Alex White (Labour)

Lest the Government parties think the issues being debated throughout the country such as, last week, the medical card for those over 70 and, this week, class sizes can be neatly compartmentalised into weeks and can be dealt with individually week by week, they should be very clear that these issues will not go away. I agree entirely with the comments of Senators Twomey and O'Toole about the need for a debate on the medical cards question, which should happen as soon as possible. Senator O'Toole is also correct that while the Labour Party has tabled a Private Members' motion for debate later on the disabilities question, there is a clear need for a debate on the wider question of the myriad education cuts the Government introduced in the budget.

I echo Senator O'Toole's question regarding the Green Party. Does the Deputy Leader agree with a statement made by a prominent Green Party politician yesterday that her party would appear to have "no bottom line or any clearly defined point whereupon the party might morally say enough is enough"? Has the party a bottom line? Is there any cut it is not prepared to justify or principle it is not prepared to jettison? Is there anything it is not prepared to put up with in the context of this bottom line that we are asked to believe the party has? The party leader responded to this by announcing we are facing into an economic abyss. That is not good enough. People voted for and transferred to that party on the basis of very solemn commitments given, including on the question of education, and they are entitled to an answer from its members at this stage unless they are happy to contribute to the increasing cynicism about politics and political parties at election time by saying one thing on the doorstep and doing something else entirely six weeks or six months later.

Will the Leader revisit the banking crisis, another issue that has not gone away despite the preoccupations of the Government and the Houses in recent weeks? The all-night session we spent discussing this matter three weeks ago was something of a circus, which I say advisedly because I have the greatest respect for the House. It is difficult to understand why an all-night session and votes at dawn were necessary when the Minister only signed the order late last week, bringing into being the guarantee that he had announced with such fanfare three or four weeks previously.

Will the Leader arrange a debate on why the Government believes that it can deal with the fundamental crisis in the banking system? As Senator Mary White and others stated, it is a practical rather than a theoretical issue. It affects people who need money to ensure the survival of their businesses. A debate is necessary on why the Government believes that it can solve the banking crisis without dealing with the gaping under-capitalisation issue. Experts such as academics and journalists, including the internationally renowned journalist Mr. Will Hutton, who is in Dublin today, point out daily that the Government and small businesses will rue the day when the former made such a short-sighted and incomplete decision on the banks and failed to face up to the fundamental issue, namely, the need to revitalise and recapitalise banks.

Professor Morgan Kelly of UCD referred to the guarantee scheme, on which much time was spent debating, as akin to Fannie Mae, the American mortgage company, immediately prior to nationalisation, that is, "alive but economically useless". He went on to describe the decision as "the worst economic decision of any Irish Government in the last 30 years". Given that this point was made by a serious economic commentator, we must debate the issue again and examine the crisis at the heart of the banking system.