Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply, which dealt with Questions Nos. 5 to 38, inclusive, 34 in total. I do not believe this is a satisfactory way to proceed. If the old system whereby questions to the Taoiseach were taken twice a week, as was the case at the beginning of the lifetime of this Dáil, were still in operation, we would have had a better chance of dealing with some of the 34 questions to which I refer. A number of these relate to meetings which took place as long ago as 1 and 2 March. The Taoiseach took on the Herculean task of dealing with that number of questions in one go. It is a formidable task by any standards.

When this number of questions are taken together, many issues are going to be passed over. In that context, I refer the Taoiseach to Question No. 28, with which he did not deal in his reply and which asked if he would detail any documents relating to bank related debt which he circulated to other Heads of State or Government who attended the European Council. In the context of his response to Question No. 29 and in view of the significant issues around the promissory note, including the commitments made in respect of it and the severity and gravity of the situation in which this country finds itself, I find it incredible that the Taoiseach has not met the President of the European Central Bank. What occurred at the end of March was not a serious development but was, rather, a camouflaged kicking of the can down the road, and it was widely reported as such.

On the broader issues to which these questions relate, I stated previously that I would have preferred the referendum to be held in late June. I have always been of the view that holding it at the end of this month would heighten the risks to its being passed, especially in light of the occurrence of a range of events across Europe. In France, for example, Francois Hollande is demanding that extra measures be agreed by European Union leaders before he will agree, if elected, to ratify the stability treaty. I accept that there is at long last a growing convergence of opinion in respect of the need for strong growth in parallel with moves to balance budgets. There is also agreement on the need for a stimulus programme at pan-European level. The Tánaiste has indicated that the existing growth agenda would address Francois Hollande's concerns. I do not accept that because I am of the view more is required. I would accept the treaty does not prevent other actions being taken. The more honest approach would be to show the people the larger agenda that exists in respect of this matter, namely, that the fiscal treaty is a stepping stone towards further moves which will ensure Europe and Ireland will emerge from the current crisis. The basic point is that while the treaty is needed, it is not enough in itself. We should be upfront and honest in respect of that matter.

I have consistently stated during the past year that further treaty changes will be required, particularly in the context of the mandate of the European Central Bank and the role it has played in the current crisis. Will the Taoiseach comment on that matter? Does he accept there will be a requirement for further treaty changes in the future to ensure the mandate of the European Central Bank will be broadened and a genuine fiscal union, which will allow real transfers across borders in the event that certain countries get into difficulties, will be created? If we show the people there is a broader agenda at play and this can assist us in emerging from the crisis, they will support both the treaty and broader growth policies within Europe.

On bank debt, it appears what is being sought is for the ESM to fund our debt. This will not address the debt sustainability issue which has surfaced. Are we no longer seeking an explicit write-down in respect of the promissory note debt?

See this speech in context