Dan Boyle (Green Party)

In the dark days of October 2008 the Government response of extending the guarantee to financial institutions was met with a knee-jerk reaction that it was wrong. In retrospect it can be seen as the right approach, not only in the settling effect it had domestically but also in the way it was accepted and built upon in other jurisdictions. Listening to the Bill being debated in the other House, I was saddened to hear some of those shibboleths being maintained as objects of legitimate political debate, and that somehow there is an agenda whereby people are benefiting from decisions that have been made or from how they will be made in future.

This legislation outlines courses of action that need to be followed because alternatives are not available to us. The financial and economic security of the State demands that these approaches be taken. I hope that from now on debates of this nature will deal with the organisation of how this is done, rather than putting across an innuendo-laden approach to our politics, which does none of us any credit.

The guarantee which is now being extended, together with the power now being given to the Minister to extend it further, must be put in place. Those who followed the Irish example of last October went beyond what we originally envisaged in terms of a two-year guarantee. Five-year guarantees are now in place in many jurisdictions. Flexibility needs to be given to any Minister for Finance to reflect on what the international climate allows. The Bill is enabling legislation and deserves sufficient support to allow this to happen.

I listened to Senator Cannon's contribution and there is no doubt that we need to have a continuing debate on the efficacy of Irish financial institutions and where they are going individually.

The due diligence that will be completed on all institutions as a result of future legislation on the National Asset Management Agency will show that some of the smaller institutions have acted in an utterly inappropriate way in the past. The public demand to find out how the situation has come to pass must bring about appropriate action for those who were in charge of those institutions, ultimately through the legal process. Rather than talking about specific individuals and institutions, I will let those matters lie there.

The original criticisms of the introduction of the guarantee mentioned the risk that was involved to the Irish taxpayer being about €400 billion. If every institution was to go belly up immediately, that is the risk that exists. The successful operation of the guarantee to date means that this risk has been put aside. The insurance aspect of the guarantee has been very successful. The fact that it must be paid for by the institutions concerned means there is money coming into the Exchequer to allow the scheme to operate effectively. It has been unfair political and media comment to state that the €400 billion mentioned in October 2008 is money that has already been spent. The problem with this debate is that we have heard figures mentioned left, right and centre that have bamboozled the Irish voter and have no bearing in reality. There have been subsequent actions that caused the State to nationalise Anglo Irish Bank, and we could have a very detailed debate about the efficacy of that particular institution. If framed in the context of the original deposit guarantee that existed before October 2008 and had the bank then gone out of business, the cost to the Irish taxpayer would now be far greater than any sums that have been put into that bank since to provide stability to that institution and to Irish financial services.

In supporting this Bill, I ask for a greater degree of honesty about the debate. We do not have any option as public representatives but to put in place measures that bring about greater stability of our financial services. There are other issues to be dealt with, which relate to the efficacy of individuals and financial institutions, but it requires an approach to legislation like this where we do not engage in the normal cut and thrust, and that we think more clearly about the national interest in the short, medium and long term. On those grounds, I am happy to support this Bill. I have confidence in the reason the legislation is being moved and is necessary and in those who will be enabled by the Bill to act in the national interest. On those grounds, I ask other Senators to think accordingly.