Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. In addressing the House on this very important topic, it is important that we put it into the context of where we are as a people and what we are trying to achieve in terms of debt restructuring, addressing the fundamental deficit facing the country on a continual basis with regard to the provision of services and, more importantly, trying to inspire and encourage people to ensure that if they stay the course, we will come through the other side. It is critically important to point out that austerity alone will not address the difficulties this country faces. There must be belief, hope, opportunity and a vision and pathway out of where we are.

I have listened to the debate over the past number of days and previously. There are many varying views as to how we address the difficulties. There are varying views on how we got into the difficulties and much revisionism, rewriting of history and partisan point scoring. That is fine. We live in a political world and this is a political Chamber as much as a democratic assembly. In talking about the future, we must address it in a meaningful way that contributes to addressing the problems. They are twofold. We have a major overhang of debt in trying to resolve the banking crisis that faced this country from 2008 to the present day. That issue has not gone away. The restructuring of the promissory note is a start and we welcome that as a party. It addresses a number of fundamental issues such as short-term cash flow and diminishes the repayments required over the longer term by the State to bail out what was described very often in this House as a toxic bank.

The question must be asked as to why one would bail out a toxic bank and why the State and, more importantly, the people carry the burden of a toxic bank. Reference has been made to the fact that it was primarily down to the events of 28 September 2008 when the bank guarantee was foisted on the Irish people. At the time, one would have had to ask what the alternative was. Some parties supported the bank guarantee, while others opposed it. Every party here except for the Socialist Party and People Before Profit have on occasions voted for the bank guarantee. That is a fact. Fine Gael supported it during the legislation that week. Sinn Féin supported it that week. On entering Government, Labour supported the extension of the bank guarantee. The only people who are in any way consistent around here on this issue are People Before Profit and the Socialist Party but one could argue that their policies are always consistent because they are consistently wrong. On this occasion, they claim they were the only ones.

We see a rewriting of history on this issue. Labour in particular said that it vehemently opposed the bank guarantee and yet in Government, it supported and voted on an all-party basis with its Fine Gael colleagues to extend that guarantee. The point I am making is that if we are trying to address the difficulties, it is important that we establish what the problems facing us are and what are the solutions. People could argue that Fianna Fáil has a brass neck to stand up in this Chamber and speak on this issue. I do not believe I have any choice or obligation other than to speak on this issue because I feel my party and I can bring something to the debate. We will support the Government when we think it is right.

The legislation to wind up the IBRC was rushed through the Dáil last week. It came upon us very quickly and we made a decision based on a number of things. They were a quick perusal of the legislation and a brief interpretation and explanation by our spokespersons on finance. Critically, one must at times take the word of the man standing in the trenches and that was the Minister for Finance. Clearly, his recommendation was that there could be contingent liabilities on the State if we did not pass this legislation. We have to take the Minister at his word on those occasions. We would obviously have liked an opportunity to tease out and debate the issues before giving final consent to supporting this. However, when the Minister looks one in the eye and says that there is a potential threat to the finances of the State in terms of asset stripping, etc., we had an obligation to support this. That is the reason we supported it but that does not mean that we cannot criticise other aspects of the deal and the Government's approach to the banking issue.

We must go back a bit to the time when the Tánaiste and current leader of the Labour Party vehemently opposed the bank guarantee. Another aspect of his opposition related to NAMA. I find it amazing that two years into this Government, it has done nothing to address the democratic deficit in NAMA and the fact that there is no accountability to any Chamber or committee or anybody else. Clearly, these decisions were made under huge pressure at the time. Let us be honest. The Opposition was fighting the good fight in terms of trying to root out a Government that was under siege but the Government of the day had to make these decisions under enormous pressure both in this House and from the ECB in Frankfurt. Very often, it had to stand alone and some of those decisions still need to be looked at in respect of the establishment of NAMA and its governance structures, accountability and transparency. The Tánaiste was the one person I thought would champion that issue from the Government side.

See this speech in context