Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tagann an rún seo ón Rialtas agus é ag iarraidh cur isteach in Orduithe Buana an Tí seo go mbeadh slí iontu chun dul i dteagmháil leis an ECB ó thaobh reachtaíochta ar bith atáimid ag tabhairt chun tosaigh, agus é de chuid an Rialtais nó an Fhreasúra, a bhaineann leis na bainc nó leis an mBanc Ceannais. Níl dabht ar bith ó thaobh Shinn Féin de, agus é ina pháirtí a sheasann d'ardcheannas na tíre seo i ngach réimse, gurb é seo rud atá neart deacair glacadh leis. Le hachan bhliain a théann thart, cífimid go bhfuil an t-ardceannas sin ag sleamhnú uainn.

Chuala muid ó páirtithe áirithe, go háirithe na páirtithe a labhairt cheana féin san díospóireacht seo, nuair a bhí muid ag plé reifrinn difriúla agus na treaties difriúla a bhí ag teacht ón Aontas Eorpach, ná raibh seo ag tarlú agus nach mbeadh sé seo ag titim amach. Ach cífimid anois amach go bhfuil sé sin ag tarlú. Fiú amháin, nuair a amharctar ar gnéithe cáinaisnéise, nílimid ábalta fiú amháin infheistíocht a dhéanamh in ár ngeilleagar gan dul i dteagmháil leis an Ghearmáin agus cead a fháil é sin a dhéanamh.

The importance of sovereignty is a deeply held belief of Sinn Féin and we have argued for it on many occasions during referenda on treaties. This is not, however, the place to go over past referendum debates. Legally, it seems clear cut that the two paragraphs in the motion compel national authorities, including parliaments, to consult the ECB regarding proposals in its field. In fact, according to a reply from the Minister the ECB has given 33 opinions at the request of the Ministers for Finance or Public Expenditure and Reform and that does not include the times the ECB gave an unsolicited opinion.

The guidelines are clear, though, that "National parliaments have to decide on the basis of their own rules of procedure how to comply with the obligation to submit for the ECB's prior opinion draft legislative provisions which have been proposed by one or more of their members and which fall within the ECB's fields of competence". That is what we are doing here today and I believe, as an Opposition finance spokesperson, that the approach taken is an attempt to make the best out of a bad situation. In this new political reality, where Opposition Deputies and motions can win support, that means a new system to consult the ECB is required. At least the motion before us today allows a committee to set its own timeline for the ECB to respond to it. The ECB has to be asked its opinion but by no means does it have to be listened to and nothing here today will change that. I disagree completely with the Fianna Fáil position that we should consult the ECB prior to Second Stage as that would prevent legislation being tabled by the Opposition. The consultation should take place after Second Stage.

As a member of the banking inquiry, I must contrast the cast-iron requirement of this Parliament to consult with the Central Bank on issues related to it with the ECB's absolute refusal, at first at least, to engage with the banking inquiry set up by this Parliament. When eventually it did co-operate it was in a tokenistic way and on its own terms.

When it eventually engaged with us it was very much on its terms.

As an institution, the European Central Bank is unaccountable and secretive in its operations. We know too that it played an important and extremely damaging role in this country's banking crisis. The ECB is no friend of this country. Let us be clear about that. It is one of the reasons bondholders were paid despite the fact that we are told that should never happen again.

Earlier this year I was in Brussels at a conference organised by my colleague Matt Carthy, MEP, and it was clear that it is not just Irish people who see the ECB as a problem institution. There is Europe-wide disillusionment with the seemingly untouchable nature of the ECB and its policies. It needs to be reformed and its mandate reviewed so that it takes employment and solidarity into consideration rather than having a pure focus on managing inflation. We should listen to what it has to say because we have to - that is what the law states - but that is where its role should end in terms of this country's law making process. From that point of view, I have no problem supporting the motion because it is just a case of ticking the box and moving on.

See this speech in context