Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

However, while it would be odd to say the Government deserves no credit for the boom, suddenly, when things go wrong, it would be equally odd to suggest it is entirely responsible for everything that has gone wrong. Particularly as we are discussing banking credit and financial institutions, there is a huge global dimension in this which is absolutely undeniable.

Last October at the IMF a senior US treasury official admitted that the decision on Lehman Brothers had triggered the global financial crisis. The way in which that affected individual countries depended on their position and what decisions had been taken. I admit freely that we are not the worst affected, but among the worst affected, a reasonably objective way of putting it. The mantra was repeated, not only by the Labour Party but the newly elected Deputy for Dublin South, with whom Senator Alex White competed, that the country was awash with money until a year ago. That was always the premise and it followed that, because the country was awash with money, the Government could afford to do A, B, C and D. There was no real sense in most political debate that resources were constrained or that they should be used prudently. We believed we were operating within a much greater margin of safety than was the case. There was either a surplus or we operated underneath a 1% deficit in government borrowing when the ceiling was 3%. This is not only our experience. I suspect the list of countries still adhering to the Maastricht criteria for government deficit is rather short.

I appreciate the Senator's compliment of the Leinster House research system. I was a member of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission when a decision was made to expand the service considerably. The Senator raised the question of whether Anglo Irish Bank was a systemic institution. A principle underlying the Bill is that confidence in not necessarily rational-based. It may be possible to put forward a rational argument that Anglo Irish Bank was not or should not have been systemic. However, if confidence in the banking system was to collapse by letting it go to the wall, the rationality or otherwise would not really have mattered. Much of the purpose of the Bill relates to credit institutions in which there may be non-rational loss of confidence and which remain solvent institutions. Were such a loss to take place, a given bank could argue until it is blue in the face that it is solvent but it will not prevent a serious situation from arising.

I dealt with the risk differential question and it is something the Minister for Finance may act upon if he sees the need.

Senator Boyle referred to the pensions of former senior executives of Anglo Irish Bank. Needless to say, this matter is not the subject of the legislation. I presume the payments are being made on very strong legal advice, but the appropriate redress is to ensure whether people acted within the law through investigations and, if they did not do so, to take the appropriate action.

Senator Paul Coghlan referred to credit unions, which are utilised by so many people. They play a very important function in our economic life and are relevant for many people.

Senator Hanafin called for a debate in which all parties would put their cards on the table, including detailed plans of what they would do. He expressed an equally realistic expectation that this would not necessarily take place. To be fair, the roles of Government and Opposition are different. A major part of the role of the Opposition is to play devil's advocate. It is the existence of democratic opposition that distinguishes democratic government from any other form. I recall when we were in opposition and the conditions applied as much then as they do now for the parties opposite. Oppositions take up positions that they would not necessarily take up in government but simply because part of its job is to represent the other point of view. In the case of a general election there would be an onus on parties, in their own self-interest and not because of any preaching from this side of the House, to set out in more detail their approach to problems. There have been instances in which things were going so much in one direction that Opposition parties had to put very little on the table in that regard. While general abstract statements have been made about taking tough decisions and cutting expenditure, in terms of detail the approach has been very soft-focus. All the emphasis has been on positive suggestions on taxation and expenditure which would cost money in the context in which there is already a very significant €20 billion gap, as Senator Hanafin remarked. I expect the debate will intensify in the coming two or three years in one form or other. I trust I have addressed as many questions as possible. I thank Senators for their contributions and for their support for the Bill on Second Stage.