Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

If our circumstances were not so serious, I would be tempted to cite the line frequently used in Laurel and Hardy films on this being another fine mess.

The motion before us is about democracy and allowing citizens to decide what they will pay for the foreseeable future. The country faces a massive debt. Notwithstanding the Government's argument that the recent general election was a referendum, the goalposts have been moved because it has made a number of U-turns on the election commitments for which people voted. For this reason, it is vital that a referendum is held on the bailout.

Under Article 27 of the Constitution, taking the referendum route to have legislation overturned is onerous. It is a comment on how we value democracy that the system in place for this option is so complicated, involving as it does a majority of the Seanad and not less than one third of the Dáil petitioning the President if it is considered by them that a Bill contains "a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained". The bailout is an issue of extreme national importance. The figures suggested by various economists on the cost of the bailout for each citizen are staggering.

It is difficult to consider this motion separately from the stress tests for banks and bank restructuring plans announced last week. While newspaper headlines tend to be sensational by nature, some of those that I have read contain an element of truth. They include such headlines as "Only a miracle can save the financial system from complete meltdown", "Disastrous world of Irish banking", "Ireland has lost the capacity to borrow", "Frankfurt's way prevails as harsh economic reality confronts Noonan", and "Bondholders escape as €24 billion put into the banks".

I accept that we need money to pay our bills, including salaries, wages and social welfare. However, given the nature of the terms and conditions of the bank bailout and EU-IMF package, the nation must have a say. While every citizen will pay, some will pay more than others. Those who will pay most are the people on lower and middle incomes. The bailout will not make an appreciable, proportionate difference to the wealthy who live abroad for certain times of the year to avoid paying taxes, disposed of shares just in time or transferred property into the names of family members or out of the country. The vulnerable and disabled, on the other hand, will pay heavily.

Senior bankers who held positions of responsibility during the banking bubble and who are now on bank boards remain in situ. The Financial Regulator announced that he intended to conduct a fitness and probity assessment of all members of bank boards but not until the beginning of next year. In the meantime, the bankers in question may decide to resign to avoid undergoing such an assessment and will, without doubt, receive extremely lucrative pensions and severance packages should they do so.

During Leaders' Questions Deputy Ross asked the Taoiseach a significant question, namely, why private debt has become public debt. Why has a protective curtain, almost like an iron curtain, come down around the senior bondholders? The nature of their investment implies risk. When they made profit on their investments were they pouring money into the State or rewarding it in any way? When they lost money did they take the loss? They did not do so because the people of Ireland, who are not being given a say in the matter, did so on their behalf.

I have read the Government amendment and I accept a radical restructuring of the banking system is necessary to ensure they become viable. The IMF-EU bailout is not the way forward, however, as it is too harsh. Ireland will not survive by continuing to take emergency loans from the IMF and EU. In the previous Dáil, I spoke about how IMF actions contributed to the destruction of economies in Africa, Asia and South America. The measures applied included the imposition of strong limits on public expenditure and the pursuit of excessively strict monetary policies.

I welcome the section of the amendment regarding the Government's commitment to protect ordinary depositors. Its final point on a jobs fund to support employment growth and sustainable enterprise appears paradoxical, however, given that it is juxtapositioned with a reference to the EU-IMF programme.

On the most recent capitalisation, I note the statement by the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, that it does not score well on fairness. Fairness would be served if citizens had an opportunity to express a view in a referendum and have their say on whether the EU-IMF agreement will lead the economy on a sustainable path. When a referendum was put to people in Iceland, it resulted in change.

The €70 billion price tag of the current crisis makes it one of the costliest crises in history. Ireland is used to making history for positive reasons, whether through our achievements in sport, the arts or humanitarian work. I support the motion because it proposes to give people a say in their destiny.

See this speech in context