David Norris (Independent)

I will also be brief in my remarks, as I understand we will have a further opportunity to discuss the economy in general terms tomorrow. I am concerned by this instrument and was concerned when it was introduced two years ago. I am unsure, but I have a feeling I voted against it. I remember asking about the extent of our possible exposure. I also asked what our GNP was. The debts we underwrote were twice what the country earned. That was madness. Even on a personal basis, one's finances would not sustain it.

Senator Hanafin, for whose opinions on economic matters I have a certain degree of respect and who spoke effectively this morning, pointed to a period some 25 years ago in the 1980s and claimed it made nonsense of the statements in the House to the effect that 7% was an unsustainable figure. It may not be unsustainable in strict logical terms, but it is insupportable morally. Why are we at three times the rate of Germany if, as many economists state, the fundamentals of our economy are sound? Apparently, it is because of market sentiment. I would like to consider this market idea. We are always told that market forces must prevail. If one has a house and takes the financial gamble of taking out a mortgage but is unable to repay it, one loses the house. Several Members on all sides have spoken effectively and movingly about constituents of theirs, people in their localities, who have been placed in this situation because market forces prevail against the small person. Sentiment apparently dictates to the market. That sentiment, in turn, is dictated by what I call, with the privilege afforded to me in this House, a criminal conspiracy. I am speaking about the ratings agencies. I ask the Minister of State to discuss with his colleagues in government and elsewhere in Europe whether it is possible for the economies of the European Union to band together to take on these agencies which have consistently got it wrong. They were involved in the toxic bundles and got it wrong in the cases of Enron and Greece, but still they have the impertinence to attempt without a scientific basis to dictate the interest rates this sovereign state pays.

As I stated this morning on the Order of Business, I do not approve of violent physical attacks on the Houses of the Oireachtas, but I understand the anger felt by the people. Senator MacSharry spoke very effectively about accepting what has happened and moving on. I was thrilled to hear his rallying call, but we must also recognise the mistakes made in the past. I look to Iceland, the former Prime Minister of which is about to be charged with a criminal offence. Nothing like that has beeen done here. Certain people can hive off millions of euros into their wives' accounts, while others are losing their houses. That is not acceptable.

I recall the comment made by Mr. Gerry Adams to the effect that the IRA had not gone away. The money has not gone away either; it has not evaporated. Somebody made a profit and is sitting on a nice pile of cash. In the past two years the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been the greatest I have seen in my life and I will continue to express my doubts until somebody responds to them. Anglo Irish Bank should be allowed to fail because we owe nothing to the secured bondholders and corporate gamblers. However, I was told by the Minister for Finance that this could not be done because of our reputation and that the bank was of systemic importance. That means the system is considered to be more important than the people, a form of financial idolatry. We should take the opportunity to challenge the system because otherwise we will be left with what I described this morning as the Leona Helmsley effect. It is becoming true that only the little people are being pickpocketed to pay the bills. I listen with respect to those who are more versed in the economy, but I also understand the anger of the people and believe it is morally justified. We continually speak about market forces and moral hazards. Let us see these practiced universally rather than solely against the vulnerable.

The tragedy of these vast figures is what could have done with them for the welfare of the people. Earlier we held a debate on hospice care. An old friend of mine died last week after being dropped while on the way to the lavatory because of insufficient help. People are dying because of the lack of investment, but money is going into the pockets of the rich and the corporate gamblers. I am against this happening.