Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Apr 2011

Vol. 729 No. 3

Bank Reorganisation: Statements

Last Thursday, I announced the Government's radical and wide-ranging plans to restructure the State-supported banking sector. When it published its plan, the Government had a number of objectives. First, to restore confidence in the banking system and in the economy of the country. Second, to recapitalise and restructure the banks and, third, to restore credit to the economy in order that growth will rebound and jobs can be recreated. All three objectives are being fulfilled.

The Government's plan set out to restore the confidence in the banks and economy. This confidence was lost by the indecision of the previous Government and quite frequently by plans that were quite aimless. The reaction at home and abroad to the Government's policies shows that confidence is being restored. Since the announcement last Thursday, Bank of Ireland shares have advanced for three consecutive days of trading and have increased in value by 45%. Allied Irish Banks likewise has advanced significantly and the total amount of deposits withdrawn from the pillar banks has been significantly reduced. Since Thursday's announcements, the net deposit position of the pillar banks has improved significantly. Irish ten-year bond rates peaked on 31 March at 10.322% and have since fallen back and now are trading in the nines, that is, below 10%.

Standard & Poor's has removed Ireland from credit watch, noting the outlook is now stable. Its statement reiterates its opinion that "the assumptions underlying the stress test conducted by the Central Bank of Ireland — in conjunction with the IMF, European Central Bank, ECB), and European Commission — are robust and that the expected €18-€19 billion net cost to the Irish state of additional recapitalisation, plus the contingency buffer for the banking system, is within our range of expectations, albeit at the upper end". Standard & Poor's also noted that "we believe that the Irish economy has stronger growth prospects than the Portuguese and Greek economies considering its openness, its flexibility, and its competitiveness". Moody's stated: "We view the plans to deleverage the system as credit positive, as they will reduce the high reliance on central bank funding." It did, however, acknowledge, as Members are aware themselves, that the plans to deleverage will be a challenging process. The other agency, Fitch, described the stress tests as an important step in restoring confidence in the banking system.

Market participants also have responded positively. In a report on Monday entitled, "Ireland — Time to Buy", Morgan Stanley encouraged investors to buy Irish sovereign debt. The investment bank states that Ireland is still facing major challenges "but if there is one economy in the euro area that could meet these challenges, it is probably the Irish economy, we think". It went on to state that "the stabilization of the Irish banking system that we expect the stress test to facilitate should allow the economic turnaround already underway to boost investor confidence in Ireland's medium-term debt sustainability".

Members will note that across a range of commentators who specialise in these matters, the reaction to the announcements of last Thursday have been highly positive. They have commenced the building up again of confidence in the economy. However, while the response is positive and will help to build up confidence, I appreciate confidence is a fragile flower that can fade under the stress of international events. Members already will have noted the damage to the supply of energy globally that has been caused by the tsunami and the accident in the nuclear power station in Japan, as well as the impact on oil prices of events in North Africa and the Middle East. Consequently, in an open economy such as Ireland's one cannot control external events. In so far as we control our own affairs, last Thursday's announcements have received a positive response. The proposed reorganisation and recapitalisation of the banks has received widespread approval and involves a number of steps. In essence, our banks are to become smaller, more focused on core operations, better funded and better capitalised. The banking system is being reduced to a size appropriate to our economy. This involves the sale or run-off of in excess of €70 billion worth of non-core assets. It will be accomplished in line with detailed plans submitted by the banks and reviewed by the Central Bank and the Government.

In parallel, the system is being reorganised to create a banking system that has two universal full service domestic banks as its core pillars and a radically restructured Irish Life & Permanent. The first pillar bank is being created from the already strong franchise of Bank of Ireland and it is our intention to combine the businesses and strengthen the franchises of Allied Irish Banks and the EBS Building Society to form the second pillar. Overseas banks operating in Ireland will help to maintain the competitive fabric of the market.

Each of the Irish banks has already begun to reorganise its operations into core and non-core functions and to implement a carefully managed programme of deleveraging. As the non-core assets that do not serve growth on the island of Ireland disappear, the pillar banks will become even better able to serve the economy as functioning banks rather than the oversized, overleveraged banks we now have.

A key element to a successful plan for reorganisation is funding. If one cannot fund the restructuring, one cannot do it. This was the key debate with the European Central Bank. Shortly after we presented our radical plans to resize and reorganise the banks, the ECB issued a number of important announcements relating to the continued availability of euro system funding for our banks. First and of most importance, the ECB confirmed that, against the background of our decision to recapitalise the banks in line with the Central Bank's "rigorous assessment of the capital needs of the Irish banks", the euro system or ECB will continue to provide liquidity to banks and also "supports the Irish banks' plans to deleverage and downsize their balance sheets". Given the ECB's statement about supporting the deleveraging plans and continuing to provide liquidity at 1%, it is clearly committing to ongoing medium-term funding.

Second, the ECB confirmed that all marketable debt instruments issued or guaranteed by the Government will be deemed as fulfilling the credit standards required for collateral in euro system credit operations irrespective of ratings. In the absence of such a statement, the risk was that the banks' access to ECB funding would have been restricted were there downgrades of the sovereign. Confirming the availability of liquidity for the Irish banks allows them and the banking sector to avoid all too speedy deleveraging in difficult markets. This means the Irish taxpayer avoids upfront losses from system-wide fire sales that would have cost the Exchequer an estimated €45 billion. This is critical in minimising the losses in the banking system. Selling assets in a rush where the world knows one needs to sell them to repay a bank demanding its cash immediately is never a way to maximise the sales price.

Equally important, the banks will continue to access the cheaper interest rates of this funding to transition to less difficult times as compared with the 5.8% interest payable on alternative European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF, funding amounts. Those in the House and elsewhere who advocated a switch of funding for liquidity purposes from the Central Bank to an appropriate fund along the lines of the EFSF may, in the theory of monetary and fiscal policy, be correct in their assessment but a switch on the source of funding risks the interest rate going from 1% to 5.8%. We are not prepared to take that risk and are quite happy with the funding arrangement with the ECB, whereby considerable amounts of money are provided to the banking system at 1%. That the ECB has committed to accepting all Irish banking paper as collateral and to continuing its funding in the medium term is important.

Credit is essential for the economy. I will now describe how the credit flow will be reorganised and reintroduced into our economy. It is nice to have positive market reaction, but the test of the restructuring will be whether credit lines are available again to households and businesses. Our plans take a new approach and will spearhead economic recovery through the provision of necessary credit. Economies cannot function without access to credit and cannot grow without access to the credit required to permit such growth. As consumer and business certainty recovers, credit demand always improves. Householders feel less insecure about income and employment prospects and businesses feel more comfortable about making investment decisions. If improvement in credit conditions helps to stabilise asset prices, credit demand will increase further, but none of this can occur without access to lending and credit.

The wise shopowner who cuts costs and gets his or her business running even in recessionary times needs to be able to invest in new equipment to make things work even more efficiently. He or she may want to open up a second shop across town and employ three or four more people. Nothing is possible without reasonably priced loans from the banking system.

It is not just a problem for small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. One cannot buy a house down the road for which one has the deposit unless the bank is willing to grant a mortgage to fund the rest of the purchase price. The house buyer cannot move to buy, the house seller panics, reduces the price even more and still the buyer cannot buy. The floor falls from under the price at even unreasonably low levels simply because no one can get a mortgage. This is essentially what is occurring in respect of Irish house prices. Everything stagnates without a credit supply. The scale of the drop in activity has been noted in the recent Home Bond announcement that only 87 new homes were registered last month. This directly relates to a banjaxed banking system that is unable to provide mortgages.

The Minister has seven minutes remaining.

In recent years, the excessive attention focused by bank management on the need to recapitalise and repair broken balance sheets has been a failed policy. With banks under pressure to delever quickly, new lending suffered considerably. Despite the efforts by the Credit Review Office, business and retail confidence in the availability of credit was completely eroded. Our decisive plan will provide a powerful support to encourage investment and return people to work. We must break the vicious cycle whereby limited access to credit hurts economic growth by restricting investment and consumer spending, which in turn causes further job losses and, therefore, further limits spending. Our plans will provide credit to encourage investment and consumer spending, thereby instilling in the economy a confidence that will lead to increased employment and even further consumer spending and confidence.

As I have stated for the past three years and up until last Thursday, banks were under extreme pressure to delever and restructure their balance sheets. It is impossible to consider new lending as a priority when one has capital and funding problems. With inadequate capital, the pressure came first from a need to avoid new lending activities that would have used up scarce capital resources. We have solved this problem by committing to capitalise the banks properly to deal with losses in their legacy books and to withstand all foreseeable shocks to their businesses even in extremely pessimistic scenarios. With funding difficulties, the banks were under pressure to delever assets to repay the funding due to the ECB and the Central Bank. We have solved this problem by working with the ECB and the Central Bank to provide for liquidity coverage for the deleveraging plans while accommodating in those plans more than €30 billion of new lending between now and 2013.

The key to creating the potential for new lending is to be found in a full understanding of the deleveraging process. It is this dynamic that presents the catalyst for new lending and a clear change of direction from the failed policies of the past. The Central Bank has estimated that small and medium enterprise and mortgage credit of €11 billion to €16.5 billion of gross new lending will be required in total over the next three years. Our plan creates capacity for the pillar banks to lend in excess of €30 billion over the same period.

Over the period to 2013, to resize their balance sheets and achieve acceptable loan to deposit ratios, the pillar banks need to delever their balance sheets by in excess of €55 billion of loans. Each year, on average, €10 billion of existing loans get repaid in the pillar banks' core businesses, which is more than €30 billion over three years. If the banks restrict new lending in their core banks, achieving the plan could have required an identification of just €25 billion or more of additional non-core assets to be sold or run off. New lending would be zero but the banks would delever to the desired size and could commence new lending in 2014.

The Government might have stopped there but that would have continued the failed policies of the past and we cannot wait until 2014 for new lending. The €30 billion or more of expiring lending over the three years had to be saved for the Irish economy. The banks could not come under pressure to pocket the cash and use it to repay the ECB and it must be recycled into the economy. We are overcompensating on the deleveraging of non-core assets. We have identified a full €57 billion of assets which were not required to rebuild the economic growth of the country and these are the assets to be wound down or sold.

By taking out or deleveraging extra assets, the reorganisation plan retains a clear capacity across the two pillar banks to recycle the expiring core lending to create new lending in activities which would spur economic growth. Down €57 billion and up €30 billion gives the same net reduction of €27 billion or more but critically, a key target of more than €30 billion for new lending now is part of the system. To put it very simply, if we deleverage beyond the equilibrium point, we provide the headroom for the new lending to occur over the next three years. The plans to be implemented by the banks will provide headroom for extra credit in the economy of in excess of €30 billion over three years.

The second feature of the programme is that lending in the core banks does not need to be increased to service the economic needs of Ireland but it needs to be redirected. We know the Irish banks have lent excessively to their clients in recent years, especially for foreign real estate purchases. The credit allocation has become skewed towards real estate lending and genuine borrowers in manufacturing and agriculture, for example, have seen their percentage share of lending reduce annually over time since the 1990s in a progressive trend.

It is important that we veer away from lending on the real estate side and put it into the productive areas of the economy. We will do this by implementing the policies as stated with the Central Bank, the National Treasury Management Agency and the Department of Finance monitoring what is happening in the banks. They will ensure lending is directed to the productive areas of the economy. The Credit Review Office has commenced operations and has done some good work. I compliment my predecessor for putting this institution in place because it has helped, and we will build on the work that has been done.

I will deal with the cost of the recapitalisation of the banks. The total capital required for the Central Bank stress test exercise is €24 billion. The net impact of this to gross debt is significantly reduced by measures we are taking. In total, the impact on gross debt may not exceed €2 billion, which is less than 1.5% of GDP. It is not at all the exaggerated figures claimed by commentators. Of the total amount of €24 billion, €3 billion will be a contingent buffer or COCO contingent capital instrument paying a market coupon to the State, which will reduce the cost to the Exchequer of financing this investment. The agreement with the external authorities provided that the State would provide €17.5 billion of funding towards the programme of support for Ireland. It is proposed therefore that the National Pensions Reserve Fund will provide an additional €10 billion and that the State will fund a further €7 billion from cash resources. This will reduce the additional debt service cost to the State associated with new capital injections.

Additionally, as we have already announced, the Government will require burden sharing from subordinated bond holders, capital generating asset disposals by banks and it will endeavour to raise capital from private investors to alleviate the burden on the domestic taxpayer. We expect that the impact on gross debt will not exceed €2 billion, which is much lower than the figure in comments.

We see the restructuring of the banking system as the first measure to restore confidence in the economy and to provide credit lines to make the economy grow again. It is only a first step and we must move on to consider the domestic economy, where savings figures are over 11%. There is money out there but people are afraid to spend it. If we can get people back to a normal pattern of spending, the service sector in the domestic economy will begin to grow. Our strategy is to change the thinking of the Irish people by introducing a jobs initiative by way of a budget some time during May. That will be the second plank in trying to return confidence, move the economy forward and get people back to work.

I thank those in the House for their attention. We claim to have made a good start on the banking side but it is only a start. It is only one plank in an ongoing programme to restore confidence and build the economy.

I propose to share time with Deputy Willie O'Dea. This is an essential first step and a prerequisite to economic recovery. It has been a successful first step because the Minister has built on the policies of the previous Government. Leaving aside the rhetorical party flourishes about who might have been to blame and what steps should have been taken, the Minister has outlined that the correct steps were taken as he has followed the policy of the previous Government. The outlines of this speech can be clearly derived from the EU and IMF agreement concluded last winter. There is nothing in that agreement, arranged with the previous Government, that is not implemented in the Minister's current policy. The various steps taken to implement the agreement, from the disposal of accounts in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide to other banks to the conducting of a stress test and undertaking to capitalise the institutions, were all expressly envisaged last December.

The Minister, by and large, takes a very constructive approach in proposing these measures. As he did last week he does today. There is an element of politics and he cannot absolve himself from making a few references to the alleged mistakes of his predecessors. I notice that last week he referred to the guarantee of 30 September 2008 but the Minister has now given a more extensive guarantee than occurred on that night. That guarantee lapsed on 30 September 2010 and when it did, a large amount of bank bonds became unguaranteed. The Minister has decided, through capital reassurance, that those bonds should be honoured and paid in full. That is the effect of the Minister's announcement last Thursday and it is confirmed today. We should not speak of disastrous guarantees when the Minister has given a broader guarantee than that given by the previous Government.

Throughout that period of great difficulty in the past two or three years, when a number of initiatives were taken, the Minister can hold his head high as one of those who took a very responsible approach on banking. That was not the case with all other members of his party and the Labour Party, many of whom openly and consistently called for undermining the credit of the country's banking system. In its own way that contributed to the loss of confidence in the system; if we keep talking about burning bonds, as friends on my right like to do at regular intervals, we can hardly be surprised if depositors want to remove deposits from the Irish banking system or have very little faith or confidence in it. We all know that senior debt ranks at the same level of insolvency as a deposit. Depositors will not leave their money in the Irish banking system if we have a constant barrage and chorus of calls for the dishonouring of Irish senior debt.

Deputy Noonan never engaged in that practice and I give him full credit for doing so but many in this House have done so.

It does not help. Among the factors that have helped to build confidence in the Irish banking system since the Minister's announcement last Thursday, according to the preliminary signs he outlined, is one reported to me by market sources, namely, the fact that the main Opposition party is not engaging in a chorus of calls for the dishonouring of senior debt. To be constantly demanding the dishonour of debt, as some Deputies do, is not good for this country, does not help its interest and is a form of economic treason. They do not seem to appreciate this has a most negative impact on deposit holding in the Irish financial institutions. Clearly, any depositor faced with public opinion that demands the dishonouring of debt will ask, "Why do I leave my money there?" Or, to put it in blunter terms, if one sees one's neighbour burning down his house why would one stay in one's own? Deputies on all sides must recognise that if we are to restore confidence in the banking system there must be some assurance the system is not about to be torched, destroyed or subject to arson as mentioned by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, during the election campaign.

Of course, the Government finds it necessary to insert a narrative into its political discourse on the subject which suggests this is a radical new policy, different to the mistakes of its predecessors. In fact, it is the same policy and is the correct one. It will be implemented and I wish the Minister well in its implementation. When I say it is the correct policy that does not mean I agree with all the details. There are always details which are subject to argument and debate but the broad line of policy essentials is that we must ensure the banks are deleveraged, sustainable and in a position to support Irish businesses and consumers and those who want to lend to them for legitimate purposes, that the various core assets are separated from the non-core ones, as outlined by the Minister, and that the capital ratios are adequate and create international confidence.

As I noted last week, one of the major weaknesses facing this Government and the previous one — a crack which the Minister has attempted to paper over — is the lack of clarity on the part of the European Central Bank. The ECB is the lender of last resort for the Irish banking system within the euro system. Some of the comments made in the European Central Bank leading up to the EU-IMF arrangement last year were not helpful to the then Government or to this country. There are individual members of the governing council who give of their own opinions on these matters. The ECB is a central bank and normally when one deals with a central bank one deals with one person expressing in an authoritative way the views of that central bank. However, it appears to be a practice in this central bank that one gets a diversity of views expressed by a diversity of members of the governing council. That certainly does not help a small state such as Ireland which is coping with the vagaries and difficulties of world markets. Given that, I know the Minister and the governor will work at their relationships in that regard but it is a difficult relationship to manage when there is a European institution with a collective government as well as an individual president and chair.

I refer to specific matters that arise from the Minister's announcement today. First, there is the restructuring of the banks, with the suggestion of two pillar banks. It is not clear where the destination of Irish Life & Permanent lies in this arrangement. I want an assurance from the Minister that the private shareholders in Irish Life & Permanent will have to take the first hit as far as burden sharing is concerned in regard to this bank. We have talked a great deal about burden sharing yet no Deputy seems to acknowledge that the major burden sharing was already taken by the shareholders of the Irish banks who have lost very substantial moneys in their investments. That is the risk capital. When we talk about gamblers, to whom I often hear reference in this House, subordinated bondholders get a more attractive rate of interest for investing in what is a more hazardous investment. Again, that is why the previous Government insisted that subordinated bondholders should make a contribution, as provided for in the legislation.

Last Sunday we had the extraordinary spectacle of the Tánaiste trying to claim that this Government had decided that subordinated bondholders should take a loss. That was decided by the previous Government and does not require fresh legislation because the legislation to provide for it was enacted before Christmas. As far as senior debt is concerned, however, people who advance money on a senior basis are not gamblers but people who take a fixed rate of return, typically, a rather low one over a period. They are the same people who lend to the Irish sovereign. It has been suggested, repeatedly, by some Members that somehow these people, too, can be torched and burnt. If we go down that road that would have very serious consequences for this country. We need accuracy in our public discussion on these subjects.

On the matter of the pillar banks and Irish Life & Permanent, it is unclear to me which bank ILP will end up in or whether it will have an independent existence. This is of most considerable interest to the employees and those who work for it. We need some sense of strategic direction on this issue. There is nothing new in this strategic announcement. We have known since last November we were building the banking landscape around the two main banking institutions. It is now clear the Educational Building Society will be transferred to one of the pillars; I wish to know what will happen in the case of Irish Life & Permanent. Of course, before the Government took office the position in respect of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide was made clear.

A further question of considerable importance in respect of the recapitalisation is how we will deal with the issue of those who owe very substantial moneys on foot of mortgages and are now very exposed and in a distressed position. The previous stress test did not factor into the bank recapitalisations the kind of sums now being factored in respect of mortgage loss. How will that be related to those who actually owe this money to the banks, and what relief will they be offered? I welcome the Minister's comments about the Credit Review Office, a valuable institution given the nature of the banking system we now have. However, that office is focused on business lending. I and my party are very concerned about home purchase lending. It seems the home purchase lending market is frozen. The banks are not advancing money and the issue must be raised with the regulator of the onerous requirements in regard to loan to deposit ratios. In some institutions these are running at 70% and 80%. The reality is that the value of the asset has fallen dramatically. A large number of people are in a position to purchase houses but the finance is not available. The Minister will have to recapitalise the banks again if he does not get the home property market going. A floor must be put under that market if his banking policy is to succeed.

Deputy Willie O'Dea has just over nine minutes left.

I thank Deputy Lenihan for agreeing to share time. I welcome the rigidity of the stress tests but the Minister referred to various learned commentators. Although I am sure he is aware of it, I point out to him that a number of learned commentators have also questioned certain aspects of the stress tests. It has been suggested, for example, that a rather benign view was taken in regard to inflation, interest rates and the decline in disposable income. I note too the Central Bank has rebated very substantially downwards the figure put forward by the consultants in regard to potential losses on mortgages. That is a classic case of having a dog and barking oneself. I would like to know on what basis that was done.

Concerning what the Minister stated about the medium facility, there is a commitment in the programme for Government which I shall read for the information of the House: "As an interim measure we will seek to replace emergency lending to our banks with medium-term affordable official financing in a way that can restore confidence amongst other potential lenders in the liquidity position of our banks". The experts to whom the Minister referred take the view that the benefit of recapitalisation of the banks is somewhat limited in attracting depositors and investors if the same banks consistently have to replenish their emergency funding. That is the point of view expressed and I agree with it. As noted in the programme for Government, it is a question of confidence. The Minister stated that confidence in the Irish banking system is fragile at present. Therefore, if something less than an actual definitive facility is put in place the banks will be left in a shakier position to realise the ambitions the Minister apparently has for them.

I entirely discard what the Minister mentioned in respect of the 5.8% and the 1% rates. The programme for Government states that the medium-term official financing would be at an "affordable" rate. We did not envisage and I do not believe the Government envisaged that if it was possible to persuade the ECB to grant this facility it would have to pay at 5.8%. If it can get money at 1%, what is the point of persuading people to lend it at 5.8%, even if it is on a more definitive basis? That is camouflage.

Depositors and lenders need security like this to restore deposits in the banking system. The Minister was premature when he spoke about the return of deposits in the past week. A week is a long time in politics but it is a short time in banking. The Minister boasts that interest rates on Irish bonds are a shade short of 10%. I do not see any early return to the bond market based on that.

We have heard Ministers state that there is no change in policy on bondholders; senior unguaranteed bondholders cannot be touched, and I note Deputy Lenihan's remarks, but it is a joke to say there is no change in policy. We all remember the grandstanding, blustering and boasting during the general election, that not a red cent more would be given to the banks and that bondholders would be dealt with. On that basis, many people voted for the Government parties, particularly for Fine Gael. We are now back where we are told we cannot touch the senior unguaranteed bondholders. Why? Because the ECB says so. It is supposed to have a gun to our head, because we are €150 billion or €160 billion in hock to it and it could pull down the whole system. How likely is that to happen? The ECB knows, as well as everyone else, that the Irish banking system is a financial nuclear reactor and if it is triggered, contagion will spread far and wide.

Deputy Lenihan outlined how we need those investors in future to put money into the banks. That is true but it could be argued both ways. Are people less or more likely to invest in a bank in a country that can pay its sovereign debt or in a country where there is a doubt about that? The programme for Government stated that we must step back from the edge of national insolvency. We are a step closer to it now, unfortunately.

Sustainability is now an issue. Some of the European experts predict that the debt to GDP ratio in 2013 will be 125%, with the Government's forecast at 113%. That is the red zone. Another Minister said our being able to dig ourselves out of this financial pit depends on growth, the size of the debt and the interest we are paying on it. Those are not separate; they are intertwined. Being able to dig ourselves out of the pit depends on the amount of money being taken out of the economy, which comes back to the size of the debt and the interest we pay on it.

A recent report in the Financial Times indicated that Mr. Axel Weber, head of the German Central Bank, appeared to have joined the debate and supports the notion of burden sharing by senior bondholders. That is an interesting development.

The restructuring the Minister talked about is simply implementing the bailout deal between the previous Government and the EU. Part of the deal involved deleveraging, with non-core loans being transferred to a separate vehicle for gradual disposal. The same applies to the disposal of assets and I welcome the fact the Government will not do it by way of a fire sale. As a necessary follow-on, the restructuring would have to take place anyway. There is nothing new here.

We are now back to the old duopoly, with the two pillar banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland. That was perhaps inevitable but the Minister claimed the foreign banks based here would provide the necessary competition. They will provide that competition but it is like saying there is competition in a race where ten horses were entered, five of them were taken out, leaving the other four to provide competition for the favourite. There was more competition before and it has now reduced, creating the spectre of a return to the 1970s, where the two major banks formed a cartel and crucified their customers. I know the Minister intends to introduce regulations to ensure that does not happen but it will be difficult to achieve. We must also bear in mind as we approach 15% unemployment that 7,000 people who were working in the financial sector have already lost their jobs, with several thousand more likely to follow.

The Minister's announcement did not refer to that strange creature that appeared in the Labour Party manifesto, a strategic investment bank. This bank was supposed to sprout out of the ground and grow like the bean stalk in the nursery rhyme to the extent that no man, woman or child, widow or orphan, would be denied access to it. It would bypass all the difficulties of our toxic debt and loans. The Labour Party insisted on putting it into the programme for Government, probably to save face, but I always suspected that Fine Gael thought it was nonsense, which it is. It appears in the programme for Government but if we look at what this plan says about medium-term, affordable official financing, in about 12 months, the document will look dog-eared. That idea is another that bites the dust, the low hanging fruit is falling already. I am glad it appears, from the Government announcement, that the Paul Daniels approach to banking has been abandoned.

In fairness, Deputy Noonan closed the Fine Gael national recovery bank.

He certainly did.

Who was in Government for the past 14 years? Did this all happen in three weeks? Get off the stage Willie.

The Minister for Finance should be aware that he is in Government now and must answer for what he is doing from now on. That old cant will last for another couple of months and then the honeymoon will be well and truly over.

The Deputy must finish, he is eating into Sinn Féin time.

Get off the stage Willie. Fourteen years of it and it is all our fault already?

It is interesting hearing that barney between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil considering they are on the same page on this issue. It is fascinating to hear them try to find an area where they can disagree. At this point, most Irish people know what caused the collapse and what brought us to this position. We have moved on from that debate and the argument the Deputies are having here is far too late. People are concerned now about how we move forward. There is no argument between the Government parties and Fianna Fáil on the road map for the future.

It sickened me to listen to Deputy Lenihan throwing out accusations that I and others in my party, along with many others who are not involved in politics, who are involved in the international bond markets, who are economists, academics and international observers, are involved in economic treason. Because we believed there should be burden sharing or burning of bondholders, an internationally accepted term, and put forward proposals to that end, Deputy Lenihan has the audacity to stand up and say that is akin to economic treason. He was maybe struggling to find words in his contribution that could distinguish his ideas from those of the Government, because it is following the road map he laid down.

His analysis of the situation — that the making of alternative suggestions by other interested parties led to the severity of the crisis — is completely off the mark.

Of course it did.

This comes from a former Minister for Finance. To claim international investment agencies, which made decisions in 2010 to withdraw more than €100 billion in deposits from Irish banks, did so because Pearse Doherty stood up in this House calling for burden sharing, or because Constantin Gurdgiev or other economists or Nobel Prize holders said there should be burden sharing for senior bond holders, is absolutely ludicrous. These people make hard-nosed decisions on investments. Some of the investments are governed by strict criteria in terms of ratings, debt in banks and sovereign debt. One may believe this debate has gone on as a result of where we are at or that this has added to it, but the reality is the economic treason which we all know has happened took place as a result of Lenihan and others sitting on those benches.

On a point of order, I am entitled to be called a Deputy in this House.

If that is the Deputy's only concern, that is fair enough.

The Deputy could show a bit of manners.

The economic treason that has happened in this country took place when Deputy Lenihan, sitting on those benches as a Minister, hung, drew and quartered the Irish economy. That is what he did and still he is scoring cheap points here today.

I intend to focus on several points regarding the stress tests. In any business where there are serious losses and debt, the business can be restored if two things can be injected. The first is if the losses can be absolved, that is, someone comes forward with a blank cheque and wipes out all the losses. The second is to restore confidence to that business such that it can continue to trade. We are seeing the same thing with the Irish banking sector. Does the €24 billion commitment that the Government has given re-inject confidence in the Irish banking sector? It is to be welcomed that there are early signs that it is having this effect and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, dealt with this in his speech.

However, as I stated here last Thursday, our approach to the banking sector must be threefold. We must have a functioning banking system. The State writing a blank cheque and dealing with all the losses that accrue in the banking system is one way of doing it. Restoring international confidence in the banking sector will help. However, there must be two other pillars to the banking strategy, including restoring confidence to the economy and reducing the burden of the taxpayer. In these two pillars the Government has failed in respect of its approach in the aftermath of the stress test. Although we could write a blank cheque and sort out the losses in the banks, the question arises as to whether this takes the sovereign further into a position of unsustainability. I will continue to press this issue. In the spirit of openness and transparency, will the Minister call on the Department of Finance to run the computational models available in the Department with regard to the unsustainability of this State? I call on the Minister to prove that I am wrong and to prove to others that we are wrong to say that the State is now at a point of unsustainability. The Minister has the information, access to the data and the Department and the ability to run the models and present the figures. Hopefully, please God, we are wrong. No one wishes for us to be in a position of sovereign default.

I have continually outlined several problems with the Minister's approach, including the burning of senior bondholders. It is not a solution in itself; it is not the be all and end all. There is no simple solution to the banking crisis but it is a part of the solution. It is immoral and wrong to allow senior, unguaranteed bondholders to be paid in full by the State while they are burning themselves at this minute by selling these bonds on the secondary market and taking a hit themselves. This will cause serious stress and depression in the domestic economy because it leads to our having to inject additional money to capitalise the banks, which, in turn, will mean that we must implement further austerity measures.

I have continually raised a final issue in respect of the stress tests on which we must get a grip. When we examine the details of the stress tests, we can see the losses that have accrued in the banks over a three year period and the lifetime losses in the banks. However, let us focus on the three year period. During this period, losses of €9,491 million in residential mortgages will accrue in the four Irish institutions. This is €9.4 billion on which the four banks will take a hit by the end of the three year period. Put simply, we could write the blank cheque or, as the Government proposes, give the banks blank cheques to write off these losses. However, what happens to the people who owe that money to the banks? I have no wish to put it in simplistic terms because it is too serious a debate, but what happens to them? What happens to those who hold the IOU to the banks amounting to €9.4 billion and which they must repay in three years time? We may write off the losses for the banks but what happens to them?

We must come forward with serious proposals because, as the Minister correctly stated, we must get people spending again in the economy. The Exchequer figures in March have shown this much clearly. Serious problems will arise down the line. I realise the figures have been off-set by excise duties and corporation tax at this point, but unless we increase income tax and VAT returns we will have a seriously depressed domestic economy and we must deal with it. We must get people spending. Up to 95% of distressed mortgages are in this State and people are in hock to the banks to the tune of €9.5 billion. They will be in hock even more but this is the estimation of what will not be paid back in the three year period. How can we get people to spend with this debt hanging around their necks? If we are writing it off for the banks, we must come up with proposals on how we deal with individuals. I do not have the answers to this information nor does my party. Models must be examined which include non-recourse mortgages and debt relief. This is distinct from interest relief because what the Minister proposes is a drop in the ocean and it will be simply wiped out by an ECB interest hike. The Minister needs to ensure serious proposals are brought forward by the Government. Perhaps the best thing would be to set up an advisory panel to examine the issue in detail. We have done this with regard to the banks and it has cost us tens of millions of euro but we must have the same focused approach for mortgage holders.

People are calling Thursday 31 March "black Thursday". This is the second "black Thursday" and we are building up several black Thursdays in the country in an effort to bail out the bondholders. It is interesting that it was the new Minister for Social Protection who first used this phrase with regard to the bailout by the previous Government. Now, some five months later on this new black Thursday, we have the new critics who put €24 billion into the banks. It is ironic that on the same day they paid out €3.1 billion to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide on the back of a promissory note. It is also ironic that Fine Gael Party and Labour Party members have stated that Fianna Fáil Ministers would be remembered for what they visited upon this country. However, within 40 days of the new Administration, they too have visited exactly the same and the chances are that their legacy will be exactly the same.

The Fine Gael Party stated that it would secure a decrease on the rates of interest before sorting out this tranche of the bailout and it has failed to deliver this issue. The Taoiseach informed the Dáil that he would not pump more money into the banks until there was clarity with regard to burden sharing, only to turn around and indicate that he would defer this issue until a decision was made on the results of the stress tests.

We now have the results of the stress tests. Will the Government deliver on its elected mandate or will it follow in the footsteps of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party and tie the people further to the defunct banks? The Government should get its priorities right. The prime stakeholders which should be given consideration are the people but they have received no consideration. The stakeholders most in need of a stress test are the people but they have received no stress tests by the Government as of yet. The most important people are not Chancellor Angela Merkel or President Nicolas Sarkozy. They are secondary to the needs of the people. In any other business sphere these banks would be put into receivership or liquidated. They would not be infused with the level of money that is to be put into them. This is the fifth occasion on which the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fine Gael-Labour Party coalition have sought to stabilise the banks and, unfortunately, it may not be the last.

There was a serious air of anticipation throughout the State last Thursday. People in their homes and businesses felt there was a serious opportunity for the burden to be taken off their shoulders and equally shared with senior bondholders. However, unfortunately, Thursday turned out to be a darkly anti-climactic day. There were no senior haircuts, no announcement on Anglo Irish Bank, no announcement from the ECB, no announcement on new legislation to potentially, in theory, hit senior debt and no announcement on the interest rate. It is a known fact in economic life that both bankruptcy and the postponement of it can generate massive costs. When applied to the euro crisis, this means there is a point at which delaying the restructuring of the debt will cost more than restructuring the debt at present.

Some big conclusions can stem from the announcement last week. The first is that Ireland looks like a dead cert to default at some point in the next few years. By nationalising the losses accumulated by the banks as a result of the ludicrous lending, the Government saddled the people with unpayable debt. That, in turn, has hobbled the economy, making it harder for us to generate growth without which we will never be able to get out of this situation. While there is a so-called haircut for private debt, the people are being forced into further depression. The more austerity measures we use, the higher we increase taxes and the more the economy contracts and shrinks, the less likely we will be able to pay off these debts. In other words, it is a vicious circle of depression that is being offered by those on the benches opposite.

A system that requires us to repay fully all bank debt at high and increasing interest rates while also reducing Government spending is illogical. The negative impact of higher interest rates and lower Government spending will have a further procyclical effect on the economy. It is clear that the Irish sovereign nation cannot continue to bear the burden of the banking sector liabilities on its own, as the scale of the payback in itself means the breaking of the economy.

The IMF-EU response has been piecemeal and underwhelming thus far. Shared responsibility is required, and that is being generous to the banks. There is currently €21.5 billion in unsecured, unguaranteed bank debt. What is the Minister of State's Government doing with this unguaranteed debt?

While part of the capital is being raised through debt reduction exercises with subordinated bondholders and other private sector strategies, the direct sovereign contribution is expected to be in the region of €17 billion. Accordingly, the net liquid financial position of the State is in decline. The National Pensions Reserve Fund will be eaten into once more with a reduction of €10 billion and the €7.2 billion balance will be added to the gross public debt since the cash reserves are borrowed money. There is also significant reduction in the wealth of the State. With the serious deleveraging of these banks, it is envisaged that, in addition, there will be €13.2 billion in capital losses.

We should consider the effects of this on the real economy. It is important that Deputies on the opposite benches who were canvassing at people's doors 40 days ago will understand that there is a real economy in this scenario. There are real costs. Some €110 billion has been put into the banks by the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour parties. That works out roughly at €30,000 debt per man, woman and child; even if the child was born yesterday, he or she will have a debt of €30,000. Responsibility for that debt lies with the individuals who implemented that decision and they are on the benches opposite.

This is the equivalent of 90% of the value of goods in this State. What does this mean in real terms? With €24 billion, it would be possible to have a pension fund par excellence for the people of Ireland; build 75 new 50-teacher schools and run them for 75 years; build 35 children’s hospitals; employ an additional 5,000 hospital consultants and pay them for 62 years; reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in the State to 1:10 and pay for that for 20 years; buy 8,500 years of private speech and language counselling and really help autistic children and children with speech problems; introduce free pre-schooling for 32 years for all 110,000 children in the country; and make education completely free.

I wish to cite a brief example in my county — some Deputies opposite will be aware of this. We have a fine hospital in Meath called Navan hospital. There has been a hospital in Meath since 1750. This hospital survived the 1798 Rising, the Famine, the Tan War, the hungry 1950s and the recession of the 1980s, but there is a serious chance it will not survive the current and previous Administrations. Services have been ripped out of the hospital in recent years, significantly reducing its ability to care for its patients, but I have a solution that will solve the hospital's problems. We need to change the name of the hospital from Our Lady's Hospital, Navan, to "Our Lady's Bank". If we change its name to "Our Lady's Bank" perhaps the Government would decide to put money into the hospital and look after the needs of the individuals there.

The point of this example is that there are priorities and they will be remembered by the people. The choice is one for the Deputies opposite — every Labour Party and Fine Gael Party Deputy should stand up for those individuals now.

I call Deputy Wallace of the Technical Group. Is the Deputy sharing time?

I am sharing time with Deputies Clare Daly, Shane Ross and Mattie McGrath.

I find it amazing how little difference there is in what the new coalition is up to in terms of dealing with the banking crisis and what the Fianna Fáil Party did prior to it taking office. Fine Gael Party and Labour Party Members should have the courtesy of bowing to Deputy Lenihan when they meet him in the corridor because they seem to agree with absolutely everything he had to offer.

I have noted a few of the nice quotes made during the election campaign. Fine Gael's banking strategy, Credit Where Credit is Due, which is part of its five point plan, states: "Fine Gael was the first party to argue that it was unfair for the Irish people to shoulder all of the losses of our banks, and that it was right that investors who had lent recklessly to the banks should also share in the pain." The document goes on observe: "It is neither morally right nor economically sustainable for taxpayers to be asked to beggar themselves to make massive profits for speculators." It is hard to credit that this is the party that has given us the medicine that we have got for the past week.

In a press release in February the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, stated that the Fine Gael Party "will prevent the banks from ever again holding the country to ransom". The Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, was confident that they could renegotiate the so-called rescue deal and said: "The current deal cannot be worked". It is hard to credit the neck that the coalition has brought to this equation. There was so much talk about change and doing things differently during the election campaign, but those parties made promises which I am not sure if they knew they would not be able to keep or they just changed their minds. However, it is dishonest to promise the people one thing and to deliver something completely different.

When he was interviewed on radio on Friday morning last, the Minister for Finance was asked whether burden sharing is no longer an option. He replied that inquiries had been made with the ECB and that it had said "No". So, that is it then.

We were informed in the past that the European Union is supposed to be a family of nations and that we all look after each other. We were also informed that if one country got into trouble, the others would provide assistance. There was supposed to be a spirit of fellowship among the member states. I am not sure whether we have put the question regarding burden sharing in strong enough terms. In general, European politicians are generous and they would be sympathetic regarding the massive problems the Irish people are facing. I accept that those who run the ECB are incapable of being sympathetic towards us. If, however, we pressurise European politicians, we may obtain some comfort from them. They must be made to realise that we are in a crazy predicament.

The dogs in the street know that this deal is not going to work out. At some stage, our colleagues in Europe are going to state that they will provide us with assistance. If, however, we accept their policies in the interim, the less well off will suffer most. It is crazy that we are providing money to reckless banks while the numbers of learning support teachers and special needs assistants are being reduced. What we are doing to the young people of this country is unreal. It is all being done in the interest of paying back reckless investors who made mistakes. People invested poorly in banks that were not well run. The essence of capitalism is that one makes one's gamble and one accepts the results. One wins some and one loses some. However, the investors to whom I refer are all winning. That is incredible.

When the results of the stress tests were announced last week, an economist wrote an article in The Guardian newspaper in which he stated:

A new Irish finance minister would do three things to make a fresh start. He would reveal the full financial horrors; he would reorganise the banks to bring some order to the chaos; and he would say that Ireland, as a consequence of guaranteeing its banking system, was carrying too much debt, was doomed to economic stagnation and must invite creditors to share some misery.

Michael Noonan scored well on the first two points. On the third, he said nothing.

Late last year, the IMF agreed with this outlook when it stated, "effective resolution tools are required that can ... preserve financial stability, while ultimately allowing losses to be borne by creditors rather than taxpayers". Last November, Angela Merkel stated that bondholders should take the hit when a country is in trouble. The EU intends to make sure this happens after 2013. What is wrong with doing it now?

The Minister stated that the reaction of the banks and the European establishment to his proposals was extremely positive. Of course that is the case. They probably could not believe their luck. Last week, the head of a major hedge fund — his name escapes me — stated that it is unbelievable that an entire population would be asked to shoulder the private debt of bondholders and speculators. The other people who cannot believe what has happened are those who voted in the recent general election, particularly for Labour and Fine Gael. In reality, there might as well not have been an election because the word on the street is that the latter has resulted in the same circus with different clowns.

It is an affront to people both inside and outside this Chamber that the Minister is now embracing that which he referred to as an obscenity during the course of the election campaign as representing the best way forward for the country. That is completely dishonest and it is coming at an enormous cost to the population.

The figures with which we are dealing are well known. A further €24 billion is to be put into the banks, bringing the total to €70 billion. The latter amount represents six times the HSE's budget and eight times that of the Department of Education and Skills. Is it any wonder that the Central Bank has stated that this is going to be one of the most expensive bailouts in history. It must be remembered that €17.5 billion of the €70 billion to which I refer is our money.

Why is the bailout being imposed? Essentially, the facts indicate that we are dealing with a problem of private debt. The bailout is designed to rescue German, French and British banks which gambled on the Irish property market. It is as simple as that. It is in the interests of the European Central Bank and Chancellor Merkel to protect those banks and the Irish taxpayer is expected to shoulder the burden. Our national debt may rise to as much as €220 billion, which is a phenomenal amount for a country the size of Ireland. The interest repayments on that amount will exceed the total amount of the education budget for the next year.

The Government must get real. What is proposed is not sustainable and that is why many commentators have predicted that there will be a default. We are of the view that not one more cent of our money should be spent on bailing out the bondholders and private debt holders. The Government should reveal the identities of these people. Who are the bondholders and the private debt holders? The new Government is supposed to operate on the basis of transparency. It should, therefore, reveal the identity of the unguaranteed bondholders to whom Anglo Irish Bank paid €750 million during the general election campaign. We should be informed with regard to where our money is going. If that money were kept here, it could be invested in a proper jobs programme designed to get people off the dole and engender some economic life in the country. This is about choices.

What the Government currently proposes is not a solution. It will, rather, exacerbate existing problems and make the situation even worse. The eurozone report produced by the website Research on Money and Finance clearly reveals that the problem facing Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece is one of private debt. Rescuing the banks is coming at the cost of imposing austerity. The latter will not only devastate the living standards of ordinary people, it will also make the economic situation worse by forcing down wages across Europe and adversely affecting income distribution figures across the Continent, particularly in the more peripheral regions. That is the name of the game at present.

The Government's proposed reorganisation of the banks is a joke. No fundamental changes have been put forward. We are of the view that the banks should be wound down in an orderly manner and that there should be proper public ownership of the remaining institutions by bank workers whose jobs are currently under threat. This would facilitate the provision of real credit for small industries.

It must be accepted that the banking crisis is Europe-wide in nature and is not merely confined to Ireland. Those who are being asked to pay for this crisis are workers in this country and in Greece, Portugal and Spain. We need to break the power of the financial markets and to bring the banks and their resources into public ownership on a European basis.

I wish to respond, in what appears to be an increasingly common trend in this House, to the main Opposition spokesman's contribution on this matter. The Minister for Finance must shiver in his shoes on every occasion on which certain Opposition Members congratulate him on what he is doing. It is increasingly common for these individuals to state that what he is doing is great because it mirrors the policies they pursued when they were in government. If I was the Minister for Finance, I would not be too happy about this trend. However, I have no doubt that Deputy Lenihan's earlier comments were uttered with a certain amount of mischief in mind. The Deputy successfully embarrassed the Minister for Finance with what he said. The Government is following the same policy as its predecessor.

If, as Deputy Lenihan stated, those who have been advocating either burning the bondholders or burden sharing are committing economic treason, then he must realise that there is a growing band of such traitors in this corner and elsewhere throughout the House. I plead guilty to that offence.

As Deputy Clare Daly indicated, everyone appears to be frightened of the word "default" and of the process relating thereto. We say that default is unthinkable. I do not consider it in that way. I view default as part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I consider it as possibly the only solution to the mess we are in. I have not seen any plan, projection, graph or figures which explain how we are going to pay off our debt. I have certainly not seen any convincing plans. I have seen plans that show inflated growth rates that suggest we could, possibly, pay it off over a period of time. They are not credible. No respectable commentator believes them.

The inevitability of default is something we should accept and go for as quickly as possible. In the United States and other countries, default is no shame. It is a solution. One does it, particularly as a corporate entity, one gets on with it and one starts again. Ireland is now in that situation. We really must start again. We are in that sort of deep doodoo. Default is a practical solution that would give us the opportunity to rebuild our financial institutions on our own terms and not on the terms we have at present, which are dictated to us by President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel.

Senior bondholders are lucky people. Deputies Daly and Wallace both pointed this out. I know some of these people. I have met them. They cannot believe they have been let off so lightly and that a new Government has not taken the opportunity to give them a haircut. Even though they are ranked pari passu , they are not the same creatures as depositors. They are often professional fund managers who take an investment decision to buy these bonds and take a consequent risk. It is a lesser risk than other bondholders but a risk all the same. Depositors, on the whole, are completely different creatures. Some are large and some small. They give a bank money for safe keeping at a certain interest rate. The difference between the two is massive. There is no reason for stinging the depositors. There is every reason for stinging the senior bondholders, because they have taken this risk in placing money in high risk banks.

The Government strategy of deleveraging, which means reducing the debt and making it smaller, and producing two pillar banks sounds good, solid and reassuring. Is this a well thought out strategy? The Minister knows we had two pillar banks in the past. Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland, particularly in the retail sector, had, I think, 80% dominance. Are we going to introduce a system where two overbearing and overwhelmingly large banks — both State owned, because Bank of Ireland is also likely to go that way despite its efforts — supposedly compete with one another? This is not realistic. In the past when there were too few banks in Ireland cartels were formed by the four major banks. Now we are introducing a system where there will be two dominating banks, plus what the Minister called foreign banks. Does the Minister not realise that foreign banks, particularly in the retail sector, are not staying here? They are pulling out. The trend is for a duopoly.

The Government is planning to shrink the banking system from six homegrown lenders to two pillar banks. The Government received a strong mandate to introduce badly needed changes to our failed banking system. I hope and pray the Government's new policies will mark the beginning of a turnaround.

Like other Deputies who have spoken, I am disappointed by the current Tweedledum and Tweedledee situation. When I was a member of a Government party I had many animated discussions with my colleague, Deputy Brian Lenihan, when he was Minister for Finance. I felt passionately that the Irish people should not be left holding the baby for the bankers and the 300 people who brought our economy and country to such a disastrous situation. A burden was placed on every man, woman and child and on future generations. I was disappointed by the inaction and lack of clarity of the Government at that time. I am devastated, as are the public, by the reaction of the new Minister and the members of the new Government. They have simply moved seats in the Chamber. This is pitiful. There was a huge vote demanding real change.

Senior bondholders have been called gamblers. I do not call them gamblers. I call them speculators. We need those people and we will need them in the future. As Deputy Ross said, they cannot believe their luck. They have been allowed off scot-free and the complete burden has been placed on the ordinary decent taxpayers of this and future generations. We have shown the white flag to the ECB. To say "the ECB will not allow this or that" is a feeble excuse. We must demand our rights, as a sovereign country. We must not be dictated to by Germans and others. Where is the spirit of the European treaties which we supported, although we did not support the Lisbon treaty until the second time around?

European banking institutions were at least 50% responsible for the mess we got into. I accept that our regulator was not doing his job and was then paid off with a fine pension. This culture must stop. I told Deputy Lenihan at the time that we should not have done the deal because we could not afford it. Europe must come to our rescue, allow us to breathe and provide some credit to our economy. The measures we have taken to pay back these debts are killing our economy and the spirit of our people. They are robbing us of the resources we need to recover. There must be a sea change. The Government has been given a mandate for change and I hope it will respond to it. That is what the people were yearning for and what they demanded and voted for. They were misled by the statements of both Opposition parties about what they were going to do in Government. The people are now devastated to find that those parties have simply moved seats in the Chamber and are continuing with the old policies.

We must stand up to Europe and demand what we are entitled to. This problem is bigger than us. We must threaten to default.

With the permission of the House I will share time with Deputy Paschal Donohoe.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly in this very important debate. While Deputy Mattie McGrath blames Europe for 50% of our banking problems, he acknowledges that his Government was responsible for the other 50%. I suppose that is progress.

This is probably a more gracious acknowledgment than we have seen from many of his colleagues. The Government is just three weeks in office and has been on a roller coaster ride in dealing with many of the issues left hanging when the outgoing Government scarpered to the country. A mammoth task faces the Government. This is only the first step but it is an important step. I wholeheartedly stand over the steps taken by the Government and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, last week in responding to the crucial stress tests. The objectives of the stress tests were threefold — to restore confidence; to recapitalise and restructure the banks; and to restore credit to the economy. The last of those objectives is incredibly important. To have any credible plan to exit the crippling debt crisis we face we must restore solvency to our banks and to the State.

Notwithstanding some of the somewhat misleading remarks from Deputies opposite, it is essential to point out that the fortunes of the Irish banking system are not divisible from the fortunes of this State. A credible and viable banking system is essential to our economy and, therefore, our society because society is dependent and interlinked with our economy. It is important this is acknowledged by all Members of this House.

The key actions which have taken place in the past number of days, as announced by the Minister, which will be ongoing in the months ahead include radical reorganisation of the banking system to serve the needs of our economy. I reject the contention from Members of the House that this is simply continuity of previous Government policy. It is a bold move to restructure the banks, something we have not seen before. We did not see any meaningful restructuring of the banking sector from the previous Government. It is essential that this is implemented as quickly as possible. The deleveraging of the banking system to reduce lending in areas which will not support our economic recovery is also essential. The emphasis on banks trying to sort out their balance sheet problems in so far as is possible, is also an essential element. Returning our banks to profitability by reducing their cost base is also a key step forward. No doubt the Government will return in the months ahead to the issues associated with restructuring and revamping the banking sector. We will be keeping a close eye on progress and ensuring banks step up to the plate, as is required by Government and expected by members of the public, and rightly so.

It is important to note that barring some major disaster this package should — I believe it will — enable the industry to withstand any future shock. I accept the point made by many Members that we have heard this before. It is what we have been hearing from Government for the past two and a half years. However, what is different on this occasion is the depth and comprehensive nature of the stress tests which have been completed. That is an important distinction. They carry credibility on the international markets and with our trading partners, which is important.

It has been highlighted in recent days that output growth tends to be slow for years following a banking crisis. However, we must do everything to ensure that we can create the conditions for business to foster growth. Members will be aware that export growth is already moving rapidly ahead. In some cases, it is growing in double digits. We must now concentrate on the domestic economy, in particular the small and medium enterprise sector. New lending is essential to our domestic economy. For SMEs and new mortgage lending, the new core pillar banks will provide approximately €16 billion to €20 billion over three years. This is likely to make a significant difference in serving the projected needs of the SME sector. This again marks a significant departure from previous recapitalisations which did not result in any freeing up of credit to SMEs. Banks were previously at risk of hoarding capital owing to concerns about loan losses. Members will be aware that this did happen. It is no longer an aspiration of Government to ensure the free flow of credit; rather it will be a reality on the basis of the €24 billion recapitalisation announced by the Minister.

There has been much scoffing from the opposite side of the House about the support of our European partners from whom we have received an enormous amount of support. I do not hesitate to use the term "European partners". Our EU partners have shown a significant degree of solidarity towards us, which has been essential to our well-being and in terms of assisting us in meeting our public service demands, running the State, keeping current spending flowing and ensuring elements of the capital programme were maintained. As pointed out by the Minister for Finance in his article last week for FT, the EU has for decades since we joined in 1973, helped to make Ireland business friendly and entrepreneurial. The recent solidarity, by way of liquidity support, from the eurosystem and ECB has been critical in ensuring our ATMs continue to function and that no problems arise for depositors. At a time when our credibility has been at an all-time low, it has enabled our banks to function, although not in an entirely satisfactory fashion.

We need to step back and think about this. The combined liquidity assistance from the ECB to Irish banks amounts to €177 billion, some €117 billion in ordinary funding mechanisms and a further €60 billion in emergency funding, which is not to be sneezed at. Much of this has been made available to our banks at the low interest rate of 1%, which is not something about which we are reading in the press. To my knowledge, this has not been acknowledged by anyone on the opposite side of the House.

I spent two years pointing that out.

It is extremely noteworthy and will be made known by Government on a regular basis.

Ireland's banks have benefited hugely from the support of the European Central Bank. We rely on the EU-IMF fund to keep the lights on in this country and to enable the Government to do business. Without finance from the ECB the banks would have collapsed. Without external funding through the EU-IMF fund, the Government would have defaulted. Default would cut off our only source of funding. That is a fact which is entirely ignored by Deputies on the Opposition benches. To suggest we can default is extremely misleading and populist. It is easy to play that tune but it does not serve the Irish people. The consequences of default would be disastrous.

I look forward to having many other opportunities in the months ahead to debate this important package.

I will respond to some of the points made by the Opposition in the debate so far. The word "treason" was used earlier. I had hoped that word would be banished from our vocabulary when discussing our future. We should reflect on what "treason" is. "Treason" is committed when an individual consciously and willingly delivers an outcome that leads to the downfall of a State. I believe that those people who made decisions on our banking system or the sovereign welfare of our State, decisions which in retrospect we wish had not been made, did not make them with the objective of ruining our State. The use of the word "treason" in the past was ill-judged and not deserving. I regret the return of its use in today's debate. Whatever mistakes have been made, and there have been many, or the costs incurred, which are huge, nobody who contributes to this discussion or who in government makes decisions does so with the objective of trying to end our State. They do it with the objective of preserving it and delivering the welfare of our citizens.

A prominent Member of the Opposition concluded his contribution with the phrase "I am not afraid of default". I am afraid of default and will tell the House why. In this regard we need to look to the history of what happened to those States which went down that path. There is a long and varied history of default within the global economy. Given that many states have defaulted in the past 200 years, the history of what happens to them subsequently is a rich one. I will focus on three aspects of this issue. Experience shows that states which unilaterally default on private market funding regain partial market access between three and a half and five years following the default. On average, they do not gain full market access until eight and a half years later. History also shows that defaulting states returning to the market following several years' absence pay an average premium on the market interest rate at the time of exit of 4.5% in year one and 2.5% in year two. In addition, defaulting states normally have recourse to the lender of last resort rather than the markets. Ireland is already using the lender of last resort. If we were to unilaterally decide not to deal with the lender of last resort, to whom would we turn to fund our public services and meet the needs of citizens?

One must also consider the likely actions of other states in the event of Ireland opting to default. If we were to take unilateral action, we would impose losses on other states and their banks. Given that they are providing funding to keep our banks open and this State afloat, it is highly likely they would decide to use this funding to cover losses on their sovereign and bank balance sheets.

The history of default relates exclusively to developing and emerging economies. No modern, developed state has unilaterally defaulted since the Great Depression. At best, default is a course of action with vast and dangerous unknown outcomes for the State. At worst, the consequences of default for a modern, western European state which is already using the services of the lender of last resort would be catastrophic.

I remind Deputy Ross of the reason I am afraid of defaulting. This State does not run on pixie dust, nor is it funded by some fairy tale character. It needs money and if we decide we will not take funding from the only body willing to lend to us, albeit under conditions with which we are not satisfied, we will be forced to turn to a market which, as history shows, consistently declares a buyers' strike lasting between three and eight years on defaulting economies. Anyone who advocates default must state from where they will source the funding required to keep open our banks, hospitals and schools.

I will address burden sharing and debt, an issue which has generated considerable interest and heated debate in the House. When discussing banking one should provide figures and address developments in detail. On 1 April, the Financial Regulator issued figures on the level of banking debt in the economy and set out its various components. Total banking debt in the Irish economy is €64 billion, of which €36 billion is unguaranteed. Most of those who advocate unilateral action on the banking debt have focused on unguaranteed debt. The average haircut achieved by states which have applied burden sharing is between 30% and 50%. In the event of the State opting to act unilaterally and apply burden sharing to its €36 billion of unguaranteed debt, the potential gain to the State's balance sheet would be €18 billion. Ireland depends on €155 billion in funding from the Central Bank and European Central Bank to keep our banks afloat. The equation is, therefore, simple. The potential once off saving from opting to unilaterally default would be €18 billion. On the other hand, the European Central Bank, which has ruled out burden sharing, is directly providing €85 billion to Irish banks and allowing the Central Bank to supply a further €70 billion to keep the banks open. This is the equation with which the Government has had to grapple only three weeks into office and following three years of a banking policy that brought us to this point. It has been compelled to find a way to ensure we can keep open our banks while charting a path that will lead to a reduction in the value of our debt.

Let us assume unilateral action on burden sharing generated a saving of €18 billion. The vast majority of unguaranteed bank debt is held by Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland, the two banks which, under Government plans, will form the pillars of future banking strategy. If action were taken to reduce the value of the debt held by these two banks, how could we ask the investors who had taken a hit to lend again to Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks? How would the two pillars of our banking system remain open? These are the choices we face.

I have set out the reasons I fear default and explained why we should remove the word "treason" from this debate. The sustainability of our debt has been correctly raised by the Opposition. Their concern is shared by me and all Deputies on the Government side. The State faces a serious challenge, not only arising from the magnitude of the debt but because of the design of the institutions which may emerge. The assumption is that Ireland will exit the IMF-ECB programme in mid or late 2012. It has been proposed to introduce a European stability mechanism in the summer of 2013. The mechanism has two features, including the capacity to facilitate an orderly sovereign default by eurozone countries. Private investors who will be asked to lend to Ireland in 2012 see a mechanism on the horizon which could impose greater losses on them. We must examine what action we need to take to ensure we are able to secure funding from investors who will be afraid of the solution proposed under the stability mechanism. There is a strong probability that the institutional arrangements envisaged by the European Union will become self-defeating. We should use the time available to us before we must return to the markets to address this matter.

I will share time with Deputy Billy Kelleher.

Deputy Donohoe made a comprehensive and balanced contribution on this important issue. While I concur with his articulate critique of the policy of unilateral default, it begs the question as to how such a policy made its way into the Fine Gael Party's banking policy, the centrepiece of its economic strategy during the general election campaign. I will revert to this issue presently.

All Deputies are anxious to stop talking about banks and start talking in a meaningful way about the needs of the real economy, namely, retailers, hotels, restaurants and the manufacturing, tourism and hospitality sectors. We all know the banks will not drive economic recovery. At best, they can facilitate and support recovery and the measures announced by the Government last Thursday are part of a process of ensuring they play their role in this respect.

We all accept the need to stimulate economic growth, create employment and bring the budget and Exchequer receipts in on target. The stress tests announced last Thursday appear to be robust and rigorous, and we all hope they have finally identified the bottom of the black hole that has characterised the Irish banking system in recent years. Nobody knows for sure that is the case, however, although reassurances were given in the past by the relevant authorities as well as by politicians. That is why last November, when the deal was reached between the Government, the EU and the IMF, a comprehensive strategy was adopted to put in place a detailed and rigorous series of stress tests. That initiative commenced in January with the appointment of Black Rock Consulting by the Central Bank.

Last Thursday, we saw the culmination of this process with the announcement of final figures. In his earlier contribution to this debate, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, was correct in saying that there has been an initial welcome for those results, which appear to have credibility. Many market analysts have spoken positively about them and the markets themselves appear to have reacted positively to last Thursday's announcement, which is to be welcomed. In his contribution, the Minister said we need confidence not just in the economy but also that the country's banks are being dealt with comprehensively. All the work that was done by the previous Government is now being brought to a conclusion and that strategy was clearly set out in the EU-IMF programme last November.

We must be honest with people in saying that the strategy announced last Thursday is a continuation of what was set out in that programme. The programme clearly provided for stress tests, de-leveraging measures and a reorganisation of the banking sector. As Deputy Lenihan said earlier, all those policies were in place and are now being presented by the new Government in a manner which we all hope will work and which will bring credibility and finality to the issue. We want to see a line drawn under the banking system so that we can start to focus our attention on the needs of the real economy.

The plan has been incorrectly presented as a radically new departure, rather than a process which was in train all along. Of the six banks under examination, it had already been decided to wind down two of them, Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. The downsizing and de-leveraging of the other banks was clearly provided for in last November's agreement. The EBS will now be assimilated into AIB, instead of being sold off. In addition, Irish Life & Permanent's life pensions and investment management divisions will be sold. All of that had been provided for in the agreement and is now being implemented. Last Thursday's announcement represents confirmation of the new Government's commitment — which the Minister, Deputy Noonan, reiterated last week — to implement the programme agreed by the last Government, the EU and the IMF.

Burden sharing probably occupies a disproportionate amount of time when people debate the banking crisis. Deputy Donohoe outlined some of the statistics to put the debate in context. Nonetheless, the issue is being debated constantly and it is important for us to deal with it. The new Government has been confronted with the ECB's unwillingness to entertain burden sharing among senior bondholders. The Government has acknowledged that is the stark truth despite the clear promises and commitments that were made during the election campaign by the parties currently in Government. Those can now been seen for what they were — election promises. People were given the impression that there would be a radically new banking policy and that burden sharing would be insisted upon, unilaterally if necessary. That is not what transpired, however, when the new Government was confronted with the ECB's position.

In an interview last Sunday, the Tánaiste seemed to present burden sharing among subordinated bondholders as something new. Last Thursday, however, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, clearly told this House that subordinated bondholders have already contributed €10 billion to the cost of the banking bailout. There will be further discounts to be achieved, which is to be welcomed, but it is not a new initiative. It had already been put in place by the previous Government and was being successfully implemented. The last Government transferred the deposits out of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide to facilitate possible burden sharing with senior bondholders.

The Financial Regulator, Mr. Elderfield, confirmed today in London that it is Government policy that there will not be burden sharing with senior bondholders at AIB, Bank of Ireland, the EBS, and Irish Life & Permanent. However, the possibility of burden sharing still remains with senior bondholders at Anglo-Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. I understand the figure at issue is approximately €4 billion of such debt. The new Government should continue to pursue that matter because burden sharing is facilitated by the transfer of the deposit base out of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. That is now a distinct possibility for them.

I accept the analysis that we are with the lender of last resort. If the ECB was to threaten to turn off the funding tap for the Irish banking system we could be facing an economic collapse of cataclysmic proportions. We must therefore work with our European partners, while continuing to emphasise the need for burden sharing where it can be achieved. It must be done by agreement, however. That is the point the last Government consistently made, yet it was pilloried for doing so. Nonetheless, we should respect alternative views. Many academics and economists practising in the commercial world advocate that Ireland should restructure its debts and impose burden-sharing. We should analyse what those people are saying.

Some weeks ago, Professor Karl Whelan wrote an interesting article in The Irish Times arguing for a debt-for-equity conversion. While I am sure the ECB is not willing to entertain that idea, we should respect such viewpoints and listen to them. If any aspects of such arguments can be adopted to improve the country’s situation we should be open-minded to them.

The new Government's objective, which is consistent with that of the previous Government, is to bring our banks to a situation where they will no longer rely on the life support machine of ECB liquidity funding, as well as our own Central Bank. We agree with that objective, although one aspect of the programme for Government seems both bizarre and incompatible. That is the new Government's commitment which requires banks to put forward plans on how they intend to cut costs over and above existing plans in a fair manner and by a sufficient amount to forego a 25-basis point increase on their variable rate mortgage. Effectively, the new Government is saying that if the ECB increases the interest rate by 0.25%, the banks will be forced to absorb that and not pass it on to consumers. I seriously question how the Government will deliver on that commitment. I also question how international markets would view such interference by the Government in the capacity of a bank to determine its own interest rate policy.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn