Michael D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Our previous discussion of the promissory note took place late at night amid considerable uncertainty about what would happen the following day. Thankfully, certainty was provided the following day when a deal was agreed that most people consider to be a good one. We must congratulate those who put it together on behalf of the State, in particular, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, his officials and the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan.

The deal should primarily benefit citizens. If it results in ¤1 billion becoming available each year, this money should be used to reduce the burden imposed on Irish people. I will cite figures provided by Senator Sean Barrett. Since 2008, the tax take has increased by ¤9 billion to ¤39 billion and is expected to reach ¤43 billion this year. This is a significant increase. Given that the entire adjustment has been made on the tax side, taxpayers should be given as much leeway as possible.

Those who believe this is a good deal include Wolfgang Münchau of the Financial Times, Standard & Poor's, Moody's and The Washington Post. Last year, Professor Karl Whelan of University College Dublin, who has provided sharp insights into this issue, calculated that a 40 year bond would deliver a reduction in the net current value of Ireland's obligation of 43%. The reduction under the new deal is probably a little less than that as the average maturity is 34 years. However, Ireland will be in a fairly healthy position before it starts to repay the money. That is the nub of the issue.

Without meaning to be critical, the original deal was done by the previous Government. I was not party to it and the House was not provided with much information on the process used to arrive at it. The front-loading of the payments for Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide through the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation was a scandal. The arrangement was imposed on the previous Government, whose only choice was to accept it or refuse to make the payments and threaten default. The latter option would have been a high risk strategy and may not have resulted in a better deal. The scandal came about through the actions of the Merkel-Sarkozy-Trichet triangle, whose objective, it seems, was to teach the Irish nation a hard lesson.

The Government had to renegotiate and restructure the promissory note deal. Having achieved this objective, it must make further deals, as the Minister of State noted, on the remaining institutions, namely, Allied Irish Banks, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB. I am satisfied that a deal will be done on these institutions at some point. The reorganisation of the existing arrangement with the troika has resulted in a net reduction of ¤10 billion in the amount to be repaid.

I agree that one hour is not sufficient time to discuss this issue. I congratulate those speakers who correctly described the new arrangement as a good deal. Those who failed to do so, including the Sinn Féin spokesperson in the other House, are the 12 angry men. They are getting angrier because they would prefer to retain a bad deal for political advantage and to suit their agenda of carnage, mayhem and chaos. Unfortunately for Sinn Féin, the deal has been widely welcomed, with the Fianna Fáil Party, for example, taking a mature and correct position on it. When one wants to ignore something one wishes they are not important and hopes they will never work. This deal is important and will work and I congratulate everyone involved in securing it. If it provides a financial benefit, whether in real terms or on the books, as it were, citizens and taxpayers should reap the benefits.