Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I woke up last Friday morning and for a change there was good news on the radio. There was talk of a seismic shift. Essentially, I have been waiting for the detail of that. I acknowledge that it is welcome that there has been a change but we must have the detail because one person's seismic shift is another person's relatively modest change. We cannot judge that for ourselves unless we have the detail, but we have not been given any sense of what is involved. In fact, the announcement and the European statement has given rise to new questions being posed, for example, on the extent of the ESM and the loan fund. It is a loan fund and it is expected that it will be paid back. What does that mean given that we own some of the banks that have been recapitalised? I am unsure about what the practical application of the change means given that we own the pillar banks.

I was on a radio programme on Thursday night when I heard that an expected European press conference did not occur because both the Italian and Spanish delegations refused to buy into the stimulus package until banking debt was addressed. It has become obvious to many of us that one's problems are only problems for Europe when one makes them problems for Europe. It is at that point that it decides to deal with them. That has been a concern of many of us in terms of our negotiation strategy. For example, we benefited from the reduction in interest rates because of Greece and we have benefited from the current change because of Italy and Spain. Essentially, we hope that we will be lucky. We must take much more control. I would like to hear a response from the Minister of State on the control we are taking and what is our negotiating strategy, because it is not obvious to many of us.

I would also like a response on the following issue. Finland has a significant problem with what has been proposed. Is it the only country with a problem? Was that raised at the summit and in what context? The ESM must be ratified by the Bundestag. Are there potential issues we should anticipate in terms of how the situation will play out? Is it likely, for example, that a new treaty will be required on foot of changes that will be made? It is clear there is potential for a shift in sovereignty from individual states to the European Union, and in that context, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that there could be a new treaty. It would be useful to get an insight into what we might face. On the same day, on the "News at One", Seán O'Rourke pressed the Minister for Finance on what the decision meant and whether it would make a difference to this year's budget. The response was that it would not make a difference. I accept it will take some months to work out the detail of the change, but to come to a conclusion about what it means, people must know how it will impact on them on an individual or collective basis.

A stimulus package was one of the issues that was part of the deliberations. As Deputy Boyd Barrett indicated, we met the troika this morning. I commissioned a report from TASC, an independent think tank, on job-rich investment. We could have a growth rate that is not necessarily job rich. If we have funding to put into a stimulus package, it is important we get the best return on it. I was a bit upset by the ESRI's response to how we might use funding available to us to reduce our debts rather than investing it in jobs and people. One cannot just throw money at the problem. One must be targeted in one's approach. I will make the TASC report I commissioned available to anyone who wishes to read it because any contribution we can make to the issue will be important. Ultimately, if we can get people back to work, we will reduce the social protection budget and increase the level of taxation, which will increase our ability to pay debts. The sovereign debt is the one which comes to mind. We should never have been on the hook for the banking debt.

Will the Minister of State indicate how she thinks a stimulus package for this country would play out and if we are reading it correctly in terms of what appears to be its limited nature? Could more funding be leveraged and how could it be applied? Two issues arise. Clearly, if there is to be a shift in sovereignty, a new European model will develop and we need to have a vision of what it will be. Ireland will hold the Presidency next year and it will be important to have a broad view of what we are buying into rather than bits and pieces of the details.

Last week's meeting was the 20th to deal with the crisis which must be addressed at some point. The meeting provided welcome relief, albeit not to the extent desired. I hope the figure will amount to €67 billion.

The meeting was also meant to deal with the issue of democratic oversight. Was this issue addressed, as it has not been discussed much? Technocrats will work up a plan, but there must be democratic oversight if the institution is to take on responsibilities. For too long we have been sidelining the European Union's democratic institutions, for example, the European Parliament. When the Merkozy agreement was hatched, it sidelined other states. Democratic oversight must be centre stage.

I would welcome a response to the points I have made.

See this speech in context