Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not know because we have not been told.

Three years ago we were told that we were being disingenuous because we had not told the people the full truth and the import of what was happening in the discussions. Three years on, as the Minister of State will be aware because he has access to the files, the Government had little choice but to accept the need for a bailout programme. It did not give me much comfort - certainly I was not filled with pride - the day I had to vote for the EU-IMF-ECB bailout programme but at the same time, choices were limited and difficult decisions had to be made.

In the context of the programme, let us be clear that the Government is claiming vindication. I stand vilified on a programme that has been vindicated and the Government stands vindicated for a programme that it vilified. That is the fact of the matter. I do not expect great platitudes for the decisions made. Let us be honest: we know the reasons we were in the programme. Every political party in the House at the time had supported the expansionary policies that were being pursued, not only by Fianna Fáil-led Governments but also by the social partners and all other Members of the House. Every campaign was fought on the need for increased public expenditure and reductions in taxation. We will have to have that debate again on what we will do as a people because of the difficult decisions foisted on the people under the programme. The programme has been vindicated but at a significant cost to society. There are significant social pressures, of which the Minister of State will be aware. There is massive dislocation in society. There is significant stress among mortgage holders who are in negative equity and among those who have lost their jobs and young people to other parts of the world. There is much work still to be done. The programme has achieved one goal - it has stabilised the economy which was the critical issue in terms of the reason the bailout programme was essential in the first place.

I looked at some of the debates. I refer, for example, to the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore's contribution on 15 December 2010 in which he stated:

The Labour Party supports the programme's objectives of achieving fiscal and financial sector stability. We have consistently argued over several years that Ireland faces a three-legged crisis - a banking crisis, a fiscal crisis and a jobs crisis. We have supported the target of reducing the deficit in line with our obligations as a member of the eurozone.

He went on to say:

Our concerns about the deal are not with the objectives or the four key elements of the programme. Our concerns are about the overall structure of the deal, the assumptions that underlie it and whether it will work, as well as with individual components within it.

The reason I outline what the Tánaiste said is there was much dishonest debate in this Chamber in 2010 and the issue must be revisited. He continued:

The test of this deal, therefore, is whether, over the period of the programme, it will result in a return of investor confidence to the point where money will be lent to Ireland at reasonable rates of interest and the banking system will be able to fund itself.

The purpose of the programme was to put Ireland in intensive care, while we worked through the banking crisis, the jobs crisis and the inability of the sovereign to borrow on the bond markets. By any independent assessment, the economy is now able to borrow on the bond markets. It is in the market and bond yields are currently low, at 3.5% to 4%.

I would have preferred to have a precautionary credit line in place to strengthen our hand in the markets and I have yet to hear the reasons the Government did not consider one. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, will say it was not needed because there was sufficient confidence in us, but my concerns in this regard remain. It would have been a straightforward insurance policy to put a precautionary credit line in place. I do not know whether the conditions were onerous or the interest rates prohibitive, but I know one thing for sure - the eurozone economy is under huge stress. Unemployment is a major problem for most eurozone countries; our competitiveness is still a big issue; we have a banking and financial crisis, as well as a currency crisis. These issues have not yet been resolved. While Ireland weathered the difficult storms of 2008 to 2012, we will face further storms in 2014 and should have put an insurance policy in place. For the sake of the citizens of the country who have made considerable sacrifices and reluctantly embraced the programme because they believed it was the best option at the time, I hope the Government made the right decision in deciding otherwise.

Many of the Deputies who are now in government argued against entering the bail-out programme and urged us to default instead. I do not think we should have defaulted. I recognise we are now facing a huge burden, particularly in respect of the socialised banking debts that have been foisted on the people, but we can have that debate on another occasion in an historical context. The cost of the guarantee, its implementation and the socialisation of banking debt onto the sovereign have had an impact, but I still need to know whether other options were available. Commitments were made by certain Government Members while they were in opposition that they would address the issue of socialised banking debt. That legacy issue has not been addressed and the Government is duty bound to address it because it sought a mandate based on dealing with the issue of legacy debt. I earnestly hope it made the right decision.

See this speech in context