Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Bhí mé i mo shuí anseo an tseachtain seo caite ag éisteacht leis an Taoiseach agus ina dhiaidh sin leis an Aire. Bhí mé ag súil go mbeadh rud iontach ag teachta a bheadh dearfach don tír seo. I was in the House last week and wanted to share in the good news and take part in the applause. I also wanted to believe it was good news. I come to this debate without a background in or studying economics. Therefore, I look at the newspapers. Certainly, the views of the economists appear to have been favourable because the headlines suggested the deal would cut borrowing by €20 billion and ease the next budget; that it was a considerable achievement for the coalition parties; that it was a highly important political achievement; that the deal would be worth €8 billion to the State; and that austerity in the coming years would be less harsh owing to the debt deal. In fact, the bond markets reacted positively. The views expressed in the national newspapers appeared to be favourable, while the international media appeared to be of the same opinion. The New York Times stated it was another important milestone in our slow emergence from the crisis. A German newspaper saw the deal as Ireland winning the argument and suggested it was of financial and symbolic importance to it.

However, there is a major "but". It is rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted because the horse should have been kept in the stable in the first place. By this I mean the debt, amounting to billions of euro that was put into Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society, should never have been incurred. During the debate on the Magdalen laundries last week I said the episode was a shameful event in our history. The signing of the deal in 2008 was also a shameful event, committing €35 billion to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society, especially without agreement by the electorate. The nation began a journey on a very rocky road of paying for something it had had no hand, act or part in. There was a process of allowing individuals from various banks and organisations who are now household names to shirk responsibility for what they had done. We accept that those who commit murder, go into drug dealing or commit robberies and assault will be imprisoned and punished. However, anyone can commit an economic crime of vast proportions, with catastrophic effects on the country, and nothing will happen to such a person. Life goes on as usual. It is business as usual, or if not in Ireland, in some foreign country where profits are built up again. This leads to further inequalities, whereby the individuals responsible who appear to have lost considerable wealth continue on with remarkable levels of income and resources. On the other hand, the people are making sacrifices and, as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, pointed out this morning, losing their homes and enduring salary cuts, with the consequent effects on emotional and mental health.

The original agreement was an affront to democracy. At the time there did not appear to be any confronting or standing up to the ECB but rather capitulation because we were told ATMs would be left without money and that people would have to go without their salaries. Whom were we protecting? It was not the nation but shadowy figures from European banks. Recklessness and gambling were rewarded. The intolerable burden has continued and we know of the consequent cost to the country because of the very harsh budgets introduced since. I realise the Government was under considerable pressure to secure a deal and have no doubt that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, and officials put hours into the negotiations. In this context, what was achieved was considerable, given that we were told a write-down was not available because seemingly the ECB had never agreed to a write-down for any country in Europe. The Minister for Finance stated there was no point making a demand which he knew would not be met because it would amount to starting off on the wrong foot. Clearly, he does not remember the lovely phrase from the New Testament, "Ask and you shall receive". We will never know what would have happened.

The speed at which events unfolded last week was disquieting and reminiscent of another momentous event that occurred recently. What has been achieved? Something has been achieved in the short term, but the problem has been shifted to the next generation. My question is whether that is appropriate or moral because the losses of Anglo Irish Bank and the Irish Nationwide Building Society are still being borne by the people and they constitute a vast burden on a small nation. We have a workforce of approximately 1.8 million people but a vast private bank debt. Where is there fair burden sharing with other eurozone members? How can we recover our economic sovereignty in these circumstances when we see hardship all around?

EUROSTAT has confirmed that Ireland has paid more than any other state to rescue the banks. Some have estimated that we have paid almost 50 times more than any other country. The Nevin Economic Research Institute has suggested Ireland has paid 42% of the total EU bank debt. I realise we have a reputation for being a generous country, but this should be for humanitarian reasons, as it has been in the past, not to rescue failed bankers because of recklessness. I wanted to believe the agreement was good for Ireland and share in the elation, but the problems remaining include that the original bank guarantee placed an intolerable burden on Ireland and was based on the premise that no bank should fail, not even Anglo Irish Bank, and that regardless of the effects on a nation, no bondholder should suffer. Another problem was not asking for or discussing the need for a write-down. The line was that because the ECB was expected to say "No", the question was not even asked. A further problem is the lack of fair burden sharing. It may be the case that we have a cheaper debt now, but it is a debt we should not have had in the first place and of which no real impact analysis was made.

See this speech in context