Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

The Bill introduces a framework for the resolution of distressed institutions. While I welcome some of the provisions, which are long overdue and which could help to ease the burden created by the financial crisis or collapse in 2008, what we really need is a change in culture and political orientation that will prevent credit institutions from ever reaching the stage of catastrophic distress again.

We must put several basic questions. How did the banks destroy the economy? How was this allowed to happen? Why were banks allowed to grow to the extent that they posed such a threat to the entire society? The Bill does nothing to answer these questions or to address the fundamental structural problems in a capitalist system that has allowed the banks to grow to the point where they threatened the foundations of our society. The Bill has nothing to say about why we should allow financial institutions to hold such vast power over ordinary people. It says nothing about why the markets in which the banks operate should hold such incredible power. It says nothing about why ordinary people have no say over these money markets. It says nothing about the fact that the money markets, as has been demonstrated to dramatic effect in the past three years, are remarkably fragile and reliant on the most fragile of all human traits, that is, confidence.

The past 30 years have been marked by a belief that the markets should be treated as some type of untouchable authority. At times, this belief resembled a kind of religious fanaticism. The idea that markets could solve all problems and create wealth in a sustainable way from complex, risk-taking behaviours was held in an unquestioning manner. This religious faith, or what masquerades for it in much in much the same way as the faith of our religious institutions, has been repaid in the most appalling manner and capitalism has been shown to be a failure in this respect.

There is a great difference between money and wealth. We are aware that a great deal of money was sloshing around but that did not deliver wealth that could be shared. Were we to learn one thing from the economic catastrophe, which is a catastrophe at societal level, it is that the money markets are not the rational, efficient mechanisms about which we were told. On the contrary, we are all well aware now that markets are an undemocratic forum for faceless financiers acting out a herd instinct with short-term profit motives.

Money markets are the opposite of a rational mechanism for deciding how society's wealth should be created, distributed and controlled. In the past 30 years we have seen a dramatic increase in the size, power and influence of financial institutions. When historians write about the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century they will surely describe it as the era of the global financial institution, one that is un-elected, undemocratic and supremely powerful. How was this allowed to happen? The issue we are debating today tells us nothing in this regard or about how to address the issue.

Another striking feature of the debate on financial institutions in recent years is the question of banks being too big to fail. What does this really mean? We have two big banks at the moment and I cannot understand why these banks will not be too big to fail in future because it is argued that they will be our systemic banks.

I opposed the Maastricht treaty. I knocked on doors because I was concerned that the convergence criteria would be an impossibility were we to get into difficulties in future. I met those who would pay the price for this because they relied on the State for services and income. I have not had the chance to listen to the radio today but I hope the Minister will give us some positive news from that point of view. I am sick to death of waking up and listening to Moody's and Standard & Poor's in regard to financial products, including sub-prime products and all the rest, which are not actually products at all. The Bill deals with a small area but far more is needed in terms of defining the kind of economic system that can support the creation of real wealth and create wealth in such a way that it can be distributed more equally within our society.

See this speech in context