Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

John Steinbeck wrote quite a bit about hardship as well. The wasteland was described by him very clearly in the Grapes of Wrath. It behoves us all, as we are in a poetic mood, to read all that he wrote about how those circumstances came about. The one lesson to be learned from that, as the Acting Chairman and I well know, is that nothing has changed. That is the sad part of it. Unfortunately, many people on the opposite side of the House who recently spoke believe what they said. They believe it on the basis that they have been told that this legislation is the solution to the problem.

As the Acting Chairman could tell the House, a former Committee of Public Accounts inquired into the activities of the banks fairly thoroughly and it identified all the issues that have come up to bite us again. Following the DIRT inquiry, the banks gave a firm undertaking that they would never go down that route again, that they would attend to their fiduciary duties in an open and clear way, that there would be good governance and regular and independent audits and that they would in no way manipulate the finances of their respective institutions in a manner that would undermine the State and the interests of its citizens. As was mentioned, despite all our efforts at that time, the late chairman of that committee lost his seat in the subsequent general election. The Acting Chairman was a member of that committee, as were Deputy Rabbitte, myself and one or two others. The one lesson we learned from dealing with that kind of organisation or group of people involved in big business is they do not care. They could not care less about legislators. To show their contempt for legislators, they embarked on the same course that they were on before.

The Financial Regulator, the Governor of the Central Bank and the Secretary General of the Department of Finance said in the past six months that they all spoke out, but how did we not hear them? How did the general public not hear them? If they spoke out, why was Government policy not adjusted in accordance with their concerns and views? All that happened in the past seven or eight years was that the people who did speak out and who raised concerns about the issues were ridiculed. The people on this side of the House and the people outside of this House, a mere handful, who spoke out, raised questions and wondered what was going on were ridiculed. They were told to get lost, they did not know what they were talking about, they were being unpatriotic and were undermining the economy. It was such a stupid way to carry on, blindfolded and lemon-like. The population were led over the edge of the abyss. I can only conclude, and I may be wrong, that if all the people who did that to this country are not guilty, then the people who gave direction, instruction and were in government are guilty. One way or the other, it is important that this nation finds out because if these crimes, which is what they are, go unpunished, I guarantee that in ten years time somebody will be sitting in this House reviewing the same old story again.

Deputy Lee made an interesting comparison when he referred to the 15% market value upgrade to compensate the people who are to guide the economy forward. It will be a type of bridge to help us move from the desperate position we are in now on to dry land, which the Government and the architects of this plan hope will happen and that we will be overtaken by inflation and positive measures in this economy and the worldwide economy. The worldwide economic problem is totally different from the one that affects this country. While there is a worldwide economic problem, we have our own self-invented one imposed on the people of this country by the State, the Government, the banks and the so-called experts. Deputy Lee said it was more like a 100% mark-up because it was tied to the valuation and he is right.

During the past five or six years we all heard that the cause of the economic bubble in the construction sector was the granting of 100% loans, but it was not because 150% and 170% loans were offered. All one had to go was to search for a loan on the Internet or look up houses for sale on the various building sites. The first two houses on a site advertised in a morning were offered for sale at €200,000, by that evening the price had increased to €250,000 and by the following day it had increased to €300,000. It was a crazy situation. Deputy Gogarty will be aware that in his village houses increased in value by €80,000 over one weekend. How in God's name could that be tolerated anywhere? Who was going mad? The banking sector got into business with the construction sector and they decided to screw the whole population and to offer more and more money to each person competing in the market for a basic house, but they eliminated the first-time buyer from the market. The first-time buyer was not required. They decided to form companies, buy their own property, set up a management agency and rent property to the unfortunate potential first-time buyer at a rent that precluded him or her from ever being able to afford to take out a mortgage. Stupid notions were put forward by various well-meaning people to the effect we should have a savings scheme for these people, that we should not help them out except by way of a savings scheme over a number of years as we all had to save hard when we were younger. How in God's name could people take out a mortgage if they were already effectively paying a high mortgage by way of rent? I could never conceive how people did not understand that.

During the 1980s when, allegedly, things were bad in this country every Member at the time would have had regular meetings with their constituents, particularly first-time buyers. There was never was a time, even in the bleakest of those days, that it was not possible to encourage a potential first-time buyer towards acquiring his or her own house. All a person needed was a job or even the potential of getting a job and that person would be able to hold on to his or her house. All the criticisms that were levelled at people at that time who were unemployed to the effect that they were not willing to work and so on was rubbish. Those people proved that as soon as soon as the opportunity arose.

I do not know if anyone else interpreted a reference in the Taoiseach's speech this morning that way I did, but I found it alarming. In the second paragraph on page 5 of his speech he said:

The Government's existing recapitalisation package includes a number of measures to boost lending and underpin economic activity. These measures include a commitment by the two main banks to increase lending capacity to small and medium-sized enterprises in 2009 by 10% over the 2008 levels ...

He said to increase lending capacity; he did not say to increase lending. Lending is currently zilch and I do not know what the lending capacity is because nobody knows that. Lending is zero and one can increase on zero by any percentage and it will still be nothing. The Taoiseach went on to say, "... and to provide an additional 30% capacity for lending to first-time buyers [in 2009]." He again used the word "capacity". He did not say to provide an additional 30% in lending. In other words, the banks and the lending institutions will have the potential to lend an extra 30% to first-time buyers over their capacity to lend in 2009. Nothing is being loaned currently. Nobody cares about first-time buyers. What NAMA proposes to do, sadly by one means or another, is to once again make first-time buyers shoulder the burden, which has been dropped on them and the rest of the population, by having to pay increased prices for their houses. It is incredible.

Up to recently, the maximum loan available through the various local authority shared ownership schemes was €185,000. That is ironic as it could be a saver for them. Then, all of a sudden, when the country went bust it was increased to €250,000. I never heard the like of that in my life. I do not know how something like that could happen. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, who is sitting opposite understands. He deals with that kind of situation himself. I had occasion to argue with various financial institutions in recent years. I could not understand what they were trying to do, but now I know. I can see it all now. The Taoiseach continued in his speech to say:

The Financial Regulator is monitoring compliance with these lending targets. Furthermore, AIB and Bank of Ireland have each created funds to support projects which have a positive impact on the environment or will provide innovation in clean energy and have committed to seed capital funds, in collaboration with Enterprise Ireland, to support further the creation and development of new enterprises.

That is the bit to appease the Greens to which various other speakers referred. If the Green Party Members across the Chamber believe that, they will believe anything. I have to hand it to the Government in general and Fianna Fáil in particular. Their antics in the past 12 months would make a pet fox look dull. They knew full well what was going on. They know that the culprits who created the economic situation in this country should be before the courts. Is that not a fact? In any other country they would be. They do not care because there is no chance of that happening. The Greens and everybody else can talk as much as they like about it but if it was a business person or a householder falling behind in their mortgage he or she would quickly be before the courts.

There are plenty of such people before the courts at this moment. I heard somebody from the Government side of the House say in recent days that there is no evidence of that. They had better believe there is evidence on a daily basis of people coming before the courts. I have been there myself to speak on behalf of constituents who find themselves in that situation. Other Members of this House have done so as well. For God's sake, we need to recognise what is going on around us. We are in a serious situation.

It has been suggested that no rules nor laws have been broken by the institutions. Then why do we have the Companies Act 1990? Some of us spent six months in Kildare House on Committee Stage of that Bill. We were buried alive while going through the legislation in detail. What were we there for? What about the procedures relating to persons found guilty of malfeasance or a failure to uphold the good conduct of the company? What about the sanction of them being banned from ever holding office? What about them being discharged dishonourably from the office they held? In spite of that, what do we do in this country? We say, "Sorry, you're nice guys. You made a bit of a mess of it and we have to give you a different job. Here is a little golden handshake as you go out the door. We do not want much to be said about it. There might be some hassle about it. Let us be clear, you did well".

That is what the public is concerned about. That is what makes people angry. The Government has managed to turn that anger on the Members of the Oireachtas and the institutions of the State. For their own reasons some media outlets want to do the same thing. It is now commonly recognised that it was the institutions of State that were wrong. Let us not forget some of what is being peddled in the context of the Lisbon treaty emanates from some elements in Whitehall. They say the political classes have lost their touch. I thought we got rid of the political classes in 1922. What is happening now is that public confidence in the Oireachtas is being undermined. That is a serious issue and will have widespread implications in the short term as well as the long term. This is a serious issue as when it happened previously in Europe there were disastrous consequences.

I say to those who say that such things cannot happen again to read back on what the people who spoke about those issues said in the 1930s. The first thing that happens is that public confidence in the institutions diminishes and then they have to be replaced. It is the replacement that always worries me. One of the stories being peddled will suit the Government at the moment, but it will not always suit the Government that the Opposition can do nothing either, which means nothing can be done. That is the first sign of despair and that is the first danger of society breaking down. It may be all right for political reasons to castigate the Opposition but its Members are the people who have asked the necessary questions.

Six or seven months ago I heard the presenter of a radio show inquire about how the Opposition had never said anything about what was going on. He never heard the Opposition ask any questions. Where was he? He was on the tiger's back racing for the line as if his life depended upon it. There is no use in people blaming the Opposition for the situation that is now unfolding. The Government was running the country and it had absolute responsibility. The sooner people realise that the better for themselves. I will not criticise the Green Party for going into Government in the past two years. To quote another party leader who went into Government in the not too distant past: "These are people we can do business with". Unfortunately the Green Party is doing business with Fianna Fáil now and there will be consequences for both parties.

The current situation requires fairly substantial retribution against those people who caused the problem. In any other jurisdiction they would be before the courts. I cannot understand why they are not. Everybody else is subject to the rule of law and to punishment, but in this country they have decided to punish the institutions of the State and the Members of the House, reduce their salaries on the basis that they did something wrong and create the impression that everybody is crooked. That is a great way to undermine public confidence in everything and there is where the danger lies.

Deputy White referred to an issue previously. Dr. Bacon made many recommendations on the survival package. He also produced three reports on the housing sector. It is extraordinary that the same artist comes back to visit the scene of the crime with a view to addressing the problems he originally created. That is ironic.

There is a notion abroad that if one reduces the cost of building land that will solve all of the problems. It will not, because even if the building land was given to the developers for nothing it would not affect the price of houses because of the role played by greed. The same thing would happen if development land was given free to the builders in the morning. It is a myth that the provision of land to developers for nothing or half nothing would result in a reduction in the price of housing. If one needs proof, one can check on some of the lands that were sold for exactly that before the boom started and see what became of them very quickly without ever a sod being turned.

The Acting Chairman, Deputy Ardagh, knows I could talk for a lot longer. He could talk for a lot longer also. He and I were together on an inquiry that relates exactly to the issues we are now talking about, which are seen to be causes of the damage to the economy. Nothing happened although we made the sacrifices. We took a lot of abuse at the time but we have not forgotten.

See this speech in context