Dan Boyle (Green Party)

At this ungodly hour of the morning we need to ask ourselves how we got to where we are now. It has resulted from a combination of factors, mainly the global situation and partially the situation in which we find ourselves in this country. We are in a position, not unlike that in other jurisdictions, to present to other countries an alternative and a response that is unique. The Government has come up with a response that is in the Irish interest and reflects the reality of the economy. That said, we are in epoch making times. Many of us may question the epoch we are about to make but we must live with the reality of where we are because of a combination of factors, partially global but many brought about by irresponsible practices. The fact that there were those irresponsible practices must be acknowledged by this Chamber and those of us in public life who recognise that we live in a world where the global situation is having too much of an affect on our everyday lives.

I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Finance. The reality of what we are proposing is that the Government is choosing a response that what is local and indigenous is what we need to protect in the first instance. The uncertainty of the global economic climate means we have to take a course of action that whatever economic activity we need to protect, enhance and promote in the future must in the first place be based in the economy. We have come through an economic climate globally where we have been led to believe the shifting sands of what can be produced in terms of economic wealth do not require long-term sustainability. We know this is not the case. There is a responsibility to which we must live up. In terms of where we need to get to, we must recognise that the financial systems internationally and what has been practised in this country and elsewhere throughout the European Union have been based on a mythology and dishonesty such that people believe wealth can be created out of nothing.

What is being proposed by the Government is that the State needs to take in hand, by way of a underwriting agreement, that the future of the economy is based on the fact that, being the only body that can bring about a guarantee of stability, at least in the short term, it is putting in place a financial system that will be more sustainable in the future than that which we have had in the recent past. We can look at others to make accusations, the United States being the pre-eminent economy on which we have relied too heavily to bring about an unreality as to where we are at.

Ultimately, the Bill asks questions not only of our financial system but where we as legislators can bring our people in terms of a new economic reality. I am satisfied that the safeguards in place here are better than those being proposed by other countries. The reality of the United States vote, which many of us were watching while we were waiting to start this debate, whereby a toxic debt that is not redeemable in the short term is being bought and where our nearest jurisdiction, the United Kingdom, is buying up financial institutions, as and when they are likely to go out of business, is not one that a small economy such as ours can face up to. We are proposing a measure that is bold in its intent but which can be more successful in the medium and long term than what I would argue are the other panic reactions of larger and more established economies. We should take the courage of that conviction and bring it forward and learn the lessons of the economic success we have gained during the past ten years. Otherwise, we will just be repeating the mistakes and replicating other economic failures we have seen throughout the world. I encourage Members to follow that example.