Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will debate it with the Deputy again. The point stands. We have had speaker after speaker standing up to criticise the Government for not accessing the fund, but the same people campaigned against the creation of the fund in the first place. There is a requirement for some kind of consistency in this discussion. The same consistency is required for the efforts that the State must face in funding public services in future.

I listened with great interest to Deputy Ross's contribution, during which he was sporting what looked like a fine tie to commemorate our Presidency of the Council of the European Union. He made the point that he did not want us to deal with the troika but then argued that he did not want us to deal with the financial markets. With whom does he want us to deal? There is a gap between spending and taxation, and Deputy Ross has opposed many of the measures taken to close that gap. If he was indicating that we should not deal with the troika or the financial markets, from whom should we borrow in order to fund the gap between spending and taxation? These are core questions, and the people criticising the approach taken by the Government - as is their full entitlement - must answer those questions if they are participating in the debate, just as they legitimately put points to us to which we must respond.

In making those points I do not wish to lose sight of the broader picture and the progress the country has made at gigantic cost to society in recent years. At the start of the programme the country found itself in a place where nobody in the world would lend to us at a rate we could afford. That not only applied to the sovereign but also to the banking system. At the start of the programme the country found itself in a place where unemployment was increasing by tens of thousands on a monthly basis. There is so much more that the Government and the Oireachtas need to do to respond to the crisis. However, an important point that must be emphasised is that the funding crisis and the inability of the country to borrow have been addressed, but we must do so much more to tackle the unemployment crisis.

Speaker after speaker has condemned the financial markets and the behaviour of those who operate in them. They are the same speakers who condemn any attempt to narrow the gap between spending and taxation. They call for investment in public services and the country at the same time. Such funding must come from somewhere. The choice the Government has been following, with the support of the Government parties, has been to do all we can to narrow the gap and allow the country to access money at a rate of interest we can afford. The rate was above 14% and it is now just above 3%. That is an extraordinary difference that will give the country the ability to borrow in the future and invest in what we really care about, namely, society, jobs and public services.

Another theme I wish to address in the time available is the love that has dared not speak its name in the debate to date - default. That is a point made by Deputy Shane Ross. I remember being in the Chamber with him on a previous occasion when he urged us to take the route taken in Argentina. Different options were outlined in terms of the kind of default various speakers preferred. The question I put to them was what country had taken a decision to unilaterally default on the lender of last resort, which was what they were urging.

See this speech in context