Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It was not. The Minister of State was technically correct. There had not been a request, but the issue was being pushed from or leaked from elsewhere in Europe.

One of the issues that arises from the way this has been done is that it gives rise to a concern that there are European elements to this issue. It is a concern that there are elements in back rooms elsewhere in Europe who influenced the Government's decision not to seek a backstop. Therefore, this debate is taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place six weeks too early, before, under the Freedom of Information Act, we could obtain all of the details of all the discussions that took place leading up to the making of this important decision.

The decision taken involves a risk. The Government tells us that the markets are sound. I do not doubt that they are and long may it remain the case. It states it has the national finances under control. I accept that because it has followed the main parameters of the four year plan to the letter of the law. It has delivered on it with incredible enthusiasm, considering its original objections to it. I accept that the decision made by this and the previous Government to honour their debts has an upside in terms of our ability to borrow money.

We all know that issues external to this country exist and much bigger countries than Ireland could throw the markets into turmoil. Can anybody tell me that if a problem were to arise in one of the other European countries and its bond yields were suddenly to rise dramatically, we would be totally immune to this effect? The Government might continue on the road to resolving the most fundamental issue in our economy, which is that one cannot forever spend more than one takes in taxes, and therefore we might create market confidence in our little nation, but it seems strange to believe that as a small, open, peripheral economy we are absolutely immune to sudden shocks that might happen outside the economy and might have an effect on our ability to borrow money.

In the coming two to three years we must roll over, borrow, or combine both to obtain a total of €53 billion. What many people do not realise is that one does not obtain government debt like a mortgage over 30 years or more. Most government debt is of fairly short duration and is never actually paid back. One has a loan at 4%, 3%, 5% or whatever rate it was obtained at, and when the five-, three- or ten-year duration is up one goes back to the markets to ask for the same money again at the going rate. As long as the rates remain low one can keep replacing the money forever without problem. If the rates rise the problem one faces is that one must replace cheaper money with more expensive money. The idea of the backstop is similar to negotiating a loan with a bank, for example, at a rate of 5%. If one could borrow the money at 4% or 3.5% one would do so, but if the rate had increased to 6% when the time came, one would use the facility to avail of a rate of 5%. It is not rocket science. We have given our guaranteed fixed-rate option away and we do not know why. We have not been told why and we have not been involved in the decision-making. I accept that all parties have a long history of not involving the Oireachtas in a comprehensive way, particularly in big decisions, and it is hard to change something that has a long history. I often think there is much greater willingness to involve us in small decisions than in big ones. This is a pity. The more information is shared, the more people know why a decision was made and the more likely it is there will be a consensus on the decision.

I hope it is unfounded, but there might be a belief among people that the real reason for this decision was so that the Government could state we were free of the troika. If this was the only motivating factor, I must state it would be rather disappointing. Talk about regaining our economic sovereignty is a bit hollow because since the troika came to Ireland, for better or for worse, we have signed up to the fiscal compact treaty and all of the oversight it entails on a permanent basis. No more than a householder does not have the sovereignty to do what he or she wants in the modern world, because everything is so interdependent, we do not have that sovereignty because we need to go to markets. The real room for manoeuvre in any circumstances is quite limited; we cannot just decide to spend what we want, because if we spend more than we take in taxes somebody out there will have sovereignty over us, just as any lender has sovereignty over a borrower in terms of the conditions at which it will lend money. To go back to the analogy of the householder, if a householder has no debt and a pile of money in the bank and he or she wants to do up the house, he or she can do so as long as planning permission is obtained. However, if the householder must borrow from the bank, it will exercise its sovereignty over him or her. It will want to know the person's income, repayment capacity and age, and will want him or her to set up a life assurance policy, along with other conditions.

This is another example of Dáil reform and meaningful change which has never happened. On the day the Taoiseach was elected I looked forward to the change. I do not care who changes it if it is changed for the better, but unfortunately this is not what is happening.

See this speech in context