important. When I speak about the banks I refer to those at the top of the tree. I find it somewhat cynical that those who chaired the boards of banks can write in The Irish Times today about the lean, flexible economy we need to create. It is very sad that ordinary people who work at lower levels in the banks sometimes encounter the opprobrium of members of the public. That is wrong because these people were recruited during that neoliberal period that drove down wages. Tellers at the counters of banks are not responsible for those who gave them low wages and little security, and who greased their own tills.

In the public service many people are taking the brunt of what has been directed at them, and this is very important. People tell them that because they have a meagre pension they are to be put into tension and conflict with the unemployed in the private sector. This is another scandalous suggestion, cynical and disgraceful in its manipulation. During the 2008 benchmarking most of the public servants who will pay the levy, those in the middle ranks, had their pensions judged to be worth 12.5%. They paid 6.5% on that and then the 1% levy. Now they will pay another levy. The suggestion was put around that because they had a pension of any kind they were the enemies of the private sector and, worse, that they were not contributing to their pensions. It was a disgraceful lie perpetrated and, sometimes, whipped up by the media.

I am a long time in politics and know moral cowardice when I see it. Let those who are asking people to wear sackcloth and ashes have the courage to say who should wear the sackcloth and who should have the ashes. Are they talking about all those who work in banks? Why have they not the courage to name the people they know well, whom they invited to their seminars and to whom they would look for philanthropy? On the other side when they speak of the politicians they are afraid to name those who subscribed to the neoliberal model, were in favour of regulation with a light touch and went on to bring this message from Ireland to Europe. This is the lazy and cowardly way to save the politicians and bankers and instead to drag down all politicians and the person with the most menial position in a bank. Shame on them for their lack of courage.

We can examine what is happening in all the European countries as they respond to something undeniable. Here I agree with members of the Government. There is an international credit crisis, however within that there is a home-grown Irish crisis, namely the property bubble that was created in Ireland. From 2006 it was perfectly clear that we were receiving an inordinate amount of property-related revenue. We were looking on. People can suggest why that is. The Governor of the Central Bank suggests his job relates to the solvency of the banking system so he accepts what they say to him. The Financial Regulator accepts the auditors of the banks and the Department of Finance accepts the legal opinion offered to the delinquent banks. This is lovely and very decorous, but totally insufficient.

This comes from something that has been developed through the second half of the 1980s to the present. People opposed the role of the State, but what are these people doing now? They are turning to the State and using it to take out of ordinary people's pockets money that will prop up a failed and unaccountable banking system. What happened when we wanted the State to invest in schools and infrastructure and be involved in industry? They said we must keep the State out and favour regulation with a light touch.

The old gang is still there. If we are to move forward we must objectively make changes and send a symbolic message that we have cleared out the stables and that they are disqualified from boards in which the Irish Government will have a significant shareholding. We would support such moves by the Government and moves on job creation. We would fully support the Government if it suggested it would have not just a bord snip but a board that would examine every obstacle to retraining, returning to education or getting a caring occupation regarded as a full job and every delay in redundancy payments. However, to get to the point of creating jobs in the green and social economies and to return to the traded economy that is producing and exporting we need to get the banking chaos out of the way. We cannot do that on a drip, drip basis.

That is why the Labour Party has suggested eight principles to deal with banking, including the establishment of a banking commission. Those eight principles exist objectively and the international community can see them. This year we are paying €4.5 billion interest on the national debt and we spend €55 million per day to run the country. We will spend 25% of all our tax on interest and we are borrowing at 2.5% over the prime German rate precisely because of the poisonous circle that brought Anglo Irish Bank and us to where we are.

This is the kind of immunity they desire. They sit on other boards and are the admired class. They are the people who change one from the other. People even appoint them to State and semi-State boards. It is a time for a new politics and a different connection between economy and politics. It is time for ethics and transparency. It is time to end that old, poisonous circle, and to tell the world we are ending it and that we are part of a new kind of thinking that has the best of intellectual work in economics, talking about the social economy, a connection between ethics, society, politics and economy. That means it is the end of the old neo-liberal myth. It is time for Charlie McCreevy to go away and repent, not come back here. He has left a deadly legacy and those who try to prop it up are no friends of Ireland as we try to come out of this crisis.

See this speech in context