Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

By "responsible", I refer to the way in which we treat one another, and even to our tone of voice and acknowledgement that there may be different views and approaches. I refer to responsibility that would prevent the debate from degenerating into a very angry one. I can understand why people are angry but do not believe it will help our people to solve the problem.

We must be very careful with figures. It is very easy to state on the radio or in the House that a certain figure is the correct one - for example, the figure pertaining to the debt interest cost when negotiating with the national bodies. In respect of such a simple figure, one must recognise there are all sorts of variables to be considered. One must consider whether there is a variable rate or fixed rate, or a three-year, five-year or ten-year term. The figure depends very much on which of these factors is taken into account. We need to be careful of figures and realise that, in complex issues, people need balanced and intelligent debate.

I have three questions on the four year plan, as published yesterday. The first concerns debt dynamics, a term I had not heard of until recent years but which is at the very heart of our management of this issue. I refer to the payment of debt on a sustainable basis over the next four to five years.

Deputy Gilmore asked the identity of the teams or people representing the Irish people. I want to answer because it is an important question. The Department of Finance is leading the negotiations but we are well served by the staff of key agencies, who have public-interest expertise in this area. I note from my experience of dealing with Mr. John Corrigan, head of the NTMA, that he is highly capable and very straight. I have never heard figures from him that I believed were incorrect. The same applies to the new Regulator, Mr. Matthew Elderfield, whom I believe has done a very rigorous job in stress-testing our banks to try to understand the scale of the problem. He has been joined in this regard by Professor Patrick Honohan. Central Bank Governors tend not to speak very much in public, and rightly so, but the public has a certain sense that Professor Honohan has expertise. I have noted others in our system, including the Secretary General of the Department of Finance and the key people in NAMA, who are very capable and very good public servants. All parties, not just Government parties, can work with them to ensure we understand the issues and achieve a good resolution for the Irish people.

At this time, in which we are in a particularly precarious position, it may be appropriate to park the valid debate as to whether an alternative approach, such as full nationalisation or an approach based on collapse or default, may have worked two years ago. At present, we must concentrate on a public debate on what we are doing now. Debates on alternative approaches are valid and can be engaged in but we need to concentrate on the very difficult and important task now facing us. We should do so in the debate on the debt dynamics issue.

Legitimate rage is expressed by those who ask why the taxpayer, rather than the private sector, must pay everything. That is a valid argument, on which I will outline my thoughts. The private sector has taken a hit. Deputy Kenny was not correct in saying that, at every step of the way, the Government looked for the taxpayer to take the hit. That is not an accurate assessment. I present as evidence the fact that approximately €40 billion of private-sector capital was wiped out as the banks' value was lost. This has affected many Irish pensioners and savers, who believed they had most secure and solid investments. For many, this was a really hard loss; it was a private-sector loss.

To date, bonds worth approximately €7 billion have been lost or written down, and rightly so. I would like this to be maximised, particularly in the context of protecting taxpayers, where appropriate. It is not the case, therefore, that taxpayers alone have been footing the bill. All parties represented in the House would favour a situation where it would not just be taxpayers who shoulder the burden. In addition, no one wants an approach to be adopted which might appear right and proper in the short term but which might cost us more in the long term. In that context, we must listen and talk to the members of our negotiating teams who have a good sense of what is required.

I put it to those opposite that when this most sensitive issue is considered by everyone at the weekend, it is the level of real engagement to which I refer which must be employed in order that we might examine the real options. We must evaluate, therefore, whether actions which might appear to make real political sense now might actually be disadvantageous in the medium or long term. That is something which is difficult to do in public. It is difficult to explain the nature of both bonds and bondholders. People are being obliged to deal with language which they do not understand.

It is difficult to understand what constitutes a bondholder. Descriptions of bondholders vary from speculators to hedge funds to short-term speculators against the State. However, I am informed - this can be checked and verified - that almost all of the senior bondholders in the Irish banks are pension funds and insurance companies. These entities are not speculators in the sense that they are seeking a quick buck in the short term. They are actually trying to realise profits on long-term investments. I would be extremely critical of what occurred in the context of the unchecked flow of capital from-----

See this speech in context