Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I join Deputy Connaughton in commending the current actions of the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance with regard to seeking to obtain a better banking deal than that which Ireland has obtained to date. However, I also commend the actions of the Tánaiste, as a diplomatic initiative and offensive clearly is required to reverse or seek to renegotiate the deal that was agreed by the previous Government in respect of the Anglo promissory notes. If one turns to the actual wording of the motion before Members I note it states, "That Dáil Éireann ... [should] assert that the debt is not the moral obligation of the Irish people". I understand that Deputy Ross may have been the prime mover of this motion and note he moved it this evening. I understand that Deputy Ross worked in more than one stockbroking firm before taking his place in this House and perhaps he still does. My question is, what does morality have to do with the international markets? What did morality ever have to do with the international markets? I fully agree that this bank debt, no more than the bank debt of the pillar banks, is not the moral obligation of the Irish people. However, it is the legal obligation of the Irish people and this sovereign State acts in accordance with its legal obligations. I agree it was a mistake to give the bank guarantee on that fateful night but I do not propose to lecture Deputy Michael McGrath on the mistakes of the past and I certainly hope he will not lecture Members on this side on what the present Government has not achieved, given the enormity of the task facing it when it took office only two years ago.

It is a clear legal obligation on the Irish people to pay the bank debt in the form negotiated, which is the promissory note process. It might be morally repugnant but it is a legal obligation until there is a change. There can be no unilateral change, as unilateral action got us to where we are today. We do not know the truth as there has not been a proper banking inquiry but we have been told the unilateral action was taken by four or maybe six men gathered in Government Buildings in the small hours of the morning, guaranteeing all the bank debt in the country, including that of Anglo Irish Bank, which is the subject of tonight's motion.

The differences between us and Iceland are stark. In Iceland the banks defaulted on their debt and they were then nationalised. In Ireland, we nationalised the debt, and we are now talking about defaulting. It is far too late for this and the horse bolted not two years ago but almost five years ago. We are not talking about the legal obligation of banks but rather the legal obligation of this State. Iceland also sped on its road to recovery by devaluing the kroner, which led to a devaluation of both the savings and debts of Icelandic people. We do not have that option, unless the proposers of the motion are seeking to exit the euro. If that is the proposal, I would like to hear how they will see us trading, given our dependencies on Europe for trade, which are completely different to Iceland.

Iceland has overcome its major hurdles to expect a surplus next year by reducing its deficit. Nevertheless, every effort this Government made to reduce its deficit, including by reducing spending, has been resisted by Deputies like Deputy Halligan, who is very opposed to any reduction in Government spending. Deputy Ross would be very opposed to any increase in taxation because it would affect his constituents. We can all pander to our constituents but we must reduce the deficit, regardless of what happens with the promissory notes, if the country is to have an economic future.

On that basis I cannot possibly agree with the motion, although I agree that the bank debt is not the moral obligation of the Irish people. The rest of the motion is "Puff the Magic Dragon" economics.

See this speech in context