Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Mary Lou McDonald on last Wednesday night's farce when nobody covered himself or herself in glory in the context of what went on in the House. I listened to Deputies who shouted and roared suggesting they had read the legislation, but just down the corridor it was in their pigeon holes. Perhaps, one well worn copy had done the rounds, but it seems unlikely that people had the opportunity to read it beforehand. It was rushed through without a full debate and the Opposition was only given two hours to study it. While I welcome the Government's decision to set aside time to debate the issue this week, this does not make up for the lack of proper scrutiny of this important legislation. Following last week's farce, people should look at themselves in the mirror and consider whether it was work well done. I do not believe it was.

The Government, through this legislation, is planning on saddling taxpayers, their children and, possibly, their grandchildren with a huge debt. That is what is wrong about the decision made last Wednesday night. Like others, I believe this private gambler's debt was not created by Irish taxpayers and the State should never have taken on responsibility for it. Like others, my family and I, my sisters and brothers and their children have been left to carry this debt. I do not believe the State should pay one cent of that debt, nor should it pay one cent in interest on it. This is a legitimate and logical position to take. It was a realistic position, even before the Government's agreement last week.

The Government is following in the well worn footsteps of Fianna Fáil and going to trade the €28 billion promissory note debt for a sovereign liability which could cost the state up to €60 billion. All in all, the Government's much-hyped deal on the Anglo Irish Bank promissory notes doubles the cost to the taxpayer of bailing out that zombie bank. When we cut through all the spin and hype, the deal on the Anglo Irish Bank promissory notes represents another burden on the backs of taxpayers and future generations.

The Government, like previous Fianna Fáil Governments, argues that there was no choice and that this deal is a result for Ireland. For whom in Ireland is it a good deal? The Government may have a short memory. Less than one year ago the Taoiseach spoke about the proposed deal being a "game changer" for Ireland's finances and said an agreement would represent a "seismic shift" in European policy and should open the way to "re-engineer the debt burden." However, rather than seek a write-down of the debt, the Government has kicked the debt issue further down the road. The only "seismic shift" that took place was the shift of a possible €28 billion in private banking debt, plus possible interest of €32 billion, onto the shoulders of taxpayers and future generations.

Did the Government examine the initiatives won when other countries, Spain in particular, pushed the Eurogroup to commit to separating banking and sovereign debt? The separation of private debt from sovereign debt was what was supposed to be agreed. It is the opinion of a minority in the House that we should have pushed this issue to that conclusion. We should have insisted on the separation of banking and sovereign debt and refused to pay one cent more on the promissory notes. Now, we can, of course, look forward to the debt not only being paid by this generation of citizens but also by their children and, possibly, their children's children, for at least the next 40 years. While this deal may provide the State with some short-term deficit relief, it significantly increases the cost of bailing out Anglo Irish Bank. Ireland has been lauded by EU leaders for its "brave stance". Why not laud it, when the Government has completely capitulated to Merkel's and Frankfurt's way. Even in their wildest dreams, I am sure they did not think any state would voluntarily latch the most toxic of its toxic banking debt to itself.

Across the State ordinary people are trying to cut through the hype and spin. They are asking themselves whether their debt has been reduced and whether this deal will mean fewer tax hikes and spending cuts next year and following years. Sadly, the answer to the first question is no. We get a different spin from the Government, but over the period of the past two Governments, the citizens of the State have been hit by almost €30 billion in cuts and extra taxes in six long austerity budgets. People struggle to pay extra direct and indirect taxation introduced by these Governments. They have seen social spending slashed and major cutbacks in the services provided by the State. Low income civil servants have made major sacrifices through significant pay cuts.

In January a credit union income survey found that 1.6 million people were left with €50 or less at the end of the month after essential bills had been paid. The report highlighted that since October 2012, unfortunately, 230,000 more people had fallen into this bracket. The survey also confirmed that budget 2013 would impact negatively on the finances of eight out of ten adults living in Ireland. However, the Government and the European Union continued with their austerity measures. In 2013 ordinary citizens will be faced with new burdens through water charges and a home tax.

Is it not reasonable to ask how the people will benefit from this new arrangement? If we are saving great amounts, why are we not celebrating the dropping of a property tax worth €500 million a year? The troika was quite clear in its meeting with Sinn Féin that any savings made in the promissory note arrangements would be used to pay off the debt. The Department of Finance projects an immediate saving of some €25 million; the cut made in the budget to the respite care grant was to save €26 million. Will this cruel cut be eliminated? I look forward to that announcement.

The Government had an historic opportunity to secure a real reduction in the cost of the toxic banking debt which was a legacy of the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government. Such a reduction would have been well received and celebrated by all sides of the House. However, the Government did not achieve this. Not only has it wasted that historic opportunity, it has also increased the cost of that heavy burden on future generations. That is what is wrong with the agreement passed last Wednesday.

See this speech in context