Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

Is the Minister's claim that we can cover the €90 million deficit increase as part of the swings and roundabouts of the budgetary position not slightly disingenuous? He is saying on the one hand that there is no impact and, on the other, that there is an impact but it can be covered. Another way of putting this is that we would have an extra €90 million if this were not done, which would necessitate fewer expenditure cuts. This means that however the Minister frames it, come the next budget, €90 million less will be available for expenditure on public services and the people. Furthermore, no matter how the Minister might construe it, will taking on this debt burden not have an extremely suffocating effect on the overall economy? In the Minister's discussions with the troika, have its members given him an explanation to the question asked by Vincent Browne among others? What justification, moral, economic or otherwise, have they given to the Minister for asserting the people of Ireland are obliged to pay back the gambling debts of Anglo Irish Bank?

See this speech in context