Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

The Minister will acknowledge the history of Ireland's bank related debts is a little more nuanced than he set out a few moments ago. As the Minister is aware, shareholders lost approximately €60 billion, depositors were repaid in full - I am sure all Members agree this was the right thing to do - and junior bondholders lost approximately €15 billion. The only people left to take the hit for the losses were either taxpayers or senior bondholders. Since 2008 and right up to the present, the position of the ECB has been that senior bondholders would not contribute a single cent. Consequently, the only people left at the end of the queue or on the hook are the taxpayers. This is what happened as, guarantee or no guarantee, ECB policy ensured this would be the outcome. Since the Minister announced the arrangement regarding the promissory notes, the language of the ECB has been quite hardline. Essentially, it does not care, once it is repaid its money through the Irish Central Bank. Why would the ECB not deal directly with the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, in respect of this bond? Is it because it will not deal with a dead bank? It is accepting a bond, in effect, from Bank of Ireland but will not accept the same bond from IBRC. What was the requirement for coming up with a cumbersome structure involving NAMA and Bank of Ireland? Why not go directly with the bond from the IBRC and receive the money from the ECB?

See this speech in context