Dáil debates

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government: Motion

 

5:00 am

Photo of Leo VaradkarLeo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak against the motion, which expresses confidence in the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen. Needless to say, this debate comes at a difficult time for my party. However, the Government should not make the mistake of thinking that Fine Gael is weakened or that its resolve is diminished. We remain united in our determination to remove this broken and discredited Government and to replace it with a new one led by Fine Gael.

The reports produced by Regling and Watson and Professor Honohan confirm our worst suspicions about the Government's involvement in creation of the economic crisis. They also confirm that the crisis was home-made and that the worst of it could have been avoided if the Government had introduced different policies when it had the opportunity to do so.

Since the economy went into recession two years ago, those on the Government benches have informed us that the collapse of Lehman Brothers was to blame for the current crisis and that an economic or financial storm created on Wall Street crossed the Atlantic and affected Ireland's economy. We now know that this is untrue. As the reports indicate, the crisis was home-made and could have been avoided if the Government had pursued different policies.

The reports blame the banks, the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator - those Government institutions which barked but which did not bite - and the Government. They blame the Government for its policy to reduce tax at a time when it should not have done so and certainly not to the extent to which it did. They also blame the Government for increasing spending when it should have applied the brakes. Furthermore, they blame the Government for allowing the banks to run amok by permitting inappropriate regulation and appointing the wrong people to regulatory roles.

There has been some debate regarding ideology in recent times. This is an interesting debate and it was touched upon in last night's television documentary on the Progressive Democrats. People love to talk about Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, new liberalism, and so on, as if possessing an ideology or being idealistic is a bad thing. Having an ideology and being possessed of some level of idealism - regardless of whether one is on the right or the left or one pursues a different philosophy - is good.

The problem with the Government during the ten-year period of the boom was that it had no ideology or principles. During the period to which I refer, the Government acted like a left-wing administration by increasing spending and throwing more and more money and resources at problems as if that were the only possible solution. At the same time, it acted like a right-wing administration by cutting taxes, thereby undermining the tax base, and failing to put in place the crucial regulatory structures that were required. The Government's major failing was that it believed in nothing and had no ideology.

We would be in a much better position if a Government such as the rainbow coalition, which combined different senses of idealism and ideology and which tried to do what was right, not what was popular, had been in power. The only matter of interest to those opposite is re-election. They have been very good at doing this but consider the consequences of their actions for the country. On every occasion, those opposite sought to buy the people's votes with the people's money. In that context, one need only consider the extent to which public spending increased in the two years leading up to the general elections of 2002 and 2007. If one put this information on a graph, one would be presented with a picture of twin peaks. In the two years prior to elections to which I refer, the Government ramped up spending, cut taxes and bought the people's vote with their own money. I am sure those in government will try this approach again. They will introduce tough budgets and then try to throw in a pleasant one in its final year in office in the hope that people will fall for its brand of politics for a third time. I sincerely hope that this will not prove to be the case.

Speakers referred to my party's general election manifesto from 2007. I accept that some of the criticism relating to said manifesto may be legitimate. However, one thing is absolutely certain: nothing in my party's manifesto was responsible for causing this crisis. As the reports of Regling and Watson and Professor Honohan show, the crisis was caused by decisions made by the Members opposite. Those reports make no findings against the parties in opposition.

It is crucial that there should be proper accountability. In the banking sector, almost all of the chief executives and the chairmen and members of the boards have gone. Messrs. Fingleton, Fitzpatrick and Sheehy are gone and good riddance to them. On the regulatory side, the former Governor of the Central Bank and the former chief executive of the Financial Regulator have also gone. The only people who remain in place and who have not accepted responsibility or been held accountable for what they have done are the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, and his Cabinet Ministers. The position in that regard must change.

It is not that I do not believe the Taoiseach to be a decent man. I regard him as such. Neither is it because I believe him to be corrupt; he is not. However, the Taoiseach is responsible, in substantial part, for the current crisis and he is the only person who has not accepted responsibility and moved aside in the way that all others who were found to be responsible have done.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.