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

I have tabled approximately 20 questions. The fact that 55 questions have been taken together gives the lie to any claim that we have witnessed a democratic revolution in how we do business as politicians. It illustrates how nonsensical it is to suggest there has been radical reform of the Oireachtas. We all agree that the European Union is by far the most important issue facing us as a country, yet we have grouped together 55 questions covering all recent contacts and meetings involving the Taoiseach and other European leaders. The questions cover Council meetings, bank debt, budgets and a range of other issues. It is not tenable to take all of them together.

I am receiving letters in response to queries stating I cannot ask the Taoiseach questions about his policy for the Irish Presidency of the European Union. These questions are being sent to the office of the Tánaiste, despite the fact that the Taoiseach took control of the EU section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the very beginning. The bulk of EU activity is now covered by the Department of the Taoiseach. One would have believed, therefore, that it was quite legitimate to ask the Taoiseach questions about the EU Presidency. The Taoiseach heads up the EU section which was taken from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, yet we are told we cannot ask questions on the policies he may be pursuing and the principles he may be espousing on the Presidency. This is somewhat farcical.

As I will not be able to follow up on all of the questions asked, I will address just a few. It has been confirmed that Ireland has led moves to ensure nothing will happen regarding the banking union proposal that requires a change to the treaties. How does the Taoiseach justify this? We support the banking union. Does the Taoiseach support it? Does he accept that banking union will necessitate change to the EU treaties? Will he explain why he has objected to or opposes establishment of a banking union that would require a change to the EU treaties? By not changing them, he may be supporting the weakest proposal or a possible suggested variant. What is his specific policy on banking union?

It is five months since we were told the June summit was a big game-changer that had single-handedly changed the game on bank debt by securing a package for Ireland that had been promised to everybody else. I refer to the famous Monti-Rajoy intervention in June. We still do not know what is actually being sought on the issue of bank debt. I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach outlined to the House what exactly we are seeking. In June everybody took from the meeting and the comments made by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, that the decisive move meant the ESM was open to fund recapitalisation of our pillar banks, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland. Despite this, last week the Minister for Finance questioned the wisdom of this approach and said it might not now be a good idea to use the ESM to deal retrospectively with the equity the State took in the pillar banks.

When we say there is a retrospective dimension to the June deal, what do we actually mean by this? How does the Taoiseach envisage the ESM being used to deal with Irish debt in the context of the pillar banks? Will he define the minimum deal acceptable to secure sustainability? How does he define sustainability in regard to debt?

We were originally told a deal would be struck in October. When does the Taoiseach expect a deal to be struck in regard to our debt? He is now saying it could be months away. Will it be before March next year? There are two dimensions, namely, the ESM and the promissory note. The latter has been dealt with via the European Central Bank. Is the Taoiseach seeking a deal to change the terms attached to the promissory note or replace the promissory note with a standard debt?

The Taoiseach has indicated that Chancellor Merkel reaffirmed that Ireland was a special case. Does he accept, however, that neither the Chancellor nor any senior Minister or official in the German Administration has yet revised the official German position that no retroactive measures will be allowed?

See this speech in context