Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I agree entirely with my colleague, Deputy Buttimer, that it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in the situation that the Government must step in to reassure and make good the deficiencies in the system. Failure to do so would be even worse. It would have a knock-on effect throughout the industry and the financial services sector and, worse still, would have direct consequences for employees of Quinn Insurance and the wider responsibilities of that company to the extent that it continues to underwrite. This is reminiscent of a similar case in the 1980s. There was much criticism in the years following that of why the Government of the day responded in such a fashion. Few people have given much consideration to the alternatives but we need to examine, assess and dissect them to try to come to a fair and unequivocal evaluation. For example, it is easy for Opposition Members to screech and roar, wring their hands, tear out their hair and stamp their feet in mock agony at the prospect of shoring up failed financial institutions. However, we need to consider the mock agony in a clearer way because people then need to ask themselves what are the alternatives.

The first is to have a bonfire and burn the bondholders. Let us send a message that we will not pay anybody anymore at local, national and international level and let us see where that takes us. In the past number of weeks, other jurisdictions have sought to go down that road with disastrous consequences. It could well be a great time for a bonfire and there would be great glee on the Opposition benches if the Government was irresponsible enough to go down the road of burning the bondholders and those who are dependent on them consequently. When we go back to the market at a later date seeking an accommodation, they might say they would like to burn the Government now.

Have Opposition Members fully assessed and evaluated the consequences of such action? It is easy to stand on a platform in a town or village down the country and say to a receptive audience that this is unfair. It has been unfair for the past ten years but nobody said a word. The unfairness continued when everybody was having a party. Many Opposition Members were in government then and they did not think anything unfair about it then. However, everybody in our society has to pay and, sadly, no amount of rhetoric will change that. If we burn the bondholders, let us be sure of what the consequences will be and let us be sure about who will gain most from them. Many people will not only in this country, but throughout Europe. The consequences will be negative and they could set the country back in its development and in working its way out of the economic crisis.

I pay tribute to the Minister for the Trojan work done over the past six or seven months to regain control and respectability in so far as our institutions are concerned in the international arena and for continuing the war of attrition to see who would blink first in the international debate. It was a difficult task but the taxpayer has gained several billion euro and the Minister's efforts will continue. Somebody should print a super charter for reference to Opposition Members. They all the say same thing. They want us to be responsible but they want us to return to our old ways. We borrowed irresponsibly in the past and now they want to us be irresponsible again and tell everybody we will not pay it back by burning the bondholders. They then want write-downs. Let us all go into a bank some day and say we will not pay back the money we borrowed last year and then tell the bank manager that we will borrow more money next year but will not pay back that either. Let us have a write-down anyway or a bonfire for bondholders.

I was in the House in the 1980s when emergency legislation was introduced to deal with a similar issue and if the Government of the day had not responded in that fashion, there would have been serous consequences. Similarly, there will be consequences from this decision. The only proviso I seek is that in the future it should be open to the Minister for Finance or another Minister to be able to intervene to have a direct impact on those who are facilitated if it transpires in the future that following the rescue package, there is some means of accountability. That is my only regret about the rescue in the 1980s. The Government, not the insurance industry, should have had a facility to monitor what was happening and a facility to intervene if it emerged at a later stage that the State had shored up what needed to be shored up at the time the shoring up was necessary and the time had come for the company to stand on its own two feet and not come back for more.

This a problem for the previous Government parties, albeit they realised at a late stage that the party was over, the boat had left the shore and they was stranded. At that stage, they had to make a calculated decision as to whether to burn the bondholders and take the consequences or whether they should take control of the situation. They took the worst of all options by providing a written guarantee for everything, which was a mistake. If a more graduated response had been pursued, we would not be in as much trouble but we would still have a serious difficulty borrowing money on the markets because the crisis had been prolonged for three or four more years than it should have been and no action had been taken. I do not know why that was because nobody has ever told us why action was not taken. I can only believe that people drove along as if nothing was on the horizon. People said afterwards that nobody had told them. One should expect to be told if one is in public office, particularly in government. One should ask the penetrating questions about what is happening, why it is happening, at whose behest and who will gain or lose most.

To be responsible and accountable, we have to do what has to be done. It is not something we welcome, glory in or wish to repeat on a regular basis. It is not something that we should have had to do in the first place but it is something we are now forced to do because the alternatives do not stand up.

See this speech in context