Michael D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister at the early hour of 3.40 a.m. I agree with Senator Darragh O'Brien on one point, namely, that there is a natural suspicion of legislation introduced late at night. It is unfortunate that there is only so much information the Minister can give us, but such is the nature of negotiations.

On a human level, there are 850 people working with the IBRC who face an uncertain future in the short and medium term. In this regard, I welcome the Minister's comments on their being paid their wages, salaries, holiday and sick pay, which is the minimum to be expected. It is unfortunate that under section 6(5), notice of termination of employment will have immediate effect for each employee. However, I welcome the view expressed by the Minister that, in all likelihood, many of the people concerned will be employed by NAMA or the liquidator.

It is important to touch on the reasons we are here.

We are here to come to an affordable solution - the most relevant term that has been used here - to a ¤48 billion liability that the State has. People can stick their heads in the sand and their backsides in the air if they want, but it does not alter the fact that the State will have to pay this bill at some stage. This is about the restructuring of the promissory note.

I would like the Minister to answer a question. He said in the Dáil Chamber that he would have liked to reach an agreement whereby the liquidation of IBRC and the decision on the promissory note could have taken place at the same time. Why is there such a yearning on the part of the European authorities to ensure IBRC is liquidated in this manner? Is there a legal reason for it? What is the exact reason for the liquidation having to occur in this way? I would like the Minister to shed some light on that, if possible.

I heard the conversation about the potential for significant risk and loss to the taxpayer. We cannot expose taxpayers to anything beyond what they have already been exposed to. This institution has cost the people of this country enough. The Minister will certainly have my full support in anything he does to ensure this institution does not cost the people of this State any more money.

It is important to refer to the achievements of those who have taken over IBRC. When legislation came before the previous Dáil and we were eventually given the figures, we were told the likely cost to the State was ¤34 billion. The last time representatives of IBRC made a presentation to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, we were told that the figure is now closer to ¤25 billion, in their opinion. As I said earlier, any time we are able to reduce the cost to the citizens of this country, I will applaud and support that.

During the debate on the promissory note in the other Chamber, I heard public representatives talking about the potential write-down we could get from the ECB. We might hear something similar from Senators before the end of this debate. I ask them to live in the real world of central banking, federal reserves or whatever they are called throughout the world. If money is loaned, central banks will look for it back. That is the way it works.

Those who talk about write-downs seem to ignore the fact that central banks throughout the world look for moneys to be repaid by destitute and poor countries where children die of starvation every morning. Of course they are going to look for moneys to be repaid by this country too. That is what they do. While we might feel aggrieved about it, we cannot deny that the citizens of this country are now liable for this banking difficulty. Children do not die of starvation on the streets of this country as they do in other countries from which central banks around the world are also looking for moneys.