Michael Noonan (Limerick East, Fine Gael)

There is a big policy change this morning. Now the Government, under pressure from Europe, is contemplating negotiations whereby senior bondholders would not be paid in full for the disaster in the banks. I welcome that. It should have been done years ago. If it had, we would not be in the current fix.

I do not know what mechanism will be finally put in place. I presume the Minister has a good idea about it but he is not sharing his views with the House this morning. However, in his last sentence another cat was deliberately let out of the bag. He said. "It is crucial to complete this process before any decisions are made that could have implications for the taxpayer." Obviously, whatever is introduced will have conditions attached to it and these conditions could have implications for the taxpayer, so it is important to complete the process before the implications for the taxpayer are seen. It confirms that the Minister is deferring the publication of the four-year plan until after the negotiations take place because there will be implications for the Irish taxpayer.

Will the Minister come clean? Will the Croke Park agreement be shelved? Will there be a restructuring of the labour market? Will there be initiatives to cut social welfare so the poverty trap is narrowed? Are these not the type of structural changes that people in Europe are seeking?

The editorial in The Irish Times this morning carried the headline "Was it for this?" For the benefit of the younger Members of the House who would not be familiar with W. B. Yeats, I will complete the quotation:

Was it for this the wild geese spread

The grey wing upon every tide;

For this that all that blood was shed,

For this Edward Fitzgerald died,

And Robert Emmet and Wolfe Tone,

All that delirium of the brave;

Romantic Ireland is dead and gone,

It's with O'Leary in the grave.

Was it for this that a Fianna Fáil Government would finally sell out the sovereignty of the Irish people?

See this speech in context