Other Questions
6Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Finance if he will detail the total amount of money required by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation from the Exchequer to enable IBRC to pay their total liabilities to the Central Bank of Ireland in full; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9957/12]
View answerThe Central Bank of Ireland does not disclose the value of the IBRC's liabilities to it. However, details of Anglo Irish Bank's primary sources of funding are disclosed in the former bank's interim report for the six months to 30 June 2011 which are accessible at the following link. The accounts will be updated in the IBRC annual report and accounts for 2011 due for publication at the end of March.
As at 30 June 2011 the figure for the Anglo Irish Bank interim accounts, adjusted to include an estimated figure for the INBS, was about €45 billion for deposits from banks, primarily central banks, which provides an approximation of the total liability of the bank to the Central Bank at the time. This figure is expected to reduce to circa €40 billion in the annual accounts which represents the gross cost to the Exchequer to repay the liability to the Central Bank of Ireland as of that date.
In addressing the question of the net amount that would be required by the bank from the State to pay the total liability to the Central Bank of Ireland it is necessary to look at how the work-out of the remaining assets and liabilities might provide some offset to the liability to the Central Bank of Ireland. At this time it is not possible, with any degree of accuracy, to indicate what the figure, if any, might be. The restructuring plan agreed between the Irish authorities and the European Commission required the IBRC to be capitalised for a work-out of the assets over ten years. The capital provided for the IBRC by the State totalled €34.7 billion which was financed by €4 billion in cash, €100 million for the special investment share and €30.6 billion, that is, €25.3 billion for Anglo Irish Bank and €5.3 billion for the INBS, in the promissory note which carries an interest coupon. The amount of money required by the IBRC to repay total liabilities, including liabilities to the Central Bank of Ireland, over this period is subject to material uncertainty and market factors which include the expected timing of asset recoveries and sales, which are dependant on property prices, especially in the United Kingdom and Ireland; the volume and timing of maturing funding commitments and deposits; and projected interest rates within the euro area. http://www.ibrc.ie/About_us/Financial_information/Latest_interim_report/Interim_Report_2011.pdf.
I tabled this question following from the presentations made to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, to ascertain the schedule of repayment of the promissory note which takes us right up to 2031. Because of the way the Government has booked the interest on that promissory note, which was at the market value at that time, Irish Bank Resolution Corporation does not need that total sum of €47 billion to clear all of its liabilities and the actual sum is probably much less, in the region of €37 billion. The argument being put forward is that the State, even if it was to get no change in terms of the promissory note, would not be still paying the promissory note post-2022 or - allowing for variances on impairments, and so on - 2023, but that the amount of capital that Irish Bank Resolution Corporation needs is in the region of €37 billion, not the €47 billion to pay all of the bank's liabilities. Hypothetically, if the Minister was able to sign a cheque today for €37 billion to Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, and it could sell its other assets to clear some of its other liabilities, we could wind the bank up with nearly immediate effect, and that is the point to which I am trying to get.
I was aware that the three economists in question raised this issue in the course of their presentation to the committee, but the three economists do not have access to the books of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation and how they can make that definitive statement is difficult to attain.
I understand Deputy Pearse Doherty's point. He is correct that when the promissory note procedure was put in place there was an average set out for the period of time, but, as he will be aware, that goes up or down. In trying to calculate with any degree of accuracy the total amount involved, Deputy Doherty, for the information of the House, gave the figure of €37 billion. It could be less than €40 billion. Who knows? In the circumstances of where we are at present, it is impossible to be definitive.
I also make the point, of which Deputy Pearse Doherty will be well aware, that much will also depend upon how much of this stuff we can sell. He is probably aware of a very substantial sale of these assets last year in the United States which was able to realise quite a considerable portion.
The variables will be: how much we can get rid of and where that interest rate will be. That is why it is difficult to be definitive at this stage. We are working at a process that has still another ten years to go.
Given that Irish Bank Resolution Corporation is owned by the State and the Department of Finance is the Department which, on 31 March this year, will sign a cheque for €3.1 billion to that bank, I presume that there are talks between both of them on how much this will cost and the cut-off point for this promissory note. Given that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, had the talks with Mr. Trichet and Mr. Rehn on 17 September last to set up these technical talks, I presume that such information is already available. Five months on from the agreement to have these technical talks on the promissory note, the least we would have is a good assumption - that is all it can be - of the total cost to the State. Wrapping everything up together, what is the amount the State needs to transfer to Irish Bank Resolution Corporation to meet its liability?
These are estimates and they are ball-park figures. The Deputy can be absolutely assured that in our discussions, both with our international funders and the ECB, in particular, these matters are being kept under review.
However, I would be unwise to speculate either as to the range of that or the total liability concerned at this stage, because even if we were to be successful in the redesign of the promissory note, there are a number of areas that must be considered. One does not want a situation where a redesign in the long run would be more difficult for us by virtue of the fact of changing interest rates. Those are the kind of issues that must be sorted.
However, I accept what Deputy Pearse Doherty is saying. There is a necessity to make progress on this and that is what we are working hard to achieve.
As the Minister of State will be aware, the recapitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank was based on an estimate of its losses - somewhere in the range of €29 billion to €34 billion. Some months ago, the chairman of the bank, Mr. Alan Dukes, revised that estimate, stating that it could well be as low as €25 billion. The picture has become somewhat clearer recently with the sale of a substantial element of the bank's loan book portfolio. Is €25 billion the Government's current best estimate of the overall cost, aside from the promissory note structure, of the losses at Irish Bank Resolution Corporation?
I note that Deputy Michael McGrath referred to information that was put out there by the chairman at the time, and that is the bank's view. Here again, this will depend on the functioning property market. As the Deputy will be aware, much of the assets involved were purchases here in Ireland, but also in the United Kingdom. As they are sold over a period of time, and as that is reflected in the ultimate price, we will get a better knowledge of this. Deputy Michael McGrath wants me to commit to what the chairman said and I am not in a position to do that.
7Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Finance with respect to Key Action 12 in the Action Plan for Jobs, the amount of moneys that will be available from the National Pension Reserve Fund to channel through the Strategic Investment Bank for commercial investment; if he has secured agreement from the Troika for this measure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9968/12]
View answerAs noted in the action plan for jobs, the strategic investment fund, SIF, whose establishment was announced by the Government in September 2011, will channel commercial investment from the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, towards productive investment in areas of strategic significance to the future of the Irish economy. As well as money from the NPRF, the SIF will seek matching commercial investment from private sector investors. It will comprise a series of sub-funds targeted at commercial investment in critical areas, including infrastructure, venture capital and provision of long-term capital for SMEs. The NPRF will take a lead role in the development and implementation of each sub-fund.
The NPRF's investment in the SIF will, like its existing investments, be on a commercial basis. Accordingly, such investment will not be classified as general Government expenditure in statistical terms and there will be no implications for the continued achievement of the general Government deficit targets we are committed to under the EU-IMF programme. Further investment by the NPRF in Ireland on a strictly commercial basis does not represent a material change in the purpose of the NPRF.
The resulting greater concentration of investment in Ireland on the part of the NPRF is expected to require the amendment of the NPRF's investment policy, which is set out in the National Pensions Reserve Fund Act 2000. Officials of my Department are liaising with the National Treasury Management Agency, as the manager of the NPRF, in identifying and drafting the necessary amendments to the legislation and I expect to bring forward proposals for amending legislation as soon as possible once that work is completed.
On the amount of money available in the National Pensions Reserve Fund, I am informed by the National Treasury Management Agency that, at 31 December last, the total value of the National Pensions Reserve Fund Discretionary Portfolio was €5.4 billion, of which €2.1 billion is in equities, €1.2 billion is in eurozone bonds and cash, and €2 billion is in alternative assets including private equity, property, commodities, infrastructure and absolute return funds.
As the Minister of State will be aware, for quite a while my party has been arguing that we use a portion of the National Pensions Reserve Fund to fund a stimulus programme for investment to get people back to work. Given that there are 439,000 on the live register and 6,000 people leaving the State every month in search of work, we definitely need to use that discretionary portfolio.
The question is very focused. The Government announced its jobs plan, in which key action No. 12 states: "Through the Strategic Investment Fund, channel commercial investment from the NPRF and matching investment from private sector investors towards productive investment in the Irish economy." While I welcome that, I want to know, given this is one of the key actions in the jobs plan, how much money the Government is ear-marking for investment. Obviously, the investment is commercial so the sector will have to tap into it. What pool of money is available for channelling commercial investment? Is it the full €5.4 billion or a portion of that? What discussion has the Government had with the troika? Is the troika agreeable to the level of funding that is available? It is clear that €250 million is available to the infrastructure fund. What is not clear is what pool of money is available for the commercial investment.
I will read the final paragraph of my original reply, which may help the Deputy. The reply states:
It should be noted that these funds are not all readily accessible. The NPRF commission has legally committed €1.2 billion to various fund investments, of which over €800 million is for investment in Ireland. The €800 million includes a commitment to provide funding on a commercial basis for the roll-out of the water metering programme, subject to certain other preconditions.
I agree with the Deputy that, at a time of such high unemployment, we have to strategically use the funds we have for the purposes of investment. He will note the decision of the Government yesterday and the announcement of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, today in respect of the disposal of State assets and how we can use a proportion of that sale for the purposes of investment in the real economy.
In the original negotiations with the troika, as the Deputy is probably aware, there was a view that as State assets were sold, the totality of the sale should go towards debt writedown. That is a position I suspect he, I and everyone else would fundamentally disagree with on the basis that if we have assets that can be used for productive purposes, we need those now in the economy. The announcement made by the Minister, Deputy Howlin, this morning and the Government decision taken yesterday, particularly as these assets are sold on a strategic basis, will mean that up to a third of that investment can be used for productive purposes within the economy.
The Government is mindful of this. We produced a jobs strategy but this must be backed up by hard cash and support where it is commercially useful and where it can leverage additional support.
This is a very simple question, so I will repeat it. Proposal No. 12 is one of the key proposals in the Government's jobs action plan. It proposes to channel commercial investment from the National Pensions Reserve Fund to productive investment. The question is how much money has the Government agreed with the National Pensions Reserve Fund, how much has it calculated will be available for this purpose and whether the troika has agreed to that figure. It is very simple.
In November 2011 the National Pensions Reserve Fund announced a commitment of €250 million to a new Irish infrastructure investment fund, which is seeking up to €1 billion from institutional investors in Ireland and overseas. It will invest in infrastructural assets here in Ireland, including assets being disposed of by the Government and commercial State assets.
There is also an opportunity, of which the Deputy may not be aware, through the European Investment Bank. Talks proceed in terms of leveraging additional support, which is one of the key issues the Taoiseach raised in the course of his recent discussions at a Council meeting. Obviously, if funds can be leveraged for investment in infrastructure and other purposes via the European Investment Bank, that would be another useful step.
The Government is in the process of establishing the strategic investment fund, which is a welcome development and can be used to channel investment into viable commercial projects. In that regard, is the Minister open to the proposal we made in our budget document in December and which is also supported by ICTU, that a portion of the €70 billion of assets held by Irish pension funds would be accessed and made available for investment through the strategic investment fund into commercial projects in Ireland? Will he consider this?
I note the comments made in the past on this matter by the Minister, Deputy Noonan. He is open to considering this. My understanding is that he will open a consultation process with the pensions industry soon, which could lead to an opportunity to use some of that resource. We are in an unusual position in that much of the pension funds that are collected here are not actually used here, as the Deputy knows.
To go back to the point made by Deputy Doherty, at a time when we have such high levels of unemployment, it makes sense to tap into the potential this could offer. There are obviously complicated factors in this regard which must be worked out. However, the Minister has said he is open to this. His consultation, as I understand it, will begin over the course of the next few months. If proposals came from the industry on how those funds could be leveraged towards investment purposes here, we are very open to that and would welcome it.
8Deputy Liam Twomey asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding discussions between him and the ECB on the promissory notes for Irish Bank Resolution Corporation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9975/12]
View answer9Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance when he expects that negotiations on the Anglo Promissory notes arrangement will produce a much reduced burden for the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9922/12]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
As the Deputy is aware, I have indicated that I am committed to reviewing the approach to the promissory notes with a view to reducing the overall cost to the State of correcting the banking system. The troika has agreed to engage in a process with Irish officials to produce a common paper which will consider options for re-engineering the notes in terms of the maturity of the notes, the interest rate, the cash flows and so on. Work is ongoing on this review.
The Deputies will appreciate that there are several parties involved in this process and it involves all the member states of the European Union, particularly the members of the eurozone. The Deputies will also appreciate that the situation in the eurozone remains unsettled and is changing on a daily basis. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in any detail about various options under consideration in advance of the conclusion of the considerations and the production of a common paper. Suffice to say that a broad range of options are under detailed consideration. Additional detail on the various proposals will be available when the ongoing work is further advanced.
In tandem with this technical review, the Government has commenced a campaign at political level to garner support for an approach which is more beneficial to the Irish State. The Minister has met the Commissioner Mr. Rehn and Mr. Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank, as well as a number of his counterparts from member states to progress the matter. The Taoiseach has also met and discussed the issue with a number of EU Council members.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to indicate when the review of options and the negotiations will be completed. The Government is aware of the payment due on the promissory note at the end of March 2012. However, given the nature of advocacy and the decision-making process in the EU, I would not expect this matter to be concluded in the short term. I do not expect that any possible solution will be adversely impacted if we do not have the matter resolved by the end of March. The Deputy will be aware the payment due in March is, in fact, the second payment off the principal amount, as the last was paid last year.
The Government is committed to achieving an outcome which not only serves Ireland's best interests but is also in the best interests of our external partners. The Government is of the view that the global and European economies and the financial markets will benefit from a speedy return to growth in the Irish economy. It is the view of the Government that this solution must involve a reduction in the overall burden to the State of restructuring our banking sector in terms of either or both the cost and the timing of the repayment of that debt.
We put our finger in the dyke and we stopped the disorderly collapse of Anglo Irish Bank in 2008. We held the line to support European financial stability in the midst of our own financial chaos. Does the Minister of State not feel we have earned the right to have a timely response to this issue in regard to whether the ECB will extend, write down or introduce some element of delay to the payments? This is an important issue that affects both sides of the House and it is necessary that this message is got through to the ECB and our colleagues in Europe.
Has the concept of winding down Anglo Irish Bank been considered? It has no deposits in the normal sense. It is a zombie bank, with little or no effect on the wider economy. If it had been signalled well in advance that Anglo Irish Bank would be wound down faster than currently envisaged, it would not have had any effect on the market.
There is a need for people in this country and for Members of this House to know what the European Central Bank is thinking. A delegation from the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform travelled to Germany recently-----
Does the Deputy have a question?
My question relates to how we can discover what the ECB, which acts very much in secrecy, is thinking. During our recent visit to Germany, a German MP told committee delegates that there is a simple rule in Germany. If one borrows money one must pay it back. The Minister of State spoke about the eurozone being unsettled. Part of the problem is that there is too much secrecy and we are not getting the answers we require quickly enough. The governing council of the ECB very much controls what the bank can and cannot do.
I understand the Deputy's frustration, which is felt on all sides of the House, concerning the outstanding liability to the State arising from the criminal reckless lending of a bank which effectively brought this country to its knees. The dilemma - to take my ship analogy - is that the ship has left dock. The decision was made by the previous Administration when, in the first instance, it guaranteed the bank's assets and liabilities-----
People are on the lifeboats.
-----and then proceeded to nationalise it. The problem is that reneging on that contract is seen, from the European perspective, as a form of default. We are arguing that the bank is effectively now functioning as a type of financial warehouse in that its task, over a period of time, is to outwork the assets and liabilities that are there. We are making progress in articulating that to people. Deputy Broughan and the other Deputies who attended the Bundestag recently will have heard the very strong German view, which crosses party lines, that this is a sovereign debt commitment.
I reiterate that if we were to take the position that the State will not meet that commitment, there would be a dramatic effect on the reputation of the country just as we have moved from the collapse phase to the recovery phase.
Could the Government not give them an instalment?
One of the reasons that our ten-year bond yields have improved so significantly, with the interest charged declining from 14.5% to less than 7% over a period of months, is the view that has grown that Ireland is now a sound place in which to invest. If we were to go down the road, as Greece has done, of arguing for private sector investment - effectively debt write-offs - how could we then construct an argument that Ireland is a safe place to do business, a secure location in which to invest and a country from which one would wish to buy Government debt?
The Minister of State is giving us very bad news in telling us that he will achieve nothing by 31 March. Even though he is one year in office, he has achieved nothing in that time. He claims that €3.1 billion was paid last year and the world did not change. In fact, the world did change for schoolchildren, patients and people on benefit. We have seen the capital investment programme slashed right, left and centre. There is no denying that the world changed as a consequence of paying that €3.1 billion. While some cutbacks have been rolled back - the reversal in regard to schools in the delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, scheme was largely achieved by my former colleagues in the parliamentary Labour Party - great suffering has been inflicted on people as a consequence of that payment. That is why the coming payment represents such a significant date for this country.
The Minister of State is being very disparaging to the Greek nation.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Is it not the case that the Government has been travelling in the Greek chariot in that the interest reductions it obtained were due to what the Greeks did? The Government came in at the end, so to speak. The Minister for Finance is going out to Europe week after week but is achieving nothing with this nicely nicely approach to Chancellor Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy. Is the Minister of State saying definitively that he will not achieve anything in the short term? In other words, are we being told that this payment will be made even though it will crucify our country in 2014, with €2 billion worth of interest payments leading inevitably to reductions in essential social spending?
In regard to the technical discussion raised by colleagues on this side of the House, is one of the issues under discussion the mark-to-market interest rate which the Fianna Fáil Party disgracefully and in a treasonable way attached to the promissory note in 2010? Will the Government attempt to roll that back based on a maturity date, as we have been advised to do at the finance committee? The Minister of State claims we can neither cancel nor defer the promissory notes. That is not the case. We could, for example, consider kicking the issue into the stands for 30 or 40 years. We have options. What we do not have is a Government that will negotiate on our behalf in an aggressive and determined manner. Despite the strife and suffering in Greece, its Government may be achieving more than our own has done thus far.
The Deputy makes several assertions which I intend to counter. If he wishes to subject the people of this country to the new conditions of austerity that will affect the Greek people-----
I am talking about ending austerity.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. I object to any proposal to subject the Irish people to that experience. The people of this State will not be subjected to it as long as this Government is in place. The question is how one negotiates. Does one negotiate based on the Gaiety school of amateur acting, as we have just seen from the Deputy, or does one negotiate in a deliberate and calm way on what can be achieved? This Government will not play with people's lives in the way in which the Deputy proposes.
The Government is achieving nothing.
I reject the assertion that we have achieved nothing.
The Minister of State is demonstrating the Abbey style of acting.
The Minister of State, without interruption.
Greek people have seen a further reduction in the minimum wage, while in this State we have increased the minimum wage, as both parties in government promised to do in the course of the election. We have achieved that by negotiation. For a programme country to secure that type of concession is an extraordinary achievement.
I reject what the Deputy said in regard to the interest rate reduction we achieved. We were working to secure it for more than six months. Papers were produced by the Government and when the Greek issue came to be resolved, the papers were there and the model was there.
I am not excluding any option in regard to the promissory notes. We are looking at all options.
The Government will make that payment this year.
We will work with our external partners to find an agreed solution. That is what we are committed to achieve. If the Deputy is fair about this, he will come to the same conclusion.
Is it not the case that if there were no promissory notes - no payments made last year and none to be made this year - the vast majority of cuts and tax increases that are required to be made would still be necessary because the gap between taxation revenue and public spending is still a multiple of what the State must pay out to meet the commitments made by the last Government? To follow up on what Deputy Broughan said, is it not the case that the price the Greek Government has paid for its strategy is an intensification of austerity in the short to medium run and a further loss of sovereignty? Greece is now in a situation where all of the power its finance department had has been conferred on a third party. That is not a course of action open to this State nor is it one the Irish people would accept.
Is the Minister of State not concerned that three of the most prominent economists in the country, at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform last week, roundly refuted what he is saying about the promissory notes? They said they did not see us getting back to the financial markets, that the State would need re-financing in 2014, that they did not believe there is any chance of our being in a position to get money on the international markets and that, therefore, we would be in second bail-out territory. They also stated that if this happens the austerity now being imposed will pale into insignificance and will reach Greek proportions. What does the Minister of State have to say in response to those economists who say something must be done about the €3.1 billion payments due every year on the Anglo Irish Bank promissory notes?
Almost every Member of this House will accept that the previous Government in making the decisions it made in relation to Anglo Irish Bank was criminally misled by the bank about the scale of the losses it had on its books. Deputy Twomey is correct that taking on this enormous burden has had spill-over affects across the European Union.
The EFSF has been replaced with the ESM which has a mandate for recapitalising banks. Given there was no such fund in place when the decisions were made in respect of Anglo Irish Bank, surely there is an exceptionally strong case for the Irish Government to press for those funds to be used in a cost effective manner to ease this burden.
Will the Minister of State accept that the reason bond spreads in Greece have increased is because its debt to GDP ratio is above 160%? Will he also accept that non-payment of the promissory note by this State would result in our debt to GDP ratio falling from the projected high of 120% to !00% or below that, which would entice investment? Will he further accept-----
For the totality of years.
Yes. If the promissory note did not exist our debt to GDP ratio would decrease, which would entice investment back to our country because it would then clearly be sustainable. Will the Minister of State accept that the promissory note is being paid by this State to Anglo Irish Bank, which is an organ of the State, which then pays the money to another subsidiary of the State, namely, the Irish Central Bank which does nothing other than destroy it?
We are not advocating default. As stated by Deputy McGrath, what we need to discuss publicly is not only the changing of the promissory note but the range of other options available, including re-financing. We deserve the right to have that debate.
We have heard that technical discussions are under way but Members of this House do not have a clue what the Government is trying to achieve. I reiterate that the news from the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, that we will have to pay the €3.1 billion at the end of March as no result will be achieved by then is bad news. This means that we will continue to bear this burden in 2014 and 2015. The Government does not appear determined enough to achieve anything in this area. So far, it has done nothing.
I did not say that. I ask Deputy Broughan not to put words into my mouth. I said that this is an ongoing issue for the Government. I have not committed to any specific time lines on this.
The Minister of State used the words "medium term".
I have not said whether it will be paid in March. I have given no commitments in that regard.
Deputy Donohoe raised an important issue. Irrespective of the promissory note, the debt mountain facing this country is a considerable issue. We owe slightly more than €180 billion, €140 billion of which relates to the difference between income and expenditure and €40 billion of which relates to banking. If that was pulled tomorrow, we know the impact of the cuts on our people that would follow. This is the situation which faces the Government on a daily basis. It is responsible for ensuring the transition of managing the debt and looking for a fairer, restructured redesign on the promissory note which would allow us to grow the economy.
I agree with Deputy McGrath's remarks in regard to the new ESM. One of the issues that arose for discussion on Monday night, in respect of which I believe we will get agreement at the Council meeting on 1 March, is the new lending capacity. Currently, the firewall stands at €500 billion. People are talking about an increase of more than €250 billion, which would bring the total to €750 billion. I do not suggest that will be the outcome between now and March. However, as pointed out by Deputy McGrath, that would significantly advance our position.
As I stated earlier, the markets are a little like the media in that they hunt in packs. As long as the spotlight remains on Ireland investors will run away. That is the reality. We are a small open trading economy which does not have the colossal natural resources of others to determine whether we get funds into the country. The crucial piece of the jigsaw is to get money into the Irish banks and to cut our umbilical cord with the ECB. That is the crucial task we face. Slowly but surely we are getting there. In the final quarter of last year funds came back into the Irish banking sector. Also, the exposure of Ireland to the ECB has decreased in recent quarters. That is the type of deliberate process of confidence that this country needs to maintain.
I did not make any disparaging comments about the Greek people. I simply said-----
The Minister of State said they are worse off than we are.
If the Deputy wants to subject the Irish people to a second bail-out-----
They appear to be better negotiators.
Please, Deputy.
I am asking the Deputy to understand to what they are now going to commit.
I understand that.
They are committing to a type of economic Armageddon in terms of what they face on public expenditure.
The Minister for Finance, as a member of ECOFIN, is imposing it on them. The Irish Government is a signatory-----
If Deputy Broughan wants to expose our people to that I fundamentally disagree with him. Written Answers follow Adjournment.
