John Gilroy (Labour)

The main concern regarding this course of action has been articulated as moral hazard. The monetisation of debt is a radical measure and one the markets will not tolerate easily. In order to make the case for this course of action as a once-off move that will not need to be repeated, procedures need to be put in place to prevent the recurrence of a debt problem. Perhaps the adoption of the fiscal compact forms part of that strategy. There is no guarantee that being a member of the fiscal compact will place us in this position, but it is certain that being outside of the fiscal compact will guarantee we cannot be part of any debt resolution scheme at European level.

The question of the need for a referendum to ratify the terms of the fiscal compact has been raised. There has been significant uninformed comment on this and I recommend we await the decision of the Attorney General on whether a referendum is required. If the Attorney General's advice is that a referendum is required, we will have a referendum. However, if the Attorney General advises that the compact can be ratified into law without a referendum being required, some commentators have called for a referendum to be held anyway. We need to be very clear about this. The proponents of this position are obliged to clarify the constitutional position if such a scenario arises. The legal advice of the Government might be there is no requirement, yet those calling for a constitutional referendum might say the opposite. I would like someone to explain to me how this constitutional paradox may be resolved, because I see no resolution to such a conundrum.

At this stage of the debate, I ask commentators to be responsible in their comments and to take the time and the trouble to think about the inevitable result of the actions they are promoting. I thank the Minister of State for coming to hear what I have to say.