Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance if he has contacted any of the EU counterparts following the statement issued by the Finance Ministers of Germany, Finland and the Netherlands last week; if so, if a deal on the banking debt is still possible and his views on the make up of such a deal; if he is attempting to secure a write down on the promissory note; and if the deal being sought on the recapitalising of the pillar banks is of the order of €24 billion as suggested by the IMF in the September 2012 country report. [42492/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The statement by three Finance Ministers from Germany, Netherlands and Finland on 25 September addresses issues already decided upon by eurozone leaders when they met in Brussels on 29 June. The Heads of State or Government made two important decisions at that time. The first was to "affirm that it is imperative to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns". The second was: "The Eurogroup will examine the situation of the Irish financial sector with the view of further improving the sustainability of the well-performing adjustment programme. Similar cases will be treated equally." That commitment to equal treatment is very important.

Ireland continues to be fully engaged in the process within the euro group and among Heads of State or Government on how these commitments will be implemented. Apart from the various technical meetings with troika members, we are pursuing a diplomatic offensive which has included officials from my Department travelling recently to several capitals. My visits to Paris, Berlin, Rome and on to the informal ECOFIN in Cyprus and the Taoiseach's meeting with several colleagues at the level of Heads of Government are part of this process. All our interlocutors agreed that the imperative is to move ahead urgently to implement all of the important decisions taken on 29 June.

As we advance our ideas, other member states will also put forward their proposals. It is to be expected in such a dialogue that there may be some differences of interpretation but these must be within the context of the overarching principles agreed on 29 June. Ireland's position is clear on this, and work is continuing in line with the 29 June summit agreement to break the link between banks and sovereign and the principle that similar cases will be treated equally. We have followed up on that basis as a matter of urgency following the latest developments. Our ambassadors in the relevant capitals have undertaken high-level contacts with a view to underlining the importance we attach to following through on the commitments of the Heads of State or Government on 29 June.

On the funding of the IBRC and the promissory note issue, contacts are continuing with the troika as part of a process to find a long-term solution to that situation in order to enhance Ireland's debt sustainability in the best possible manner achievable while seeking to pay back our debts.

While I am fully aware of the content of the IMF country report, in terms of the deal being sought, the Deputy will appreciate that this is an active process of dialogue. However, I assure the House there will be no lack of ambition in our approach and that our goal in all our discussions with the troika and with our partners in Europe is to get the best possible outcome for the future.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said that the three Finance Ministers made a statement on matters that were already agreed at the summit on 29 June. However, it is worth reading the Finance Ministers' statement and the statement from the 29 June summit. Paragraph 6.2 of the Finance Ministers' statement made the key point that the legacy issues would not be dealt with and would be dealt with by the national states. Nothing in the statement agreed on 29 June dealt with the issue of retrospection. The Minister and the Taoiseach might have got a nod and a wink from their German counterparts, Italian counterparts or whoever else on the day. However, they made a major mistake by failing to secure the insertion of the word "legacy" or "retrospective" in the statement. While the Minister says that he continues to strive for the implementation of the 29 June summit outcomes, it does not deal with the issue of legacy or retrospection. It refers to separating banking debt from sovereign debt but it does not state whether this will be retrospective.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must ask the Deputy to frame a question, please.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is clear that the Minister's objectives in terms of securing a comprehensive deal lie in tatters. The Minister says there is no lack of ambition but he has failed on every occasion, either in this House or externally, to outline whether he is seeking a write-off of any debt in respect of the Anglo Irish Bank promissory note.

The Minister referred in his reply to officials and ambassadors who are doing the rounds across Europe. What engagement has he, as Minister for Finance, had with his counterparts, in particular the Helsinki three - the three finance Ministers who made the statement - since that statement was made?

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difficulty with Sinn Féin is that not alone does it predict failure on the part of the Government but it hopes the Government will fail because part of its strategy is to build a political movement on the prospects of the Government failing and people not getting any relief from the burden of the debt. That puts Sinn Féin in an awkward position when pressing its case. If it were to offer loyal opposition it would be wishing the Government success in having the burden of the debt removed from the shoulders of the Irish taxpayer and using all its influence to assist the Government in this regard. Instead, it wants to step into every little chink to ensure failure. Sinn Féin is not alone in this. Other Deputies also share that approach. By way of general comment, it is a pretty bad approach.

As regards what was said at the Heads of State and Governments meeting on 29 June, the statements reads: "The eurogroup will examine the situation of the Irish financial sector with a view of further improving the sustainability of the well performing adjustment programme." The following sentence reads: "Similar cases will be treated equally." This is where retrospection and legacy comes in. It is not possible to interpret similar cases will be treated equally. The issue being discussed was Spain and recapitalisation of its banks. As such, if Spain gets it then similar cases will be treated equally. This is where retrospection is hinged.

Deputy Doherty is probably not aware that on the night of the statement in Helsinki the Dutch authorities issued a statement clarifying what they meant by "legacy". It stated that legacy, in their interpretation of their statement, only applied to insolvent banks such as Anglo Irish Bank and not functioning banks. Banks that are functioning, as are our pillar banks, do not come within their definition of "legacy". Other clarifications were provided from other areas. The Deputy will have heard President Barroso's statement yesterday that the commitments of 29 June stood. President Schulz also stated in this House this morning that he supported the case that the commitments of 29 June be implemented in due course.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have wished the Minister well prior to his Council meetings. I have also, on behalf of the State, wished the Government well in the negotiations. However, I will not stand on this side of the House and remain silent while the Minister spectacularly fails to demand any write-down on the Anglo Irish Bank promissory note. The Minister has again given the excuse that the legacy debt will, according to the Dutch, only apply to the pillar banks. Why should the Irish people carry on their shoulders the burden of €30 billion for a defunct toxic bank, which is currently under investigation in terms of criminal activity?

It is up to the Minister and the Taoiseach to fight Ireland's corner, which up to now they have spectacularly failed to do. All they will be doing over the next couple of weeks is attempting to claw back ground which they believe was secured on 29 June. The Minister has failed to say on any occasion - I invite him to do so now - if any proposal which he is putting forward will result in a reduction of the overall debt, in terms of the Anglo Irish Bank promissory note, with which the Irish people are currently burdened. Is this Government seeking a write-down of that debt or is it all smoke and mirrors, extensions and restructuring or will it seek alleviation of that debt from the Irish people?

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy does not understand my position and never has because he does not listen carefully to what I say. The reason we are committed to the promissory note arrangement is it is a legal agreement entered into by the previous Government. Throughout the election campaign, the drafting of the programme for Government and up to now I have always committed to the objective of a restructuring of the promissory note and its replacement with something that would not be as burdensome on the Irish taxpayer. I said I would only act in consort and with the agreement of the European Central Bank. I will not put Ireland in a position of default because that is not in the national interest.

We are proceeding with the strategy I have outlined on several occasions. We will see how it plays out. The Deputy should not shout failure until he has seen the result, following which he can judge me.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must move on now to Question No. 3.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question was if the Minister is, in any of the proposals, seeking a write-down of the Anglo Irish Bank promissory note. I listened carefully to the Minister. I know that he is trying to get the promissory note restructured. The question is if he is in any proposal looking for a write-down.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are over time on this question.

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of restructuring is to make the debt less burdensome on the Irish taxpayer.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is different from a write-down.

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy may use whatever words he chooses to describe that.