Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that and acknowledge the fact that Professor Honohan is not at the heart of these discussions. However, it seems clear that they are trying to row back. If member states in the future have to guarantee the losses of the ESM for the ESM to invest in banks, it makes it more difficult for our Government to recoup the money that was transferred from the Irish taxpayer to the banks here.

The promissory note is a key issue and I listened to what Professor Honohan said earlier about extending the duration, changing the terms and so on and that this is all the ECB can really do in this regard. What people really want is their money back. They do not want the €28.1 billion that is promised to be injected into the IBRC, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, for the next 15 years to be paid. They do not want it to be paid by a long-term bond, by a cash payment or the way it was paid last year, through the five-hand trick whereby the Government issues a bond to the IBRC, the IBRC gets €3.1 billion from NAMA, which is owned by the State, IBRC sells the bond to Bank of Ireland, of which we own approximately one third, and then Bank of Ireland gives the money back to NAMA. That is a five card trick but at the end of the day, the Central Bank got its money, its liability to the ECB was paid off and Ireland's debt has not decreased as a result of the trick. Is there any situation that Professor Honohan could see where this debt of €28.1 billion would not be payable by Irish taxpayers?