Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

The Irish financial services sector employs approximately 30,000 people in this country, particularly in Dublin. We do not control the world and one of our first priorities must be to protect employment in the financial services sector, but that is dependent on what happens at international level. In the context of the recent strategy that was published and, indeed, some discussions that were held at Farmleigh, a transaction tax that was unilaterally imposed in a number of eurozone countries and not in the rest or that would not be uniformly applied across the globe would put the financial services sector at a disadvantage and could result in the loss of some of the thousands of jobs currently located in the Irish Financial Services Centre, IFSC. Will the Taoiseach confirm that this is the broad approach that has been adopted with regard to a transaction tax?

Second, with regard to the Ballymurphy issue, I met with the Ballymurphy relatives in Ballymurphy when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs. While it is important to meet them, it is important to do more than that. Obviously I believe the Taoiseach should meet with the relatives but some work should be done in advance of such meetings to try to identify the precise nature of an inquiry. One could hold many different types of inquiry. This issue has not really moved forward over a number of years. It is important not to give people false hope, but to define the issues and perhaps get some type of an initial scoping inquiry together. There must be a common approach agreed by all, particularly the relatives, as to what is the first step to take in moving this agenda forward. One meeting after another does not necessarily move it forward, unless we can put some shape or flesh on the bone in terms of how best to proceed given the difficulties that surround us. We have just discussed the logjam with the Finucane case, which I consider unacceptable. The Ballymurphy issue deserves investigation. It was an appalling event and demands a response. Members must try to put on their thinking caps as to the type of response that could be developed to succeed in achieving progress beyond simply meeting people. I share this thought with the Taoiseach and ask him to comment on it.

As for the promissory note issue, I note in his reply that the Taoiseach stated he informed the British Prime Minister and explained to him the Government's proposals on re-engineering the promissory note. It appears that with all the political discourse on this issue and between the various claims and counter-claims, something is missing in this regard. In the current context, an opportunity should be seized to have a serious political discussion with a view to getting a resolution of this issue, rather than having it kicked down the road at each key milestone associated with the promissory note, elements of which are unacceptable. It was agreed in advance of the creation of the European financial stability facility, EFSF, when the previous Government was obliged to agree certain issues with the European Central Bank. While this was agreed in advance of any European facility, I note we have moved a long way from that position in respect of the EFSF and now potentially the European Stability Mechanism, as well as the call of other countries, including France, that bank debt should be dealt with through the European institutions and not necessarily by the taxpayers of member states. I believe Ireland is owed one in respect of resolution of this issue and given present circumstances, there is a need to raise this matter at a political level in a much more substantive way than has been the case to date. More than simply informing and explaining, so doing should entail actually enlisting the support of other Heads of State to move institutions across Europe on this issue.

See this speech in context