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

This is a timely, opportune and very welcome topic for Private Members' time tonight and I acknowledge Deputy Catherine Murphy's work and commitment. Tá baint ag comhdháil le díospóireacht agus ní fheadair cén fáth go bhfuil eagla ar dhaoine agus ar an Rialtas leanúint ar aghaidh agus tacú leis an rún seo. I do not understand the fear or reluctance against the idea of a conference because, surely, debate and conversation have to be welcomed.

We seem to have a propensity in this country for wasting money and for not getting the best value out of a project, venture or a plan. We do not seem able to get real value for money. I have mentioned this in the House before and it was outlined in on of last Sunday's newspapers. In my own constituency we have the overspend on the children's hospital, not to mention the tribunals, the massive property write-downs, the Irish Glass Bottle Company, which is a prime example, the incinerator, the National Aquatic Centre and so on. We do not know how to get value for our money. It is similar with the debt burden this country took on in that we did not get the best deal or the best value for the country.

I acknowledge the signs of recovery that we see but that will only be believed when recovery reaches the pockets of all sections of society. We know the sections that are still struggling - the one-parent families, the children in low-income households, those touched by the housing crisis and people with special needs. We know the statistics the Government comes up with on the recovery, including in its amendment to the motion. However, I have to ask what kind of growth we would have now if we did not have the intolerable debt burden to deal with. As it stands, the budget deficit will continue to run, meaning more and more will have to be borrowed, which means more expenditure on the interest. One figure from an economist refers to the sum of €8.2 billion to service the national debt in 2014. We can consider what that could have been spent on.We can just imagine the resources that would be at our disposal for health, education, housing, water and social issues.

The amendment refers to the economic recovery. We are the fastest growing EU member state. Again, how much further would we be with a different debt, one that was not unsustainable? A considerable portion of this is not our debt, and private bondholders are rubbing their hands in glee at their good fortune at our expense.

The situation we are in now is the situation that many African countries were in when they had unsustainable debt which was hindering growth and had conditions attached to their loans that were not in their best interests. In September last there was a proposal at the UN General Assembly to establish a committee to negotiate an international mechanism which would enable countries which were unfairly indebted to justly avoid default. Some 11 countries voted against this, including Ireland. The ad hocUN committee on sovereign debt restructuring processes has been established and met today in New York for the first time. Ireland boycotted it, using the excuse that this was not something the EU was getting involved in, yet some EU countries were involved. It does not make sense to boycott a mechanism to resolve sovereign debt crises which could potentially facilitate Ireland getting some leeway on unjust debt, such as that undertaken in connection with the Anglo Irish Bank bonds.

There is a change of mood in Ireland and in Europe. There is a demand for a different way because families, communities and citizens are more and more demanding that they, and future generations, do not have to service a debt that was created by a greedy few, who gambled and lost, but did not really gamble as their bonds and investments were guaranteed. Who do we, as Deputies, represent?Is it the bondholders, the developers, the reckless banks and the financial institutions, or is it the people? It is very hard to accept that there are certain developers who lost but who are getting €200,000 a year from this country. If the best interests of the people were the priority and if the Government wanted to show that it is connected with the people, why not support the motion? This motion is about a conversation, about a debate, about a conference. We Irish people are very good at debate and conversation. I do not understand what there is to lose by having this debate and agreeing with it.

There is a reminder in the motion about the founding principles and the values of the EU, which are to do with solidarity and mutual respect among nations. Where is that solidarity and mutual respect when European debts are placed on the most fragile shoulders, when Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece have suffered disproportionately? It is almost sadistic. The press conference this morning called by Deputy Catherine Murphy was basically asking for a wider debate that would involve the Government, Departments, academics, NGOs, communities and citizens. It is a great topic for a constitutional convention, if we want to take that road again. It is basically about the common good.Where is the fear in that?

See this speech in context