Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the motion. I am unable to support the motion, which seeks to stop all interest payments currently being made on sovereign bonds issued in February and which calls on the Government to lobby the European Central Bank for an exemption of the rules of market finance in order that sovereign bonds can be destroyed. However, it is worthwhile to have the debate.

I believe the approach being taken by the Government to the undoubted crisis in which Ireland finds itself is on the correct course and the proof of this lies in the figures contained in the latest quarterly national household survey, which shows a significant increase in job numbers in Ireland. Members opposite do not need reminding that the deal which underpins Ireland's current economic debt was done prior to the present Administration's taking of office and the most difficult task facing the Government was to steady the ship in the state in which it was, as it passed through extremely turbulent waters. History has shown instances in which promises undertaken by this State were reneged upon, with huge economic repercussions that filtered down to every family in the State. I believe that simply reneging on commitments made, for example, in respect of interest payments on bonds is not the way forward.

The success enjoyed by the Government to date stems from hard work behind the scenes with our partners across Europe. This is work that often has gone completely unnoticed by the media as it often appears to be of a mundane nature. However, it is such painstaking work, which can only be done between partners who have trust in one another, that has continued to pay dividends in recent months and years. It is this work that has brought the country back from the brink of the precipice and it must continue for many more months and years to come.

I understand fully the huge anger and frustration that exists among the people with regard to the private debt of banks being taken on by the State. Personally, I also have grave issues with it and it is an issue that must continue to be addressed. While it would be easy to spend five minutes in giving a deserved kicking to the banks, that would only take away from the serious position facing Members. The ongoing continuous work at a European level must continue, as Irish finance officials must drive home to European politicians and bureaucrats the pain and difficulty this decision to take on the bank debt has had on Irish people, as well as the fact that pressure from Europe was a key element in the decision and consequently, that Ireland needs Europe to support it at this crucial juncture by using European Stability Mechanism, ESM, funds to recapitalise Irish banks. The Irish economy is beginning to grow and this is a key message that must be communicated to our European partners, as it will bolster the Irish reputation for stability and underline further that Ireland is stepping back from the precipice, that the progress that has been made to date now is gaining momentum. and therefore, the time now is right for the ESM funds to be used.

All the economic achievements of recent months and years, underlined by today's jobs figures, could be lost were the Opposition motion to be passed. Members must consider what could happen, were they to follow through on the motion before them. There certainly would be consequences and they must be realised before any decision can be taken. I believe to suggest there would be no negative effects from such a move simply is to detract from the seriousness of this problem. Members should consider for a moment what the repercussions might be, were this motion to be passed. I refer to the undermining of foreign direct investment, the impossibility of accessing funds to finance public services, the increased cost of credit and the undoubted locking-out of Ireland from international markets. Would Members opposite lend to someone who repeatedly repudiates his or her debts and negates previous contracts?

There are many signs that the path taken to date is the correct one and will continue to be so. While continued lobbying must be undertaken to ensure the best deal possible is secured for Ireland, reneging on interest is not in the country's best interest at present. I remind those promoting the motion of a line in the direct bank recapitalisation instrument, which states "The potential retroactive application of the instrument should be decided on a case-by-case basis and by mutual agreement." I believe this is how it must be pursued and has been pursued. Moreover, I believe fully that such a course will yield much greater results than the proposed repudiation of our debts. The key phrases in the aforementioned line are "case-by-case basis" and "mutual agreement". Ireland's improving economy and increasing job numbers bolster the case that can be made. The second phrase on mutual agreement has underpinned the Government's actions to date and is far preferable to the tactics envisaged by the motion before Members.

See this speech in context