Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt whatsoever about the huge efforts, the time spent and the enormous energy expended by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in getting to this current position. However, where we are at, so to speak, probably needs to be looked at not just in terms of algebra and arithmetic, where it is demonstrated that there has been a lengthening of a period of the amount of indebtedness taken on through the promissory note creation, but the essence of that debt, the losses it represents, are private sector losses. The promissory notes were first created in March 2010, six months into the governorship of the Governor of the Central Bank, who is a co-author and collaborator in the creation of those promissory notes. He was under the strong influence of the ECB to save the eurozone system. It is not right that the increasing amount of promissory notes, until it reached €31 billion, remains on the citizens of this country.

I refer to the article in today's The Irish Times by Ashoka Mody. He was the chief of the IMF team in Dublin, Ireland's mission chief. "What is the principle that requires the Irish taxpayer to honour the debts of a rogue bank? The promissory notes deal must not be judged by the relief it provides to the Irish budget [which it does]. The right benchmark for its achievement is the debt obligations that live on." We know what they are.

There are many blogs which are up to date on the arithmetic and algebra of the extension over 40 years and the interest rates. However, this does not get away from the principle that we have been landed with debts that are not the obligations of the Irish people.

The promissory notes have served the useful purpose of certifying and officially recognising the principle of official sector involvement. That is monetary financing and that is what has happened. Much more of it is needed. The legacy burdens of the crisis must be addressed; the alternative is unending human pain, a culture of national dependency and a fraying European economic and social fabric.

Wolfgang Münchau writing in The Financial Times yesterday refers to the deal as follows:

This is monetary financing for all intents and purposes. The whole structure of this agreement is so convoluted that newspapers do not report all the relevant details. As always, convolution has a purpose. It renders legal what would otherwise not be, and it allows for obfuscation.

In this case, the purpose of obfuscation would be to hide what would otherwise be a contradictory message. You cannot admit publicly in the creditor countries that monetary financing is taking place – this is sacrilege. But then this is what it takes to save Ireland from a debt trap. It was then considered the best strategy to put back the debt repayment by a generation or two.

In four minutes' speaking time it is nearly impossible to deal with these matters. However, there has been no recognition of the mutuality of sharing the burden of these losses across the eurozone. Ireland saves the eurozone. While there is small budgetary amelioration in the first ten years of a 40-year programme, the essence of the punishment, the misplaced punishment on the people of Ireland, is not recognised. We must add to this motion that the Dáil insists that the Government expressly seeks to negotiate further reductions in the bank-related debt burden on this country.

See this speech in context