Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Before discussing the detail of what Ireland should be seeking, we should note that it is factually untrue for the Taoiseach to state the June deal has been reaffirmed in full. The summit conclusions involve two significant dilutions of the deal. It was agreed in June that the new supervisory regime for banks would be in place by 1 January 2013. Last week, however, it was agreed only that a legislative framework would be agreed by 1 January next and implementation would take place during 2013. It was also reiterated that ESM money will not be made available for bank debts until the new system is fully up and running. This will delay significantly even the possibility that the European Stability Mechanism will fund Spanish and Irish bank debt. This development could have a major impact on the costs faced by Ireland when we return fully to the sovereign debt market.

The Taoiseach should not pretend that everything is on track when that is not the case. Implementation of the June deal has been delayed by up to a year. The summit also stepped back on the issue of a common bank resolution regime and deposit insurance. These measures will be essential if banks in all parts of the European Union are to see a restoration of confidence and bank lending is to be rebuilt. It was understood in June that a common regime was to be proposed. Last week, the common regime was reduced to merely a harmonisation of national policies, a major step back from one of the most important parts of a banking union.

Chancellor Merkel states at a press conference that historical bank debt would not be covered by the European Stability Mechanism. She is fully entitled to state this is her understanding of the position given that the deal is so vague. Nothing in Sunday's rushed statement has seen her or Germany back off this basic statement. We know Germany likes and admires Ireland and recognises that we are in a unique position. We also know the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, will come to Ireland on Monday and make nice, pleasant comments about us. However, we do not know what Germany and other countries will agree in terms of the contents of the banking union or European Stability Mechanism.

In June it was agreed that something should be done. Since then, the deadline for doing something has been moved back and we are no wiser as to what exactly is this "something". Too much damage has been done in recent years by leaders systematically exaggerating agreements. This practice needs to stop. A good start would be if the Taoiseach were to put aside the empty formulas and casual exaggerated claims which fill his statements on Europe and started to be open. Since it became obvious last July that he is reluctant to engage in the type of diplomatic activity undertaken by other prime ministers or his predecessors, I have tackled him on the issue. Day after day he informed the House that everything was fine and was being left to others. Last week, we saw the outcome of this approach when the Germans briefed that they would not be accountable for his Government's spin.

There is also clear evidence that a solid core is not engaging with Ireland's case. The Tánaiste told us he was certain the game had been changed in June, even though he left the meeting early and was not involved in the deal. In a final show of the Government's effort to shore up its flanks, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, was sent out to do what he does best, namely, attack everyone else.

The briefings after Sunday's telephone call and Monday's 45 minute meeting in Paris were typically euphoric, with advisers doing the rounds and speaking of a great victory, incredible personal chemistry and games being changed once again. Given the history of massive over-claim about every small diplomatic encounter, there is no reason to believe any of this until the Taoiseach is honest enough to state what he has sought. The basic point is that Ireland is seeking the assistance of the European Union to make its debts more sustainable. What does the Government believe this means? What is its definition of "debt sustainability"? Surely this should be at the centre of every financial plan and budget measure.

In the past 18 months, the Taoiseach has delivered many speeches praising himself for turning everything around and delivering us on the fast track to sorting everything out. Unless he has been telling the House untruths during Question Time and statements, this has been his message at every summit and meeting with a foreign leader. European leaders hearing this would surely be forgiven for believing the Government considers our debt to be sustainable as currently structured. Let us remember that what is being discussed is sustainability rather than simply making things easier.

The Government has made a series of contradictory statements over the past 18 months as to what are its core objectives. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, originally stated the main concern was the interest rate on the promissory note. When it was pointed out that this was returned to the Government through the Central Bank, he moved on and announced in Washington that he would burn many more bondholders. We were then told it was not the bondholders that mattered but the interest rate on EU loans. When we secured a reduction of four times what we were seeking as a result of Greece's requirements, the Government announced victory and returned to discussing the promissory notes.

Does the Taoiseach remember the much heralded technical paper? That never appeared, and briefings stopped on our supposed promissory notes campaign. In June, Spain and Italy refused to let a summit finish without a deal on their funding needs. Ireland had done such little preparation and expected so little, the Tánaiste went home early. The statement that our debt sustainability would be examined and that we would be treated equally was and remains welcome. What was and remains a major error was the failure to do the advance work to get an understanding of what that meant.

In the case of Spain, it is clear what it wants. It wants the ESM to recapitalise its banks to an amount of over €50 billion and to take the associated risk. That is known to everybody. It is also clear what Italy wants. It wants the ESM to be open to purchasing its sovereign bonds to reduce interest rates. That is known to everyone.

What is Ireland looking for?

See this speech in context