Mr. Mario Draghi:

That is more than two questions but I will try to do my best in the time available. I will dispense with the first question, which was the Deputy's reconstruction of the past. We can discuss that but I note that the ECB was not entirely negative, surely. Things are going well today. It means the policy advice given in the past was not entirely wrong after all. It is true that much of the progress we have seen today is due to Irish citizens. However, the policy advice was not entirely wrong.

Second, the ECB has supported Ireland quite a lot. The liquidity support the ECB provided during the five worst years of the crisis was unprecedented and, in my understanding, it is still unprecedented. It was 100% of Irish GDP at €140 billion. More generally, there may be other questions about the past and after all I see this conversation between us as a way to mend a relationship which has been fraught in circumstances of several divergences and many disagreements in the past. In preparing for this conversation, I asked myself how correct it is today to judge past events when many things have changed in the interim. That addresses the Deputy's first point but I am sure we can come back to it.

The Deputy asked if we pressed banks to dispose of their NPL stocks in a fire sale and the answer is "No". We have guidance for that. There is guidance for all banks in the EU. In some countries, including mine, NPLs are at high levels for different reasons. In Ireland, they are high because of the original crisis in the construction sector and because of the recession. In Italy, they are high because of the recession. What we see today is that the number of NPLs is decreasing without even too much pressure from the ECB. It is simply because the recovery is so buoyant that it allows for the disposal of NPLs at terms and conditions which are, by and large, okay. However, we have to distinguish two types of non-performing borrower. One has the strategic non-performing borrower and then the non-performing borrower who is unable to repay because he or she is too poor. One has the social problems that come out of that. In that case, however, the problem ought to be addressed through the right instrument. That could be social policy. It should not be addressed by destroying the culture of payment between banks and borrowers. I see great scope for countries in which NPLs are a social issue to address that with the proper tool. I am not ignoring the problem at all. It is a serious problem in many countries. The EBA has a definition of "non-performing loan", which is one that is 90 days due.

The Deputy made the same point on interest rates and the answer there is increased competition. This action can come from two sources, namely the domestic government and the European Union. Any support one can express in the EU to move forward on harmonising legislation is especially delicate but the issue has to be resolved. We have been discussing this for years now. The insolvency laws are an example. If we have different insolvency legislation in different countries, banks will always hesitate to lend money in jurisdictions where they do not know what the insolvency law will be. That is one of the many actions. Certainly, things have improved with the creation of a single supervisor. Progress has been made but it is admittedly much slower than I would like. I have been saying the same things for years now.

Finally, the Deputy asked about the Anglo Irish Bank debt issue. We can discuss it in more detail, but I note for now that the eurozone treaties cannot accept monetary financing. That is a case of monetary financing, basically. This is just the bottom line of very complex reasoning. The Government created bonds to recapitalise a bank and these bonds are in a portfolio in the Central Bank of Ireland. They pay out interest. If one does nothing and does not sell, that interest goes back to the Government, which means financing takes place at zero cost. That is not possible given the treaties. Article 123 prohibits monetary financing.