Rónán Mullen (Independent)

There is a difference between appropriate outrage and inappropriate outrage. We should feel appropriate outrage when we learn of the kind of transaction that took place in regard to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Life & Permanent, where what was in fact a loan obtained by Anglo Irish Bank was dressed up dishonestly as a deposit from another bank. This points up the fact that we need something more than just strict regulation. We need a rediscovery of ethics at the heart of our society, a return to traditional ethics and communitarian values and especially within the business community. We need to take a root and branch look at the way business is taught in our colleges and to look at whether ethics and issues of professional integrity form a sufficiently emphasised part of the coursework of students. We cannot look at this as an issue of regulation or indeed an issue of punishment, which I hope will follow in due course. We need to focus on the issues of ethics and integrity.

Inappropriate outrage, however, is exemplified by the response to the lack of awareness of the Minister for Finance of a particular detail at a particular point in time. I disagree that this is fundamental. In the real world of politics, Ministers and Governments have people advising them and the important thing is that at the right time the civil servants made the regulator aware of this transaction and it is not significant that at a particular point in time the Minister was unaware of that particular fact when he was focusing on something more pressing. For us to get hung up on this point illustrates a split mindset where on the one hand we are pretending we are very concerned about the state of the economy and on the other hand we are falling prey to the temptation to play partisan politics. We need to keep a sense of proportion if we are going to act and speak responsibly about economic issues.

I note the very significant fact that the German constitutional court is asking the hard questions about the Lisbon treaty. This points up a number of issues including that there would be a significant transformational effect brought about by the Lisbon treaty, a transformational effect which some will oppose and some will support. What it certainly points up is the need to give emphasis to our Constitution. Just as our German colleagues are unafraid to emphasise the importance of and fundamental rights in the understanding of their constitution, we also should ensure there is constitutional underpinning for any guarantees that are to be sought on social and ethical issues or other matters as per last December's agreement.

No matter how good the guarantees are going to be, the Government will not be trusted when it goes to the people and says that these guarantees are substantial, if people do not see that these guarantees are rooted in our own Constitution. The Government has been warned; if it is going to make a case it must remember that it will not be trusted because it has not been objective in the past about the positives as well as the negatives relating to our membership of the European Union and various treaties. Because there is that trust deficit, the Government needs to go the extra mile to assure people that the guarantees it appears to have obtained or which have yet to be fully negotiated are rooted in our Constitution and not just operating at the level of European law and subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice.