Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

Okay, just to ask you if you might think it's curious that ... I refer to core documents Department of Finance Vol. 2, pages 116 and 119, but I'll quote, it's not necessary to follow it.

This is the advice from Merrill Lynch to the National Treasury Management Agency and the Department on 28 September, which is one day before the guarantee. And it is obviously in favour of what it calls "state protective custody" of Anglo Irish Bank and INBS, and it says on paragraph (b) there, page 116, "This could occur over a very short period of time ... within days, but the point at which it occurs it will not be of surprise to debt or equity investors as knowledge of the institution's financial position will be obvious and they should expect such intervention in the absence of a private-sector solution." And then, on page 119, under "Guarantee for six Primary Regulated Banks", it says, "This would almost certainly negatively impact the State's sovereign credit rating, and raise issues as to its credibility." That was the advice of the, one of these groups that the Government retained quite a bit. Does it surprise you, in view of that and in view of the fact that their prognosis about the sovereign being affected came true very strongly, that the comprehensive guarantee was still given - and, again, to reflect on the effect of that - as opposed to nationalising Anglo and INBS on the night?