Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 2013

Vol. 821 No. 3

Government Decision on Exiting Programme of Financial Support: Motion (Resumed)

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, today, 20 November 2013:
That Dáil Éireann endorses the Government’s decision to exit the EU/IMF programme of financial support in December without applying for a precautionary credit line.

The lack of control over our own seas is symbolic of our lack of sovereignty in all areas. We signed over control to the European Commission, an unelected body whose president said in 2010: "The member states have accepted - and I hope they understand it exactly - but they have accepted very important powers of the European institutions regarding surveillance, and a much stricter control of the public finances." That is a frightening message.

Fishing is one of our oldest indigenous industries, providing vital employment for many small coastal communities such as Kilmore Quay in County Wexford. The real issue for the fishing industry, which accepts there has been overfishing and is working towards a healthy recovery of stocks, is just how quotas are divvied up. According to the fishing sustainability impact assessment in 2013, the 2012 total allowable catches, TACs, in waters around Ireland came to 1 million tonnes, of which Ireland got 18% of the value. In 2009 the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated Ireland had benefited to the tune of €56 billion in EU funds since membership in 1973. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea calculates, however, that between 1975 and 2010, the commercial value of Irish fisheries was €201 billion with Ireland taking in a mere 11.8% of that.

It is true when Ireland joined the EEC our fishing industry was not very advanced and, in the short term, we did not have the same reasons as Iceland and Norway had for staying out. Now, however, Iceland lands four times more fish than Ireland, Norway eight times, despite us having more fishing waters. Since we joined and accepted the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, we have been stalled from expanding what could be potentially one of our largest indigenous industries in our territorial waters. While it is clear the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, is trying to secure a larger stake for Irish fishermen in the quota system, it is interesting to note that figures show Ireland subsidising the EU with €140 billion over the past 35 years. We do not have a fair deal on fishing quotas. It must be the Government’s priority to change that. I know it will not be easy but it is imperative that the Minister, Deputy Coveney, succeeds in levelling the playing field for Irish fishermen in the next round of CFP negotiations. We bailed out the European banks for them by bailing out our own. It is about time Europe did a bit for us.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the House during this historic debate on the Government decision to exit the EU-IMF programme. Let there be no mistake about it; the day these people came to town was a sad day for Ireland, a sad day for democracy and, above all, a sad day for the Irish people. We must all recognise this because people have suffered so much from all the false promises made in the past.

Today I am relieved and I welcome the exit. It is completely wrong to say that many in the Opposition wanted it to fail for political reasons. I heard a number of Ministers say that in recent days. That is not correct, as everybody on all sides wants our country to succeed, to develop and to take its place among the nations internationally. I reject any type of petty politics in respect of this exit. However, it is equally unfair to let this happen without a closer examination of the terms and conditions and of why we did not go for a backup or insurance policy. Perhaps the Government is correct; I have an open mind on the matter. Having listened to the debate in recent days, I suspect that the Government will have to go for it in the end. Our people need to know the facts. They need to know the conditions and the background, and all Members of the Oireachtas needed to know the full facts and make an informed decision based on accurate information. That is a reasonable demand and I sincerely hope it does not all go wrong after around 12 months because of some disaster in the markets or the issue of bank debt. Too many mistakes have been made in the past, and rushed decisions and late-night votes should not happen again. Due to these bad decisions and the actions of some greedy bankers and greedy developers, we have ended up with the austerity of the last few years.

To make matters worse, many people are still advocating austerity. The preachers and cheerleaders of austerity in the Irish political establishment seem to want more. What planet are they living on? Austerity does not work. That is an economic fact. It reduces growth, it increases unemployment and increases inequality. It hammers all the people on the ground, leading to bad health in their personal lives. Before I talk about the economic aspects of the EU-IMF exit, I think we should look at the serious health implications of the austerity policies over the last number of years. They were severely damaging, and people are hurting. We can see this if we look more closely at the issue of disability. For example, the allocation for St. Michael's House has been reduced by more than €12.3 million over the last number of years. The service currently has 462 people on its residential waiting list. St. Michael's House is doing a great job supporting the families that depend on the service. The organisation is really struggling with reduced financial and staffing resources and with the implementation of Government and HSE policies. That is an example of the direct consequences of what has been going on.

I commend the Ballyhea protest group on its actions on the debt issue, along with my colleagues in the Technical Group, and we will be bringing it up again next week in the Dáil. We will be calling on the Government to lobby the ECB immediately for a one-off exemption in monetary financing to allow the Central Bank of Ireland destroy the €25 billion in sovereign bonds issued in February 2013 in lieu of the remaining promissory notes, plus the €3.06 billion bond being held by the Central Bank of Ireland, and to further lobby the ECB for the cancellation, in their entirety, of all interest payments currently being made on these bonds, promissory notes and related debt. We are going to strengthen the Government's hand to do something about this debt issue. Many people are suffering because of it, and again I would like to commend the people of Ballyhea and the Charleville Says No group, who met the Technical Group recently and made a very strong case on the debt issue. Deep down, I know the Government and the Minister for Finance accept the reality that we need to do something about the long-term issue of the debt. We need to deal with this issue head-on, or else we will have a major job developing growth in the economy and trying to get people back working and paying taxes so that we can pay for services in St. Michael's House and in Prosper Fingal in Swords.

I welcome this debate. I welcome the fact that we are exiting the programme, but the war is not over. This is only round one.

Deputy Michael Creed is sharing time with Deputy Dara Murphy.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I think is one of the most significant motions to come before the House. If the loss of our sovereignty in 2010 was such a significant event, it is important that the Dáil has its say on the matter, and I welcome the fact that the Government Chief Whip acceded to my request for a debate on it.

It is important to put the debate in some sort of context. When the troika came to town in 2010, our banks were bust, the number of unemployed people had trebled to 450,000 from 150,000 in 2008, our tax receipts had collapsed from approximately €50 billion to €30 billion, and our international reputation was in tatters. All of those issues combined led to a loss of market confidence in the Irish economy, and in order to maintain some degree of normality, we sought outside assistance through the troika's programme. Three years later, in a tribute to the resilience and forbearance of the Irish public, whose sacrifices have ensured the progress that has been made, our international reputation has been re-established, and I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, and the Tánaiste in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the leading role they have played in that respect. All of our Cabinet representatives have equally been responsible for that restoration of our reputation, which has enabled us to renegotiate with credibility some of the worst excesses of the bailout agreement as originally foisted on us by the outgoing Government of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party.

The exit from the bailout is a red-letter day, but in early 2013 we had a renegotiation of the promissory note. That represented significant progress on the liability that the Irish citizen carries as a result of this collapse. Market confidence has been restored. How else would we have accumulated a domestic backstop of around €20 billion to give us some comfort as we put our toe back in the money markets and try to fund ourselves? Of significance in the context of the sacrifices that the public have made, we have reduced the gap between what we spend on a daily basis and what we raise in taxes, and we are committed to reaching the 3% deficit target by 2015. That is the backdrop to all of this.

I am reminded of the line that the moment of absolute certainty never arrives. To be honest, I was a bit taken aback by Deputy Martin's response last week when the Taoiseach announced the Cabinet's decision. It seemed to me as though he were suffering from Stockholm syndrome, surrounded by former Cabinet colleagues Deputies Smith, Ó Cuív and O'Dea, as he was less than gracious about the efforts and the endeavour by ordinary citizens to get us to a stage at which we can exit the bailout. I listened this morning to Deputy Michael McGrath's contribution - it is noticeable that not a single Member of the Opposition is in the Chamber for the debate at the moment - and while I agreed with many of his observations in respect of the context within which this exit from the bailout is taking place, there was an element of political cute-hoorism and having an each-way bet regarding the Government's decision.

When faced with such a decision one must make it as wisely as possible. The moment of absolute certainty never arrives. Deputy Martin's approach to this is regrettable.

In the context of this debate and as we contemplate the sustainability of our economic model, it is an appropriate time to raise the EU summit of 29 June 2012 and ask where we are in breaking the vicious link between sovereign and bank debt. The Minister, his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister for Finance Deputy Noonan and the Taoiseach are as anxious as everybody else to build on that. However, to call a spade a spade, we have run into a cul-de-sac in our efforts to build on that. It is worth recalling that the summit statement stated:

We affirm that it is imperative to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns...The Eurogroup will examine the situation of the Irish financial sector with the view of further improving the sustainability of the well-performing adjustment programme.

We are some 18 months on from that and, unfortunately, we have seen practically no tangible progress on that matter. Is it any wonder that politics stretches credulity on occasions with the public when we see that lack of progress on an issue of such enormous significance? We have pumped €64 billion into our domestic banks in an effort, originally, to stop the contagion. "Contagion" was the buzzword in 2009 and 2010 when they were fears across Europe. We were asked to take a hit for the team and we did so. It is a reasonable conclusion that we are having difficulty getting retrospective recapitalisation, although I do not want to make that conclusion. There is another way to skin the cat in respect of getting back that money for the Irish Exchequer. Our level of indebtedness is unsustainable and we need a game changer on this matter.

AIB and PTSB are State-owned and we have a 15% stake in Bank of Ireland. The Irish banks have a €70 billion tracker mortgage book on which all those banks are losing their shirts. That is somewhat akin to the €64 billion we put into our banks to comply with the terms of our bailout. It is good news for 400,000 tracker mortgage holders that last week the ECB sought to reduce its lending rate by 0.25%. That has been passed on to those 400,000 tracker mortgage holders, but at whose cost? There are reports that the 300,000 variable mortgage holders will see a commensurate increase in their repayments. That is grossly unfair.

As a way of dealing with the capital we put into our banks, is it possible to take the tracker loan book out of the three banks I mentioned by virtue of the ESM, ECB or however? PTSB has a survival strategy with the Commission. Because of the significant drain those tracker mortgages are on our banks, could we financially engineer a solution to the tracker mortgages that takes pressure off our banks and allows them to get on to the normal business of banking? It could allow the State to extricate itself from the banking business by selling its stake in banks that would be then viable and get something back for the money we have put into these banks in recent years, particularly the three I mentioned. It is grossly unsatisfactory that this issue has not been resolved yet. However, I commend the Minister and Government on their efforts in getting us to this situation where we are exiting. We have a backstop and market confidence, and we can go back to the market early next year to further build on that backstop. On balance, it is the right decision.

I congratulate my colleague on helping to organise this debate and on giving the House the opportunity to vote, as it did to put us into the programme. Nobody on the Government benches is suggesting that the job is approaching completion or that there is any sense of celebration. There is still a fairly stern determination to continue what has been a very difficult couple of years to arrive at a point where we can look back at this period and see Ireland return to a very stable and strong economic position.

It is important to put in context exactly where we were a number of years ago, with our tax revenues fallen by 40% from one of the narrowest tax bases in Europe, a banking system that had failed, our economy in serious decline with significant negative growth and our reputation, which is not necessarily important in itself but is vital for attracting foreign direct investment, in tatters. Even in a time of economic crisis we were losing competitiveness, one of the core bases on which we had built up our economy. We were borrowing almost €3 billion per month, which has been now reduced to less than €1 billion. House prices were plummeting, but today we see they have stabilised and are starting to rise. For most people the most important indicator, unemployment, had trebled over those periods, but has now, finally, started to fall to what could be considered a reasonable rate, with more than 3,000 jobs per month being created. This is unquestionably the best time to exit the bailout.

When we talk about the precautionary credit line, I have been struck by the absence of any discussion about what the conditionality would be, who would determine the conditionality, how much would be involved in the backstop and for how long it would be. It is my, perhaps somewhat ill-informed, opinion that because there was such a vacuum in the conditionality, to wait and try to arrive at an agreed precautionary credit line would have given rise to far more uncertainty than that in which we now find ourselves. That is because the quantum of money was relatively small. One year's borrowing requirement is an approximate figure, which is approximately €10 billion. Given that we already have approximately €23 billion in our own National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, a long, protracted process of negotiating to establish the precautionary credit line would have proven extremely difficult and perhaps negative in itself for our economy.

Equally, given the reality that every economic unit or nation must ultimately, over time match expenditure with income, balance its books and function as an independent entity, it was a question of our taking the plunge and moving out on our own. I can understand why Fianna Fáil in particular would have insisted on trying to have stabilisers. The analogy of the bicycle is being used a lot. Last time members of Fianna Fáil were in control of the bike, not only did the bike not have stabilisers, it did not have brakes or lights, they were cycling without a helmet and, some would say perhaps inebriated, and they cycled the bike off a cliff. Of course they are extremely nervous now and are clearly neither prepared to take nor capable of taking control of a bike, an economy or a country.

That is in stark contrast to Fine Gael and the Labour Party in coalition which have confidence in the ability of the country to continue the great work the people have done to restore our economic future and democracy. All of us on this side of the House look forward to the challenges ahead, but it will be the people who will do the work, for themselves, in the next few years.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to discuss this issue, but we are in the wrong forum and doing it the wrong way. I am not saying this in an unnecessary adversarial way. However, there is something disproportionate in the way we do business in this House. Yesterday evening we spent two hours discussing the issue of the docking of dogs' tails. This is an important issue of contention with which the Oireachtas committee on agriculture must deal and I have no doubt it will take up more of our time, as many such issues do. However, when we compare that issue to the one we are debating through formal statements, we see huge disproportionality in how this matter is being investigated and decided on.

Fianna Fáil did not even look for a debate on the matter.

There may be good reasons the Government did not go for the backstop and I would be interesting in hearing them - the real reasons. However, it seems wrong that what happened was that a decision was made by the Government and after that decision was made, with a big fanfare the Taoiseach came into the House to make a five minute speech in which he stated the Government had made a decision not to put a backstop in place. He gave no explanation of the rationale behind that decision or what a backstop would have involved in terms of conditions. If the Dáil was working properly, if it was working like the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine under the stewardship of Deputy Andrew Doyle, a marvellous Chairman, where issues of contention are thrashed out and all of the details and choices are put on the table in an open way, we could have arrived at a consensus in this case. In other words, the Dáil has been presented with a fait accompli. It is obvious the choices for the Government were not that black and white. If they were, why did it not make a decision on the issue at the regular Cabinet meeting that took place last Tuesday week? If they were that simple, why was the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine called out from the Dáil at Question Time - something I had never seen happen before - to rush over to Government Buildings to take part in the Government's decision, particularly if it was to rubber stamp a decision that was so self-evident that it did not need debate? I cannot understand why the Minister had to leave in the middle of Question Time. I have no doubt that the truth will emerge in time and that it is that this was a decision, like most decisions in life, with many pros and cons. I believe that after careful consideration, including of information received up to the last minute, the Government decided on balance that the price of the backstop would have been too great and that it was better to go it alone.

Let us look at the issue with some common sense. Let us suppose we could have obtained a backstop with no new conditions attached and that it would have been underwritten, it is evident we would have been fools not to take that precautionary line of credit. I would accept the Government's response if I knew what the conditions were, but the Taoiseach did not tell us what they were. If the backstop would have involved an enormous price, in terms of money or conditions or somebody trying to tamper with our independent decision making on the issue of corporation tax, the price might have been too high to pay and it would have been right to say "No".

The day he became Taoiseach Deputy Enda Kenny spoke about a democratic revolution. He spoke about doing things a new way and involving the Legislature in the passing of legislation. Unfortunately, we are not involved enough in that process, apart from a few areas. Again, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is an exception in that regard. I have my arguments with him, but when it comes to dealing with legislation, he does so in a model way, involving the Opposition and accepting valid arguments made. I cannot understand how, when this decision was being made, the Government did not seek to put all of the options and details before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and how it did not seek to involve it in the decision making, while keeping to itself the ultimate right to make the decision. I cannot understand how it did not seek the committee's view on what should be done. I do not understand how it is so hard to involve wider groups in what is going on, although there is always a reluctance on the part of the permanent government to do so. I know from experience that at times the permanent government is not over keen on telling Ministers the full extent of what is going on.

As was the case when the troika was first brought in.

The Minister of State has got it in one.

That was done by a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach.

It was not. The Minister of State was technically correct. There had not been a request, but the issue was being pushed from or leaked from elsewhere in Europe.

One of the issues that arises from the way this has been done is that it gives rise to a concern that there are European elements to this issue. It is a concern that there are elements in back rooms elsewhere in Europe who influenced the Government's decision not to seek a backstop. Therefore, this debate is taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place six weeks too early, before, under the Freedom of Information Act, we could obtain all of the details of all the discussions that took place leading up to the making of this important decision.

The decision taken involves a risk. The Government tells us that the markets are sound. I do not doubt that they are and long may it remain the case. It states it has the national finances under control. I accept that because it has followed the main parameters of the four year plan to the letter of the law. It has delivered on it with incredible enthusiasm, considering its original objections to it. I accept that the decision made by this and the previous Government to honour their debts has an upside in terms of our ability to borrow money.

We all know that issues external to this country exist and much bigger countries than Ireland could throw the markets into turmoil. Can anybody tell me that if a problem were to arise in one of the other European countries and its bond yields were suddenly to rise dramatically, we would be totally immune to this effect? The Government might continue on the road to resolving the most fundamental issue in our economy, which is that one cannot forever spend more than one takes in taxes, and therefore we might create market confidence in our little nation, but it seems strange to believe that as a small, open, peripheral economy we are absolutely immune to sudden shocks that might happen outside the economy and might have an effect on our ability to borrow money.

In the coming two to three years we must roll over, borrow, or combine both to obtain a total of €53 billion. What many people do not realise is that one does not obtain government debt like a mortgage over 30 years or more. Most government debt is of fairly short duration and is never actually paid back. One has a loan at 4%, 3%, 5% or whatever rate it was obtained at, and when the five-, three- or ten-year duration is up one goes back to the markets to ask for the same money again at the going rate. As long as the rates remain low one can keep replacing the money forever without problem. If the rates rise the problem one faces is that one must replace cheaper money with more expensive money. The idea of the backstop is similar to negotiating a loan with a bank, for example, at a rate of 5%. If one could borrow the money at 4% or 3.5% one would do so, but if the rate had increased to 6% when the time came, one would use the facility to avail of a rate of 5%. It is not rocket science. We have given our guaranteed fixed-rate option away and we do not know why. We have not been told why and we have not been involved in the decision-making. I accept that all parties have a long history of not involving the Oireachtas in a comprehensive way, particularly in big decisions, and it is hard to change something that has a long history. I often think there is much greater willingness to involve us in small decisions than in big ones. This is a pity. The more information is shared, the more people know why a decision was made and the more likely it is there will be a consensus on the decision.

I hope it is unfounded, but there might be a belief among people that the real reason for this decision was so that the Government could state we were free of the troika. If this was the only motivating factor, I must state it would be rather disappointing. Talk about regaining our economic sovereignty is a bit hollow because since the troika came to Ireland, for better or for worse, we have signed up to the fiscal compact treaty and all of the oversight it entails on a permanent basis. No more than a householder does not have the sovereignty to do what he or she wants in the modern world, because everything is so interdependent, we do not have that sovereignty because we need to go to markets. The real room for manoeuvre in any circumstances is quite limited; we cannot just decide to spend what we want, because if we spend more than we take in taxes somebody out there will have sovereignty over us, just as any lender has sovereignty over a borrower in terms of the conditions at which it will lend money. To go back to the analogy of the householder, if a householder has no debt and a pile of money in the bank and he or she wants to do up the house, he or she can do so as long as planning permission is obtained. However, if the householder must borrow from the bank, it will exercise its sovereignty over him or her. It will want to know the person's income, repayment capacity and age, and will want him or her to set up a life assurance policy, along with other conditions.

This is another example of Dáil reform and meaningful change which has never happened. On the day the Taoiseach was elected I looked forward to the change. I do not care who changes it if it is changed for the better, but unfortunately this is not what is happening.

Ireland's exit from the supervision and control of the troika is a good positive step on the road to recovery. It does not solve all our problems. It leaves us, like people after a prolonged period of struggle, building and constructing a better future for our people and communities so that the sacrifices that people have made, undertaken and had imposed on them result in a better Ireland for people, families and communities throughout the country.

When the Government took office our immediate priority was to stabilise the economy and tackle the devastation inflicted on every community by unemployment. One of Fianna Fáil's biggest failures in the bailout period, which is no surprise given the utter chaos into which the Administration had lurched, was failing to spell out a convincing vision for building employment. It was still pretending it could hold back the flood when it should have been building the rafts people would need to stay afloat. It completely missed the point that a viable economy must start with work, and for this to be true there must be sustainable strategies to boost employment and tackle unemployment.

When the Government took office we were effectively starting from scratch. We took an entirely new approach in the area of social protection and welfare by focusing on activation - that is, getting people back into work, education, training or work experience and ensuring jobseekers received not only income supports but employment supports when they went to a social welfare office. The first visit to the social welfare office is to be the first day on a journey back to work. The activation approach underpins our new Intreo offices, which are one-stop shops rolled out throughout the country where jobseekers can get income and employment supports in one place for the first time, aided and assisted by modern technology. Much like the efforts to rebuild the economy, this has been painstaking work that has required time to implement, but the results are being clearly seen in the reduction in the live register.

I remind Deputies that for every 10,000 people who come off the live register and return to employment, the corresponding reduction in the overall bill relating to social welfare spending is approximately €95 million. The Pathways to Work approach serves a dual and crucial purpose, namely, getting people back to work and assisting them in building a better future for themselves and their families and reducing the social welfare bill in a way that has a positive impact in the context of reducing the country's deficit. That is why it is so important to have really strong programmes in respect of young people. It is for this reason that, in the context of the recent budget, I have focused on ensuring that some of the money which was previously spent on young people who were simply parked on the live register will instead be spent on the really intense activation programmes we are developing in the context of the youth guarantee.

The challenge now is to ensure we continue this progress and see to it that the new economy we develop in the aftermath of the bailout will be people-centred, with full employment and a fair wage as central goals. We must not resort to the banker-led, trickle-down con job which served as economic strategy under the previous Administration and led Ireland to the brink of collapse. There are two dimensions to this, namely, the policies the Government pursues domestically and those implemented at international level. At domestic level, we are now saying goodbye to the bailout programme, regaining control over our financial affairs and returning to our position as a normal eurozone member state with normal market funding arrangements. Money markets will still dictate very definite limits to our capacity to borrow at manageable interest rates, while the new so-called two-pack and six-pack rules within the EU - as approved by the people in last year's referendum - will impose quite strict limits on future budgets. However, the Government will be charting the course.

There are those - some on the left and others on the right - who, when we first entered office, favoured our reneging on all of the international commitments into which the country had entered. Of course, many of those commitments were entered into by the previous Government. Those to whom I refer wanted us to default on our debts. The people in question are under an obligation to spell out what a default actually means. They should also indicate what would actually have happened if we had defaulted. Having listened to the contributions of a number of Deputies in my office, I am obliged to state that certain individuals do not seem to realise that people are understandably upset about and critical of austerity. Had we defaulted, however, we would have triggered a level of austerity which would be infinitely worse than anything the country has experienced. Many economic commentators have analysed this matter in detail. The argument to the effect "Ah go on, we could default", which is put forward by certain people is disingenuous. If we had defaulted, we would have been immediately obliged to reduce the budget deficit to zero. Can Deputies imagine what this would have done to critical areas such as social welfare, health and education? The approach we chose has led to our engaging in a painstaking process over three budgets in order to reform the position and to start bringing the budget into balance. There is a need for honesty from those individuals who claim that it would be okay to default.

As we say goodbye to the troika-----

They have not left yet.

-----and as the Government charts our course towards a post-recovery Ireland, full employment must be the overarching goal of economic policy. Achieving full employment will be how we will leave austerity in the distant past, increase tax revenue, build a viable social insurance system, reduce welfare expenditure and create room for new investment in essential services. As we recover, we will also create the space for additional investment in public services such as, for example, those relating to education. This will bring clear benefits to Ireland, as an economy, and to Irish society in the long term. Full employment will assist us in creating a more productive economy and a more caring society.

Just as full employment is the right target for Ireland and will be central to the country's economic planning in the future, it must be also the goal for the EU. A fundamental shift in thinking on the wider EU level would help enormously in that respect. As I have stated on previous occasions, the EU needs to shift from austerity towards a policy based on investment, growth and job creation, with full employment the central target. It is noteworthy to examine the respective approaches of the incoming chair of the US Federal Reserve, Ms Janet Yellen – the first woman set to lead America's central bank – and the new governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Mark Carney. Both acknowledge the need for unemployment to fall further before interest rates are increased. It is a matter of deep regret that the primary mandate of the ECB, when it was formed, was to maintain price stability and that full employment comes a lot further down its list of priorities. In contrast, the Federal Reserve has a clear dual mandate to pursue both price stability and full employment and has shown itself to be the more effective for it. The Federal Reserve has overseen a massive programme of quantitative easing – essentially pumping money into the US economy to act as a stimulus – which has been crucial to America riding out the global crisis. I remain of the view that in the long term the ECB should, like the Federal Reserve, pursue a dual strategy of price stability and growth.

It is no surprise that the OECD has suggested that the ECB could do more in this regard. In its most recent economic outlook, OECD says the ECB should "consider further policy measures if deflationary risks become more serious ... price adjustment alone will not work given the impossibility of reconciling deflation, needed to regain competitiveness, and achieving nominal growth to achieve debt sustainability". What the OECD is stating is that as the economy expands, the significance of the totality of debt diminishes and that it, therefore, becomes more feasible to deal with it. In other words, the interest rate cut by the ECB, though welcome, is not enough. The ECB should also consider unconventional measures including the type of quantitative easing used successfully in both the US and the UK, which have shown stronger growth than Europe. The euro area as a whole has a debt ratio similar to areas such as the UK and the US, where central banks are actively willing to purchase sovereign debt. A eurobond-financed stimulus programme would, for example, be economically feasible and effective but would require a shift in thinking on the issues to which I refer. No more than Ireland, the EU needs a new approach, based on investment, growth and job creation, with full employment the overarching goal. A decisive shift of this sort at EU level would rapidly speed up the progress already being made in Ireland in terms of getting people back to work.

I take great heart at the very basic rethink of economic philosophy that President Obama is leading in the US. This back-to-basics re-evaluation in which he is engaged recognises the failure of the trickle-down approach that has been dominant since the 1970s. The latter was the notion very often promoted by the super-rich that if we protected them, their wealth would trickle down and this would help everyone else prosper. The entire western world bought that line. The results were great for the super-rich but very often disastrous for almost everyone else. Inequality thrived as a result of the philosophy in question. In 2008 the economy collapsed largely as a result of the reckless activities that stemmed from that philosophy. Now, out of that ruin, President Obama is forcefully reminding the world of an older truth, namely, that lasting growth and shared prosperity come from the middle out and not from the top down. Now that battle of ideas in economics is under way, it is obvious that we in Europe will be taking part in the debate. This all boils down to a single question: what is the best strategy for long-term prosperity for the majority of our people - an ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the top or a thriving middle class?

As a Government, we will continue to push for a further shift in the position on Ireland's bank debt. When I was finance spokesperson for the Labour Party in opposition I warned of the perils of the bank guarantee and the massive burden it would potentially inflict on every citizen. It was one occasion when I would have been glad to be proved wrong. Sadly, however, the bank guarantee proved as catastrophic as the Labour Party had feared.

The most important promise my party made during the general election campaign was that we would focus on unravelling and reducing the level of toxic debt. We could not and did not promise to simply default on the debt as to do so would have been the road to disaster for the country. Instead, we undertook to unravel and reduce it, an undertaking on which we have made significant progress. Agreement has been secured on reducing the interest rate and extending the maturity on EU loans and a deal has been done on the promissory note. All these measures reduce by tens of billions of euro the debt burden and the State's funding requirement in the next decade.

The Government will continue to negotiate for further agreements on our debt, specifically on the potential use of the European Stability Mechanism for bank recapitalisation. As Citigroup chief economist, Willem Buiter, noted recently, Ireland has an exceptional claim for the ESM to be used for this purpose given the massive levels of debt that were placed on the shoulders of Irish taxpayers to prevent wider banking contagion in the eurozone. The Government will continue to make Ireland's case on this critical issue.

I referred to the abyss into which the country was plunged in 2010. Through the sacrifices made by members of the public and the patience they have shown, Ireland is climbing out of this abyss. The key issue, as I noted, is the dividend for ordinary people in terms of better services and social welfare provision. Above all, more of our people will return to work and will, with our businesses, generate economic prosperity. I hope this will make that which people have endured in recent years a memory from which we will learn. We must also avoid any repetition of it in the future as we build a better Ireland.

The decision to exit the EU-IMF programme without seeking an additional credit line was significant and should have been discussed at greater length in the Dáil at the time. We need to be clear as to the reasons it was significant. The media hailed it as a gamble and a bold move. While some considered it reckless, others viewed it as an achievement and an end to our humiliation. All sorts of hyperbole and comments appeared in the media and some excitable Deputies contributed to this climate of excitement in their own way. In all the descriptions of the decision I read, the word "opportunity", which I felt fitted best, was rarely used. There is an opportunity for a change of direction and to take a new approach that will ease the burden on hard-pressed, ordinary citizens. Our exit from the programme will mean nothing if it does not get people back on their feet, ease the hardship many are suffering and give back people a sense of dignity.

Many on the Government benches will slap themselves on the back in delight and hail our exit from the bailout as mission accomplished. That is far from the case. The past few years have been very difficult and challenging for people. None of us will forget the events of late 2010 and early 2011 when every day seemed to bring a fresh disaster or fiasco and no level of incompetence seemed too great. At official level, denial seemed to be the order of the day and even Ministers seemed to have been kept in the dark. The sense of anger and humiliation felt by citizens, particularly younger people, on hearing that the European Union and International Monetary Fund were coming to town will never leave them. No one will forget what the country endured under the Fianna Fail-Green Party Government.

The Government likes to point to those days and blame all our current woes, difficulties and budgetary challenges on Fianna Fáil. While there is no doubt the previous Government was responsible, that does not excuse what has taken place under this Government. Fianna Fáil is a convenient scapegoat given that all the pain people have suffered in recent years under the bailout took place on this Government's watch and this pain will be forever associated with it.

Domestically and internationally, an attempt has been made to make the case that the programme has been extremely successful. According to many commentators, Ireland is top of the class and a poster boy for austerity. It is a shame they do not look more closely at what occurred in this State in the past three years. What was the purpose of the targets set by the IMF and ECB? It was to ensure Ireland did enough to service its debts. The ECB and IMF were not interested in anything other than achieving that objective and certainly not interested in how it was achieved. While the basic targets may have been met, little attention has been paid to other targets and objectives, which have not been reached. Unemployment, at 13.2%, remains very high and far above the European average. Nearly 400,000 people are still unemployed and the true figure is probably masked by persons in training and so forth. The unemployment rate is particularly high among young people, an issue that will be discussed in detail when Sinn Féin's Private Members' motion is debated tonight.

The Government has effectively sacrificed a generation of young people. According to the Central Statistics Office, the youth unemployment rate stands at 29.6%. When one adds to the official figure the percentage of young people who are on various schemes, one arrives at a much higher figure. The number of young people employed in the economy has declined by 18,000 since the Government came to power. Ireland continues to have the second worst long-term unemployment figures in the European Union. Again, young people are worst affected, with figures showing that 61.7% of unemployed young people have been without work for one year or more compared to an EU average of 44.6%. Despite these figures, the IMF did not set any targets for addressing unemployment because it was not interested in the issue.

On emigration, people are flowing out of the country at a rate without equal since the Famine. While some recent emigrants wanted to travel, many more did not and those on the benches opposite who believe otherwise are fooling themselves. That no targets were set to address emigration is indicative of the interest the IMF showed in addressing the issue.

Targets were not set in respect of maintaining decent public services either. The public health system is facing cutbacks on a scale it will struggle to absorb. It has reached the point at which the chief executives of some of the main hospitals have written to the Minister to express fear about the consequences of budget cuts for cancer services in their hospitals. Medical cards are also being withdrawn.

The assault local government has absorbed has been such that bewildered county and city councillors scarcely know how to respond to it or to continue to provide services. Roads are deteriorating and housing lists lengthening. The programme did not set a target to keep poverty below a certain threshold. Every year since the recession began, the number of people at risk of poverty or in consistent poverty has risen. None of these issues featured in the targets because the IMF and ECB were simply not interested and did not mind how we found the money, provided it was found.

Two points need to be made. The first, to which I will return presently, is that a substantial portion of the debts we are expected to pay do not belong to us in the first place. The second is that the Government, as opposed to the IMF, ECB, EU or Fianna Fáil, had responsibility for deciding how to close the deficit and cannot, therefore, obscure the harm it has done simply by referring to targets.

Nobody believes its task was easy, but closing the deficit could have been done in a much fairer way that would have led to more sustainable economic growth and less unemployment and suffering. The Government should have sought to invest in jobs rather than cut away at public pay and at social welfare payments, which makes no sense economically, as that is money that is spent in the real economy in local shops. This is the part of the economy that is still sluggish. The high street is still lagging behind, and it is because ordinary people do not have the money to spend on anything other than the absolute basics and essentials.

Investment in a stimulus of the kind that Sinn Féin has advocated and detailed over numerous pre-budget submissions would have stemmed the flow of emigration and created employment. However, the Government was not interested because, while it was happy tackling the weak on their social protection and pay, it was not satisfied to go after the powerful and vested interests, taxing wealth and raising finance from those most able to pay. We may be exiting the programme - that is welcome, and it is positive that the Government is not going for a second programme - but the social cost of the way the Government has chosen to deal with the programme has been enormous.

The Government has still made no progress on our legacy debts. Its strategy of meek acceptance, and not raising the issue, has clearly not worked. We still have an unmanageable debt burden, which will hamper economic growth for a generation.

At the EU summit in June last, the Government attempted to claim that it was a game-changer and that the European Stability Mechanism would reduce banking debt and separate banking debt from sovereign debt. This has not happened, and the international markets will charge us yields on our borrowing based on the significant bank debt. What is more, we will still be under EU surveillance until we have repaid 75% of our debt and will be in any case subject to the fiscal compact.

The decision not to apply for a credit line is a positive move by the Government. However, it will count for little if the Government does not seize the opportunity. Surely it must be time for an easing-up on austerity to begin investment to get Ireland back to work. If the Government continues with its troika-era policies, this will be looked upon as no more than a footnote.

We must be relieved that the Government is not going for a second bailout at this time. Sinn Féin has always taken that position, but there has been a carnival of spin about the troika leaving these shores, as if our troubles would go with them, along with our young people. We would love to see the back of the troika, if we felt it would make any difference.

The reality is that the Government was so craven and cowardly in the face of the bondholders and banks that it introduced austerity measures that even the troika did not demand. The Government taxed and cut and changed eligibility and kowtowed to its European masters, while throughout it sang the chorus of regret and told us that the troika had made them do it. That philosophy of austerity made the most vulnerable in society suffer, and they continue to suffer in the absence of the troika. There are still plans to take a further €2 billion out of the economy next year, troika or no troika.

People are reeling at the dent in the household budget caused by increased charges and increased energy costs, the imposition of a property tax, the withdrawal of vital services even from people who need constant care, the extra school expenses and the worsening of services in health, education and social care. If the people woke up on Thursday morning and thought that matters would improve, they were wrong. We are still paying for the folly of agreeing to the fiscal compact, for which the Government parties and Fianna Fáil campaigned last year. The terms of that treaty mean that we have no control over our own deficits. We cannot make decisions for the benefit of the Irish people but are forced to keep our deficits low and keep striving to reduce our debt, which is in fact unpayable and which was inflicted upon us because of the policy of bailing out the banks. For all its talk, for all the hugging and kissing that the Taoiseach and the German Chancellor, Dr. Angela Merkel, engaged in, the Government has achieved nothing from the EU to help relieve us of our banking debt. I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, is smiling.

That is mild from Deputy Martin Ferris.

I felt the same way when listening to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton.

It is an image I prefer.

If one wants to hear revisionism, one should listen to what the Minister stated here today.

Despite that other media-fest last summer after the European meeting that the Tánaiste told us was a game-changer, all that has happened is that our unpayable and unfair banking debt has been turned into sovereign debt, but the much-praised European Stability Mechanism will not step in to save us. We are faced with dealing on the international markets to pay our huge banking debt, and the stimulus for the economy that we need if we are to genuinely turn the corner towards exiting the recession is nowhere to be seen. The youth guarantee has been allocated a mere €14 million, despite figures showing that over 70% of emigrants are in their 20s when they leave us. The number of young people who are leaving us is staggering.

There is much more work to be done if we are to regain our economic sovereignty. Our alternatives are aimed at reducing the deficit fairly and in a way that will allow us to start rebuilding the economy. Banking debt should never have been the priority, and the focus on it created a nightmare for so many working people in the State. The economy must be stimulated to create real jobs based on indigenous resources, not the kinds of jobs that can be whipped away at the whim of a multinational company which has no affinity with or loyalty to this country.

Sinn Féin recognises that the banking debt is a noose around our necks and that progress towards economic recovery will not come until it is restructured and reduced. The Government has not stood up and defended us or demanded retroactive recapitalisation of banking debt. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, claimed here in the Dáil today that he cannot raise the issue unless it is on the agenda. Why are we not getting this on the agenda? We are leaving the programme, but we are left with a terrible legacy of debt and damage caused to our people by austerity which will take generations of progressive, energetic government to undo.

Deputy McLellan and I sat here listening to Deputy Burton talking about the bailout and about what would have happened if we had defaulted or burned the bondholders. She forgets her own programme for Government. She forgets what the Labour Party said to the Irish people - that it would burn the bondholders - yet she stated here that the economy would have collapsed if the Government had done so. It was complete revisionism from the Labour leadership, but when one sits on this side of the House and has my knowledge of the Labour leadership, one knows that "revisionism" is a word they are well used to.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, and Deputy Olivia Mitchell are sharing time. They have 15 minutes.

"Revisionism" is a word that trips lightly off the lips of my colleague across the Chamber. When the troika came here to bail out the economy, it was a gentleman by the name of Deputy Adams who stated that it should go home with all of its money. No matter what economic funny book Deputy Martin Ferris might be reading over there, if that had happened we could only have funded the economy by creating our own currency - or perhaps they wanted us to rejoin the pound. The image that is in my mind when I think about that sort of economics is the instability in Germany and Italy in the period between the First and Second World Wars, when there was hyper-inflation and wheelbarrows of money were used to make simple purchases such as bread and milk. The reality is that there was no alternative but to obtain money from bodies outside the State that could fund the economy and pay for the services, such as health and education, that we wanted to provide.

In fact, we could not borrow in the international markets. The only reason the troika was here was that we could not fund day-to-day expenditure. Notwithstanding the criticism that people will make about it, the fact is that the troika did bail us out. However, there were stringent, serious and significant conditions that were signed up to by the previous Government and that we followed through. In all, there were 260 different items that were laid down in that deal and that have been carried out.

Everybody acknowledges that it has been difficult, particularly for the people of this country. Everybody has made sacrifices. Every individual in the country has suffered as a result of the bad economic management of this country by the previous Government.

The fact is we have gone through several difficult budgets but, while we are not yet out of the woods, our economy has improved significantly. The key measure is that we are creating 3,000 jobs per month. There is increasing international confidence in our economy and we are attracting foreign direct investment. Existing industries are also beginning to expand. We will not be always relying on FDI for job creation because our indigenous industries are also expanding. Compared to the 7,000 jobs lost every month when Fianna Fáil left Government, the current job creation rate of 3,000 per month gives us some idea of the transformation we have experienced in our economic position. At the height of the crisis, our ten year bond yield was 14% or 15% but bonds can now be purchased for 3.5%. That is an indication of the international recognition of the stability of our economic position. International investors are returning and I understand from speaking to people around the country that the property market has recovered to some extent and there is increased economic activity. I also understand there is increased interest in new developments in the greater Dublin area. That is part and parcel of our plan for the future which includes, in particular, meeting future demands in our economy, such as energy and water demands, and so on.

I agree that, notwithstanding the decrease in unemployment, young people continue to face serious challenges. Many thousands of our young people are in foreign places. That is clearly difficult for them and their families. They are known as the Skype generation because they speak to their parents and loved ones over the Internet. However, while many of those who have gone abroad had no choice in the matter, they are working and learning new skills in economies which offer them opportunities to work. It is our job to ensure the conditions are right for them to return, that their skills and knowledge can contribute to this economy and that they are happy to come back because we can offer them proper careers. In regard to the problem of long-term unemployment among young people, I welcome the Government's constructive and positive labour activation measures. The youth guarantee aims to offer young people opportunities to increase their knowledge and experience.

I am hopeful for our economy. There is a sense of hope in the people I meet around the country. Business people are confident that matters are improving. There is increased confidence in our economy generally and it is good for us that we are restoring our international reputation. People from many different countries say that Ireland is in recovery because of the sacrifices made by the people of this country. We are successfully exiting the bailout. That is not the be all and end all but it will restore the fundamental issue of economic independence. We are part of the euro rather than Sinn Féin's silver dollar club or whatever it belongs to. We have to abide by the rules and balance our budgets. It will be difficult and we will have to make tough decisions but we are well down that road and the people I meet who are involved in job creation are increasingly confident that we are getting there.

The days of living beyond our means under the previous Government will no longer be visited on us. While we have paid a heavy price under the deal our predecessor reached with the troika, we are restoring our economic position. The business pages and radio stations are reporting increased confidence and job growth. That is a direct result of our Government's actions. I have great confidence in the capacity of this Administration to deliver the jobs that are necessary for restoring our reputation and creating a country in which all our citizens can live and work.

That weekend back in 2010, when it was finally revealed to us that we would need a bailout, was a dark time for Ireland. I do not think anybody who grasped what it meant was not stricken, or even heartbroken, by the news. Leaving aside the already shocking impact on our incomes, our savings and our pensions, or any consideration of who was to blame - some would say we are all responsible but I believe it was the few rather the many - the specific impact of the bailout on the national psyche was to cause enormous sadness and a sense of national shame that after a mere 90 years of independence we had messed up so thoroughly that nobody would lend to us. We were forced to go begging to the international lenders of last resort. We found out very quickly, however, that we had been bounced into a bailout on very unfavourable terms that were motivated not so much by the desire to make it easy for us to overcome our problems as to save the euro. Nevertheless, we were happy to get the money because our situation would otherwise have been much worse.

This Government has made considerable progress on improving the deal and we hope there will be further progress but, regardless of the nature of the deal, the three year programme is coming to an end. From 15 December we will choose our own lenders on the global bond market. There has been considerable comment about whether we should have secured a precautionary credit line. Some say we should have but others agree with the Government that the climate is benign for making a clean break. Arguments can be clearly made on both sides because either choice will present risks.

What should be celebrated, however, is not so much the choice we made but the fact that we have a choice. It is a long time since Ireland had borrowing choices or any choices because the troika took them from us. That we have a choice makes this a milestone worth celebrating in itself. It is a tribute to the fortitude of the Irish people that we have a choice. They have suffered stoically, if not gladly or willingly, seemingly relentless cuts as the Government tried to get us to the point where we could live within our greatly reduced means.

The Government has made the right choice. It is true that the promise of a backstop would have ensured investor confidence. Why would they not lend if they could do so without risk? However, at some point Ireland is going to have to take off the stabilisers and cycle on our own. Until we do that we will never be able to test the market's assessment of our creditworthiness. Worse, we might undermine what market confidence we have achieved by admitting that we do not have confidence in ourselves to go it alone. As everybody knows, confidence is the essence of economic recovery and the job creation for which we hope. It is at least as important to us as the bond market's assessment. Of course there are risks ahead but they will be neither caused nor avoided by this decision. I recognise that the recovery is still fragile and that we will remain highly indebted until growth rates rise sufficiently to put our debts on a downward trajectory. The banks may have problems that require recapitalisation. Only forensic stress testing will tell us what will happen in the future. I believe we are on the road to recovery, albeit at a slow pace, but nobody can tell the future. If we do, however, run into trouble the situation will be very different from that of 2010.

We have proved we are capable of responsible fiscal consolidation. Since then, the really significant change is that the EU has committed itself to saving the euro at any cost. We did not have that before. It has demonstrated its commitment in its bond buying programme. One can assume that, having made the commitment, the EU will collectively bear the pain of saving the euro rather than pass it on in its entirety to recipient countries. If we were forced to go into a future bailout, we would go in with our eyes wide open bearing in mind the poor deal we got the first time. The promise by the EU to save the euro is in itself a backstop for us and every other European country. Why would we put our hands up and say we will pay for a credit line and risk undermining international confidence in us?

The risks I mentioned are largely domestically generated. If Europe as a whole goes belly up, any promise of a backstop or a credit line is completely irrelevant. That is something we cannot plan for. Outside of the doomsday scenario, we have made the right choice. While I am all too aware of the many problems we have to deal with, nevertheless I unreservedly celebrate the fact that the country is in a position of having a choice. It would be churlish not to recognise that and I support the motion.

We have nothing to celebrate. An insane policy of promoting a banking and property bubble led to the more insane decision to bail out the same banks and property developers. Odious debt was imposed on the Irish people and it has not gone away, nor will it on December 15, nor will the consequences of that insanity. Next year, the State will pay €8 billion in interest payments, a sum equal to the amount we will borrow in 2014 and to the education budget and 50% of health spending. The figure will rise over the next years and there is no possibility of having any part of this debt reduced. The policy of being the poster child for austerity, doing what we are told to do and hoping for a handout has been a disastrous failure.

The policy of the Government and previous Governments has meant the imposition of a brutal, cold-hearted assault on the living standards of those who can least afford it. A report issued today on the effects of poverty on children shows the stark figure that one in five children goes to bed or to school hungry because there is not enough food in the home. The survey on income and living conditions released in February shows an increase to 16% of the population earning below €11,000 a year and at risk of poverty. This amounts to 733,000 individuals, one in seven of whom has a job. Consistent poverty has increased from 4% in 2008 to 7% in 2011 and is no doubt higher now. This is a doubling of people in need real. Deprivation now affects one in four people, people who are unable to heat their homes, unable to buy a present, have a warm coat or buy meat. The effect of austerity means over 100,000 families are waiting on lists for social housing, which does not exist. Another 100,000 families are in mortgage arrears, with the prospect of mass evictions looming. More than 100,000 young people have been forced to emigrate and mass unemployment is at a real figure of 23%, when we include the number of those underemployed.

There is nothing to celebrate. It is a political decision and the aim is to give the impression the bogeyman - the troika - is gone and that we can now return to the warm embrace of the kind gentle good samaritans of international bond markets. Are we to celebrate the fact that we can borrow the money from a group of loan sharks to pay the interest on the money we previously borrowed from another group of loan sharks?

The question of whether we borrow from the troika or the bond markets is Hobson's choice. We should never have been in the situation. The way out is to repudiate the odious part of the debt, which is a debt accruing from the bank bailout. This happens every day of the week in banking situations. We saw an example with Independent News & Media recently, where a whole chunk of money was wiped off the debt of Denis O'Brien's company. It can be done and we should seek to do so, lifting the huge weight off the Irish people's shoulders.

I congratulate the Minister of State, who is not in the Chamber, on his speech. It was one of those rare occasions where a Minister of State was not reading from a script. He spoke very eloquently but when he started getting into his stride I wished he had his script back again. I am very tired of Ministers and Government spokespersons continually telling us how pleased they are in Europe with our performance. It is insulting to the House and to the people of the nation. I am tired of them telling us how they go around the capitals of Europe, from Berlin to Paris, getting patted on the back for achieving so much in the Irish economy. They have done very well by those standards. The questions they should be asking is how they have done by the standards of the people on the ground. They should not be captured by European congratulations on what is going on in the economy.

I do not know the answer to whether the Government has done the right thing on the credit line. I do not know because we have not been told the possible terms of the credit line. The judgment can only be made on the basis of what, if anything, was offered. There is now some doubt about whether anything was offered. Maybe European leaders, to whom we bow and scrape with such fervour and who congratulate us on what we have done, said we could not have a credit line, not because we did not deserve it but because they want it to be a case of Ireland coming out of its debts and a programme having worked. A credit line would put some doubt on that.

The first question for the Minister of State is whether anything was on offer. If something was on offer, let us hear the terms. If a credit line was offered for nothing, no doubt we would have taken it. If it was offered cheaply, we would have taken it. When the Technical Group met the troika, we heard that a credit line would cost money and that there would be a fat fee although they would not specify the amount. If it was a €10 billion credit line, the fee would run to hundreds of millions of euro.

One of the reasons put out for not taking it was that we have money in the bag in the NTMA. It is not free money; it is pre-funding, which is a credit line. The last estimate I received was that €20 billion costs €2.2 million per €1 billion per month. That amounts to nearly €500 million a year. They borrow it at one rate and put it on deposit at a lower rate. It is losing money every day at a differential rate of 2.7%. That is what it is costing us and a credit line is a luxury. If we were so secure, we would not need the money that is costing us so much interest. Instead, we could go to the bond markets in January and borrow it. It is a precautionary credit line in itself.

I am doubtful of the wisdom of even considering a credit line in that position. As I stated, I am not aware of the terms.

We should be very careful about being overly confident. There is an element of theatre and macho politics in this. There is a growing consensus that maybe this decision was taken for political reasons. The decision was taken because we and the German, French and European powers in the European Central Bank and the Commission did not want this credit line being debated in the Bundestag, as it would have to be. The inference of that would be that these guys are claiming sovereignty while simultaneously the minor matter of a credit line is being decided in every parliament in Europe. If we do not have it, we can claim - quite wrongly - the restoration of our economic sovereignty. As Deputy Joan Collins correctly noted, we are simply moving from one group dictating terms to us to another group in the form of the bond markets, which will dictate terms that are just as strict as those dictated by the troika in the past.

The motion before us seeks the approval of the Dáil to endorse the Government's decision on exiting the bailout without a precautionary credit line, but we are being asked to do this in a vacuum. When the Technical Group last met representatives of the troika, we explored what the precautionary credit line would look like and what it would take to put it together. We were told it would involve the development of a set of measures similar to the programme we are about to exit, and the process would have to be endorsed by various member states. It is clear there would have been a political price to pay in addition to the actual price, which has just been pointed out.

We have heard several Government Ministers and spokespersons over the past number of months indicate that we want to get out and stay out of the programme, which is true. The reality is that we continue to have an unsustainable debt, with much assumed as a national debt on the insistence of the ECB, which is one third of the troika. The decision of 29 June 2012 by eurozone leaders to allow rescue funds to lend directly to recapitalised banks was to be a game-changer, according to the Tánaiste. On that occasion he argued that it would be done to ease Ireland's path back to the financial markets, but that has not happened. The payment of the debt - it is not our debt - has instead been pushed out for a number of years, and the negotiating tactic of the Government has backfired. The German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, recently poured cold water over the idea of ESM relief for Ireland, and he was joined in that view by Finland and the Netherlands. On Saturday, the Minister of State may have heard Mr. Daniel Gros of the Centre for European Studies on RTE when he pretty much gave us the same view.

How will this ease the path back to the financial markets? Does the Tánaiste still believe that we need and will get this game-changer? Professor Ashoka Mody of the IMF team that negotiated the initial so-called bailout recently stated that ultimately a lender wants to know whether a debtor has the income to repay a debt. He argued that GDP growth is now a more credible way to repay Ireland's debt than a continued period of austerity, and his diagnosis was that some respite from austerity was needed. That was presented to us via the €2.5 billion in cuts in the last budget that were to be a relief from austerity. The three-card trick was played, as the agreement for display to outside sources, particularly the troika, had been that this would be a budget with €3.1 billion in cuts. The Government asked us to take it on trust despite the fact that it had been so misrepresented. We were supposed to get a game-changer but we did not.

When the language of the Government requires forensic examination of all financial issues, trust will be in short supply. We have heard terms such as "core" and "headline" rates for social welfare, and they tell us that cuts are very well buried. The annual cost of servicing the debt now exceeds the total spend on all levels of education in this country, but that fact never features in the stock reply about how well the Government is doing, according to its press office. The press office must have provided a laminated card with that patter to every Minister and Government Deputy so they can come out with the same statement.

The statement is true.

Some of it is true, but there is a sin of omission as the Government never gives the other side, which is that the level of indebtedness in this country continues to be completely unsustainable.

On the so-called prom night in February we were told, for example, by the Minister for Finance that it was crucial for IBRC mortgage holders to understand that their position following the liquidation would generally remain unchanged. Now we have been told, in a reply to a parliamentary question to the Minister, that this will depend on the regulatory status of the ultimate acquirer of the IBRC loan book.

The Government is asking us to endorse the decision on the exit without an insurance policy, and I accept this as a judgment call. My problem is that we have been told that this will restore our economic sovereignty, but it will do no such thing. Economic sovereignty is about permanent control of finances, and how can we have that when we have such unsustainable debt?

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the motion. I will directly respond to the point made by Deputies Catherine Murphy and Ross, who criticised the Government for not applying for a precautionary credit line from a fund that the Deputies opposed when it was being set up. Along with Deputy Ross, Deputy Murphy campaigned against the fiscal compact treaty, which allowed our country access to the European Stability Mechanism. She is now standing to criticise us for not accessing a line of credit from a fund that she campaigned against.

That is the logic of it.

It is one thing to-----

Those opposite were not even listening to her.

There should be one speaker.

-----speak about a game-changer-----

They were too busy talking among themselves.

-----but it is entirely another matter to change one's tune in the manner that the Deputy has. She campaigned, along with Deputy Ross, against the setting up of a fund that could provide a credit line, yet she is now criticising the Government for not accessing that line.

The Minister of State was not listening.

I listened absolutely to what was said.

We should have one speaker at a time.

I will debate it with the Deputy again. The point stands. We have had speaker after speaker standing up to criticise the Government for not accessing the fund, but the same people campaigned against the creation of the fund in the first place. There is a requirement for some kind of consistency in this discussion. The same consistency is required for the efforts that the State must face in funding public services in future.

I listened with great interest to Deputy Ross's contribution, during which he was sporting what looked like a fine tie to commemorate our Presidency of the Council of the European Union. He made the point that he did not want us to deal with the troika but then argued that he did not want us to deal with the financial markets. With whom does he want us to deal? There is a gap between spending and taxation, and Deputy Ross has opposed many of the measures taken to close that gap. If he was indicating that we should not deal with the troika or the financial markets, from whom should we borrow in order to fund the gap between spending and taxation? These are core questions, and the people criticising the approach taken by the Government - as is their full entitlement - must answer those questions if they are participating in the debate, just as they legitimately put points to us to which we must respond.

In making those points I do not wish to lose sight of the broader picture and the progress the country has made at gigantic cost to society in recent years. At the start of the programme the country found itself in a place where nobody in the world would lend to us at a rate we could afford. That not only applied to the sovereign but also to the banking system. At the start of the programme the country found itself in a place where unemployment was increasing by tens of thousands on a monthly basis. There is so much more that the Government and the Oireachtas need to do to respond to the crisis. However, an important point that must be emphasised is that the funding crisis and the inability of the country to borrow have been addressed, but we must do so much more to tackle the unemployment crisis.

Speaker after speaker has condemned the financial markets and the behaviour of those who operate in them. They are the same speakers who condemn any attempt to narrow the gap between spending and taxation. They call for investment in public services and the country at the same time. Such funding must come from somewhere. The choice the Government has been following, with the support of the Government parties, has been to do all we can to narrow the gap and allow the country to access money at a rate of interest we can afford. The rate was above 14% and it is now just above 3%. That is an extraordinary difference that will give the country the ability to borrow in the future and invest in what we really care about, namely, society, jobs and public services.

Another theme I wish to address in the time available is the love that has dared not speak its name in the debate to date - default. That is a point made by Deputy Shane Ross. I remember being in the Chamber with him on a previous occasion when he urged us to take the route taken in Argentina. Different options were outlined in terms of the kind of default various speakers preferred. The question I put to them was what country had taken a decision to unilaterally default on the lender of last resort, which was what they were urging.

To date, no other country has done it within a single currency zone. Other countries have done it such as Argentina - the course proposed by Deputy Shane Ross. As a consequence, Argentina finds itself subject to ongoing legal trials and is still subject to rates of interest that make it difficult for it to borrow in the way it wants.

Another option put forward is that within the existing framework we should pursue a default and use the money to make the State more creditworthy. The argument against this is one we have made to date, namely, the rates of interest payable on a reduction in our debt level would create a platform from which we could borrow affordably in the future. The question I put in response to the refrain we have heard for many years is that in the event of such a unilateral default from where would the money come to fund what Members in this House care so much about.

That said, the debate on the programme, its nature and the rights and wrongs of how the Government has exited from the programme should not divert our energy from a broader debate which we should now instigate. Given that the country has exited the bailout programme and we are going to do all we can to ensure we stay out of a bailout programme, we must ask what kind of economy and society we want in the future to ensure we will never go down this path again and that we create a society that will be capable of weathering all of the shocks and risks that could present. I touched on this point with my colleague, Deputy Peter Mathews, in a recent debate. He recommended a book to me on the topic under discussion. I thank him for making a gift of it to me, which I will return to him.

It is for keeps. It is a good reference book to have.

I thank the Deputy. I meant I would give him another book in return. One book I might give in return, one I think he would enjoy, is the recent publication by the National Economic and Social Council which updated a report carried out a number of years ago in the context of recent events. It is called, Ireland's Five-Part Crisis, Five Years On: Deepening Reform and Institutional Innovation. One of the summaries was that, overall, the crisis had revealed that past progress had been less comprehensive and sustainable than we had believed. It stated we had not adequately addressed non-participation and disadvantage in the boom. It also stated our relationship with the international system had been revealed as more one of vulnerability and dependence than we had thought and our overall system of collective decision-making and public governance had been shown to be extremely weak. They are the challenges and questions to which we need to collectively respond.

That leads me to the final point I wish to make on the essence and concept of sovereignty. The argument has been made that there will not be any change following our exit from the programme. We are going to move to a mode of governance in which others will look at the consequences of decisions we make as opposed to institutions making decisions with us, which is where we were. That is a huge step forward in the nature of sovereignty within the country, but ultimately it will only matter if we can deliver a dividend on foot of the increased decision-making to the people we represent. That leads me back to the need to invest again in the kind of society or future we want to have. I hope the Government’s publication of a mid-term fiscal strategy will provide a vision for the future on which we can all agree or disagree but at least debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Government's decision to exit the EU-IMF programme of financial support in December without applying for a precautionary credit line. One has to look back to see where one is going. In three years of the programme the Administration has achieved a lot. One only has to cast one’s mind back to the fear of treading through the unknown territory we faced three years ago. It was a very uncertain time. Moneys were exiting the banks at an alarming rate and we did not know the full extent of the problem. Not understanding the problem made the situation more terrifying. There was a genuine fear that one or more of the banks would collapse and people might lose their savings or businesses might lose their cashflow. It was a crisis in every aspect with the word and people were afraid a freefall could occur. I spoke to someone at the time who was building an extension. They were extremely anxious to get the money to the builder in time in case an institution would collapse. The situation was frightening but there is no longer such a fear.

Reference was made to default and the resulting consequences. One must go back to the early years following the formation of the State when we did default on land annuities. We paid the British state land annuities under an agreement made in good faith. A decision was made to keep collecting annuities from farmers but not to pay them to Britain. That was a default. An economic war ensued which resulted in devastation. One day the cattle in the fields were worth money and the following day they were valueless. One could not sell one’s produce. My ancestors and those of my neighbours suffered. They had nothing. They went from having a living to being absolutely broke and the devastation was frightening. I recommend that people examine what happened then. They would see that a default would mean hurting the vulnerable and those trying to make a living.

The banks are adequately capitalised. I spoke to a banker about the matter today and he expressed confidence that the banks would get through the stress tests.

As a country, we have tackled our finances and have stuck to our recovery targets rigidly. This approach is very businesslike but it is not often associated with the running of countries. We have made a template. There is a parallel between the management of this country and the management of a successful business. There is a solid, serious, no-nonsense approach. It has sent out a clear message that Ireland is very serious about its recovery.

Ireland was envied during the boom because of its growth rates. People asked how we did it and said we were brilliant. Our premiers were invited to talks to outline what we were doing. All that led to dismay because the true nature of the bubble became evident eventually: we were people of straw. Today Ireland is admired and respected across Europe for acknowledging its failures and having the courage to face up the issues and lay down the basis of a sustainable economy. This is the true nature of what we have done.

The financial sector has also gone through a tumultuous period. It is true that it got it wrong but there has been genuine positive engagement and understanding of the problem. It was always going to be difficult to build up the expertise to deal with it. We have returned to the financial markets and have built up cash reserves. This is no accident. The NTMA has done a very good job. An informed observer would see there was no need to apply for a precautionary credit line as we already have one in place. Being insured is sensible but being over-insured is not. Nobody here would consider insuring his or her car for double its value. One should remember this behaviour costs money and does not deliver a better financial outcome. There is a contradiction associated with Ireland applying for the funding as an economy cannot be in recovery and decline at the same time.

Confidence breeds confidence and there is nothing more annoying in business than someone who fails to make up his or her mind or take responsibility for his or her decisions. Indecision is fatal as fate will show one one's destiny. Let nobody be under any illusions that exiting this bailout and being able to do so without additional ties is a huge achievement and one of which we should be rightly proud.

Like many, but perhaps not all, colleagues on both sides of the House, I shall begin by paying tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, and the Government on working very hard to ensure we can exit the bailout on 15 December. Many people, both in the press and in the Houses of the Oireachtas, will contend international factors brought about Ireland's capacity to re-enter the market and pull back from the precipice. Some attribute this to the reduction in interest rates in 2011 and some will cite the ECB's decision to provide €1 trillion in liquidity later in 2011. Others will cite Mr. Mario Draghi's crucial speech in London in 2012. There is no doubt all these external factors have been of great benefit to Ireland and have had an important impact on bond market sentiment. However, it is also true to say that none of these external factors could have improved investor sentiment dramatically in Ireland without strong, stable management of our public finances. That is the contrast and what has been delivered over the past two and a half years or so.

We must acknowledge that fiscal consolidation began under the late Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan. It is important that we pay tribute where appropriate. The policy has been continued and developed by the current Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. It has been a gargantuan task in the face of what was a huge existential crisis in this State. It was probably one of the biggest since the arms crisis in the 1970s.

The Irish have shown great maturity and willingness to exercise their democratic rights where they are best exercised, namely, the ballot box. The exercise of democracy might not produce the sort of social discord or clash of ideologies which brings people onto the streets, which certainly sells newspapers and from which some in this House might hope to profit for their own political ends. That said, it is a genuine reflection of the true nature of our Republic and I am very proud of it.

In March 2011, at a time of great uncertainty and turmoil in this country, the Irish voted for something new and entirely different from what had obtained previously, and something that would remove them from the failings of the past. They voted for more than they have received under the current Government but I commend the Government and all Members of the Oireachtas on their collective role in steering Ireland through this unprecedented period.

It is fair to say the threats the State faces are not over. Our enormous national debt, which is referenced by many speakers, the ongoing political instability in the eurozone, particularly in Italy and Greece, and continued economic stagnation right across the Continent mean that very serious risks continue to exist. We must remain on high alert. Against this backdrop, the decision not to avail of a credit line as part of our exit from the bailout on 15 December is one I simply do not support, for three reasons. Deputy Barry has got it wrong by suggesting a credit line would actually cost Ireland rather than result in saving taxpayers' hard-earned money. There is a €600 million cost associated with maintaining the high cash reserves in the NTMA. That cost is approximately 12 times the estimated cost of a credit line. Those are the figures.

The second reason is Ireland's self-imposed exclusion from the ECB's limitless bond-buying programme, or OMT.

Third, I am seriously concerned that the independent advice of the NTMA, the agency responsible for managing our €200 billion in national debt, was completely ignored in March, July and as recently as October, as was the advice of the independent Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. The two parties now in government called for the establishment of the latter when in opposition.

I have listened very carefully to the comments of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. I have commented on his comments several times in recent days and do not believe his arguments stack up. He stated the main reason he believes we ought not to benefit from a credit line is that he wants to re-enter the markets when conditions are benign. Nobody disagrees with that. It is a false choice as nobody is suggesting we should not re-enter the market. It is simply being suggested that we do so with a safety net. The other suggestion is that the German Bundestag, along with other parliaments, would vote against a proposed credit line. That has been debunked by senior spokespeople in the German Government and elsewhere.

I compliment the Government on carrying out the programme over recent years. I do not believe there is anyone in this House who, deep down, was not supportive of it. I congratulate the Government on completing the programme in so far as it has done so. I have a concern, however. It is epitomised by the fact that there is nobody present in this House who actually formed part of the Opposition in 2011. This is a very important debate. Our main Opposition parties are not present during the actual debate.

It is fortunate that the Government allowed time for this debate because it was not scheduled last week. There was no debate on it last week and it was not originally scheduled for this week. It shows the danger in our democratic process. I got a very uneasy feeling here last Thursday when the Government marched in, made an announcement and went off into the sunset.

We cannot have economic policy by confident soundbite, because people will see through it. I really hope the decision the Government made works out, but I am not so sure it will. I have a gut feeling that we should have gone for the credit line or at least, if we are really confident, we should have applied for it. The Government could then have outlined to the House the various options available. It does not make sense that we did not at least make an application. A true sign of self-confidence, as opposed to populist, incorrect decision making, would have been to go ahead with a credit line. It is not necessary for the Government to have policy by soundbite. It should have the confidence to articulate every view and proposal. Time and again we hear messages from Brussels, Frankfurt and elsewhere about game-changers, seismic shifts, retrospective recapitalisation and so forth. What is the situation with regard to the latter? I heard Karl Whelan saying last Saturday that he did not understand why we were still talking about recapitalisation of the banks, because it would never happen. The Minister suggested that it will happen next year or may come up for discussion next year.

Finally, I ask that the word "austerity" be dropped from our political vocabulary, because living within one's means certainly is not austerity.

In the short time available to me, I wish to focus on our budgetary policy. Over the past few months we have been treated to a charade of false debate and nonsense about the budget from the Government, but particularly from members of the Labour Party. The latter have danced around every town and village in this country saying that they got a reduction in the budgetary adjustment. However, it was revealed at the weekend that there is one message for the Irish audience and another for the bureaucrats in Brussels, with an adjustment of €2.5 billion here but an adjustment of €3.1 billion in Brussels. We have been treated to lie after lie about the budget adjustments. We hear that a secret communications strategy was drawn up between the troika and the Government about that adjustment. The Government must come clean on whether the real figure is €2.5 billion or €3.1 billion. What is the real position? Is the Government able to address the fiscal situation competently and in a considered way?

Those who celebrate the exit with excessive zeal ignore the fact that austerity is still with us. What will happen as a result of the end of this so-called bailout is that the Government will not be able to hide behind the bogeymen of the troika any more. In reality, the leading Government party, Fine Gael, would be implementing all of these policies even if the troika were not here. That party is absolutely committed to eviscerating our public services and to demonising those on social welfare by, for example, slashing the incomes of young unemployed people. Fine Gael is absolutely opposed to an expansionary fiscal strategy that would focus on economic stimulus. There is still an inordinate delay in accessing capital funding from the National Pensions Reserve Fund to stimulate the economy. That delay has been dragging on and on. One result of the ending of the so-called bailout is that the Government will not be able to hide behind anyone when next year it decides to take a further €2 billion via savage cuts and taxes, which will fall on ordinary people again, while rejecting any attempt to introduce a wealth tax, for example. Such a tax has been costed in detail by economic analysts in TASC and other reputable organisations.

I absolutely reject the assertion that we were bailed out. This country has borne the brunt of the bank bailout in a way that was completely out of proportion to the situation in Europe. I see this as nothing more than a giant public relations exercise from the Government. It is a day's debate during which we are told to line up, one after another, to congratulate this Government for savaging the incomes of ordinary people in our communities and for taking medical cards away from people with very serious medical conditions. In the context of the latter, the Taoiseach stands up during Leader's Questions, like the clown at a circus, telling us that it is not happening, but even Government Deputies know that vital supports are being taken from the most vulnerable. Travellers, for example, are one of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in this country. A few years ago the budget for Traveller accommodation was just over €90 million, but now it stands at €3 million. The budget has been absolutely savaged because groups such as Travellers and those with disabilities, unlike the IFSC Clearing House Group, do not have access to Ministers with a click of their fingers. Regardless of when this bailout ends, it is this Government's policy to privatise and savage public services and to eradicate any attempt at building an equal society. That will be the legacy of this Government, which I reject. I will not join the fanfare of support for this canard.

Looking at the euphoric faces of some Government Deputies last week when the announcement was made about the exit from the troika programme on 15 December, I was reminded of Martin Luther King's great speech at the Lincoln Memorial in August 1969, when he said "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" However, we are not free at last. We are not free and will never be free while this Government endures and while it continues with the appalling and dreadful austerity which began in September 2008 under the Cowen-led Government and continues to this day. Indeed, having been a satrap State for the past three years, we are being permitted to enter a new decade as a dependent economy, firmly under direct economic rule from Brussels and Frankfurt.

Like other Deputies, I am concerned about the lack of information from the Government about the potential terms and conditions that would have been attached to a precautionary credit line and the total lack of clarity on the further invigilation of Ireland in the post-bailout period. The Dutch finance Minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, said that Ireland would be subjected to "intensive surveillance" twice a year because under the new two-pack rules, a county exiting a bailout will be subjected to extra surveillance until 75% of money owed is repaid. I note that we got a very quiet backstop from Berlin a number of weeks ago, extending until next February. I also note that John Corrigan of the NTMA has said that we may be able to access the outright monetary transactions, OMT, programme. I welcome this if it proves to be the case. The decision to involve KfW, the German development bank, seems innovative and may result in cheaper interest rates on loans to the Irish SME sector.

However, while there are some positive reports coming in on our situation, we continue to suffer dreadfully because of the events of September 2008. I will probably be supporting this motion because it seems consistent with my position since this horrendous economic austerity descended on us. We are still in desperately uncertain territory, with the socialisation of vast amounts of private debt. Our citizens have suffered deeply and continue to suffer. I have estimated, based on figures from the Department of Finance, that in the past few years €3.7 billion has been taken from the social protection budget and approximately €4 billion from the health budget, and the amount of interest that we are paying to sustain the bank bailout debt is roughly the size of the education budget. The gallant shoulders of our people are continuing to carry the burden, with projected cuts of €2 billion next year and further billions in the years ahead.

It is not a day on which we can feel free or even deeply hopeful. However, I welcome the fact that at least we are getting away from the troika.

During budget week I spoke in this House about the two economic wars that the pensioners of Ireland have had to endure, both started by Fianna Fáil governments. The first economic war was started in 1932, when today's Irish 80 year olds were just small children. Fianna Fáil started a six-year economic war with Britain by withholding land annuities. The scheme, like a lot of other Fianna Fáil schemes, backfired badly. It was a complete disaster and our current generation of pensioners and their children paid the price with poverty and emigration that lasted into the 1960s. In 2010 Fianna Fáil launched the second economic war on the citizens of Ireland, but the effects of this second war will take a very long time to recover from.

During my budget speech I referred to the fact that there was not one Fianna Fáil Deputy in the Chamber, and I note that the same is true today.

As we leave the period of financial oversight by the three lenders which bailed Ireland out, Ireland still carries a mountain of debt. Despite what Deputy Thomas P. Broughan said, no one is feeling particularly euphoric about this. The portion of the debt carried by the State stands at approximately €204 billion. The cost of servicing this debt will be €9 billion next year. I welcome the exit from troika oversight. Not only does it give the country back its hard won sovereignty but regaining our fiscal independence also gives Ireland a chance to negotiate a better deal on that interest burden. However, the large capital sum, €204 billion of borrowings and bank guarantees, remains and it will be a burden for every man, woman and child in the country for a long time to come. We need to get that number down to a sustainable level and start discussing realistic ways of doing this.

The first thing we can do as a nation is to expect public service leaders to make decisions that financially de-risk every large decision they make. If such a de-risking approach had been taken, for example, to the case of the Lissadell House right of way, the Sligo county manager would have been obliged to consider the risk of adding a further €7 million to the national debt before taking a decision to go to court, while the cost of each of the 58 days in the High Court should have been foremost in the minds of all in question as the case progressed. Everybody in the public service in positions of power to spend millions or even billions of euro must stop to think not just about his or her own job in managing a county or a city or a semi-State company, he or she also needs to think about how wrong decisions can badly affect the national debt.

Dublin City Council is in the news because of a multi-million euro contract with a consultant related to the Poolbeg incinerator which the European Commission is stating was not legal. We are told the incinerator project has cost more than €100 million so far and it is not even built yet. It is not good enough to say Dublin City Council is financing this fiasco and, therefore, the rest of the country can ignore it. The national debt is a national problem and every city and county manager needs to start considering the bigger picture.

EirGrid is planning to spend hundreds of millions of euro building a line of large pylons between Cork and Kildare. It is supposedly part of the bigger Grid25 project to strengthen the national grid. As the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources explained last week, the objective of Grid25 is to ensure homes and businesses will have power into the future. There is nothing wrong with that objective, except for that fact the consultants appointed by EirGrid - coincidentally the same consultants about which the European Commission has been questioning Dublin City Council regarding the incinerator - say the main reason behind their design of the Cork to Kildare Grid Link proposal is not to supply power nationally but to export it to Britain and France, two countries that may not need a power supply from Ireland when this large expensive power line is built. This country can no longer afford such a major financial risk.

I welcome the move back to sovereignty and congratulate all involved, in particular the people for getting us this far. The road ahead is long and everybody must play a part, particularly those who make significant financial decisions with public money.

Deputy Patrick Nulty has left the Chamber, but I am sick and tired of him constantly attacking the Labour Party. He cannot even stay in the House to listen to somebody else take him up on using the party for his own gain to get into the House.

The departure of the troika marks the beginning of the end of Ireland's greatest financial challenge. We have had to face terrible atrocities and decisions as a country to get us out of the bailout programme. Getting rid of the troika has been a national imperative since it first arrived three years ago. It formed the basis of a general election campaign and has dominated the Government's thinking and objectives ever since. However, its exit leaves a void. The economic imperative will have to be different because if the restored economic sovereignty we pursued so hard leads to no change, people will wonder what we were concerned about in the first place.

Following the troika's exit, we need to think about where we are heading with our economic freedom. We need a new economic understanding which will encompass the Government, civil society and the citizen to make sure what we put in place is different from we had previously. We need a people or a values-focused economy based on a number of facets, the first of which is the worker who gets up every day and brings his or her kids to school before going to work. He or she must be at the centre of our economic thinking. That did not happen in the past. We put all our hopes in the speculator, the developer and big businesspeople. The economy cherished them and they were put up by politicians in certain parties as the example of what we should follow. That needs to stop and we need to examine every economic decision we make. The economic model we put forward should be based on the worker. That may sound a little callous because we often have debates about people who are vulnerable and may be suffering because of cuts and resource allocations, but unless people are working and generating wealth and paying taxes, we will have nothing to redistribute to other groups.

We need to make sure workers are put at the centre of policy making, not short-term, speculative ventures and so on.

The second issue about which we need to have a discussion and a meaningful understanding of is the social contract. The country has never got to grips with it. As a social democrat who believes in the power of the State to be a leveller and give everyone a leg up and the opportunity to succeed, I firmly believe in the social contract. It states a citizen who goes to work and participates in society is not paying taxes as dead money that disappears into a black hole. He or she pays taxes as a contribution to something he or she gets back and, therefore, his or her taxes are not wasted. He or she pays for an excellent education system for children and an excellent transport system to take people to work. They are part of a worker's wage, the social wage. However, we have never accepted this in this country. We have always begrudged and knocked taxation and, to some extent, people were right to do so. In recent years we have been capable of producing much more with much less and if pay cuts are excluded, that inherently shows we had ineffective and wasteful public services. That, therefore, gives credence to people's belief that their money was not being well spent. I believe in the social contract and the social wage. Those who believe in the new economic model we want to set up have to put efficient and effective public services at the centre of public provision. That is why the reform unit in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform must have a strengthened role in the time ahead. Perhaps it should link with the Committee of Public Accounts or a similar committee and have a public forum for the work it is doing in making sure service provision is excellent and efficient. If we do not do so and go back to a model where we take people's tax and public services for granted, the electorate will reward those who seek to tear down the social contract and that system.

The third reform of the economy relates to making decisions about the State's role in the market. According to the outlook of economists, the cause of our financial crisis was the housing bubble which was a speculative bubble that created a huge construction boom based on easy credit and then collapsed, but behind that bubble a policy decision had been taken which was accepted by the political elite that it was okay for workers to pay ten times their income to buy a three bedroom semi-detached house an hour and a half from where they worked. That idea was propagated as something that was right. In other words, it was okay for somebody who happened to live on the edge of a city to, for example, sell a few acres of land for €16 million and then pass the cost on people who were doing their best to provide for a family and pay for a home. The then Government did not interfere with the market, which was a problem. We need to have a debate about which market injustices we tolerate and whether it is morally right for somebody to inherit land and hoard it before speculating on it and making millions of euro in profit, while hundreds of people pay exorbitant mortgages to meet the cost to the developer. We need to get real and begin a discussion about the market and when the State should interfere in those issues that are inherent to people's existence such as education, health and so on.

Owing to globalisation in the past 20 years, Ireland can no longer believe it is an independent country when it comes to the business and the economic model it pursues. We are part of the European Union but also part of an international system in which capital can flow from one country to another at the push of a button. Businesses no longer decide where they want to locate simply based on which markets they can access from a location but rather where they can get the best workers, lowest corporation tax rates and so on. Irrespective of whether we like it, we are in a race to the bottom with other markets across the globe.

Those of us who want to see a social contract in which the wealth of a nation provides for people to fulfil themselves and participate fully in society must realise we need a tax base to sustain that. Having a global corporate market which incentivises countries to reduce the amounts of money businesses contribute to the state contradicts this and will underfund it if it continues. The European Union, the bastion of the social economic model across the world, based on the French and German models and the one to which we aspire, needs to work together. The Union must ensure businesses pay their fair share.

What is driving the economic model we follow? Over the past several years, even during the boom, we have used narrow clinical terms such as GDP, GNP and inflation growth. However, if average incomes are increasing, we still do not know whether everyone is better off. For example, one person earning several million euro will skew the average income rate while others may be left behind. We need a better way of measuring and monitoring our economic model. In 2008, the French Government established the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress which was chaired by the Nobel economist, Joseph Stiglitz. It expanded measuring average incomes to include time spent with family, commute times and the broader well-being of society. We need to stop looking at narrow economic targets. Instead, we need an economic model which targets, measures and follows a state of well-being for our people which is much broader than the narrow measurements such as GDP and average income.

This is a good time for the country. We are exiting the troika bailout and regaining our economic independence. However, this independence must be used to ensure what happened before does not happen again, that workers are at the centre of decision-making, that we get real about the idea of a social contract, the taxes we pay and the services we receive in return. We need to have a good discussion as to what market injustices we accept, how we measure economic progress, how we value that which our economy achieves and those policies which we put towards their production.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Peter Mathews.

Everyone must recognise that it is good Ireland is leaving the troika arrangement on 15 December 2013, the date originally envisaged for the exit. It is also good that over the three years during the course of the programme Ireland met all the macroeconomic targets set down. The visits from the troika to Ireland served a useful purpose, ensuring the Government continued to keep focused on the task at hand. I believe the public did not have a problem with the troika overseeing the implementation of the memorandum of understanding.

However, it is also important to note which reforms were not delivered during the three years. Some reforms were achieved, some of which would have been achieved without the troika. Some additional reforms could have been achieved, however. The mortgage arrears issue has not yet been substantially dealt with. Banks are now offering solutions to some mortgage holders advising them to dispose of their properties, which is only an attempt to reach a statistical target rather than a sustainable solution. Neither has unemployment been adequately dealt with. While every Member will agree there are plenty of job activation measures and that officials in the Department of Social Protection are dealing individually with those on the live register, more needs to be done. I often wonder if the Department should be merged with the other jobs Department, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

We are still grappling with the financial management structures of our health sector. Even two weeks after the Budget Statement, there is a dispute about the level of savings to be achieved in the Health Service Executive, HSE, and whether it will be €666 million or €1 billion. The reason there is a struggle to meet the figures announced in the budget and to agree the annual service plan is because some of the figures for savings were plucked out of the air without any substantial backing.

Sheltered sectors of the economy such as the legal profession have not been dealt with either. A recent legal case concerning the contesting of a public right way at Lissadell House ended up in the Supreme Court. Sligo County Council, which did not have the €2 million to buy the house several years ago, has now ended up with legal fees almost three times that amount, some €7 million. It may well have been an issue of public importance, but it is fundamentally grossly obscene and immoral that the legal fees to determine a legal right of way across a path in front of a house could approach €10 million when the property itself is a fraction of that amount. The issue of disproportionate legal fees has not been tackled. I have not given up on Ireland dealing with this matter itself but an opportunity was missed to tackle it when the troika was here.

On Ireland’s funding requirements, we must look at the commitments we have to meet over the coming three years. Before 2016, Ireland will have maturing debt in the order of €35 billion. Some of that is government bonds while other parts of it are the payments under the EU-IMF programme from 2015. In 2014, we have maturing liabilities of €7.7 billion, €10.5 billion in 2015 and in €16.4 billion 2016, all of which accumulates to nearly €35 billion over three years. In addition to that, there is a deficit funding of €18 billion. While some believe we are out of our problems and will have budget surpluses, it is a bit unreal. If one were to use primary surplus as a measure of how well a country is doing, it would mean Greece would be one of the best performers in the EU while taking no account of its financing arrangements for the level of debts it has built up.

In the next three years, we have a funding requirement of €53 billion.

That is a significant factor to be taken into account when deciding whether Ireland should have a precautionary credit line in place. One of the most important factors in that debate is the State's underlying debt. Our general Government debt to the end of 2013 will be around 124%. We hope that figure will begin to reduce in 2014 to 120% and a little below that figure in 2015. If somebody goes into a bank to borrow money, the first question it will ask is what is his or her existing level of debt. Given that we have such a high level of debt, it makes it more difficult for us to borrow because people will be looking at the overhang of debt.

We must be fair and acknowledge that the NTMA has cash in hand of about €25 billion, which is substantial and will see us through 2014 and into 2015, but we cannot run it down to the wire. Ireland will need to be back in the international markets early next year when the season begins for raising funds. At that stage, I believe Ireland will be able to borrow successfully in the immediate short term, which in itself will be very important. People will wonder if we are finished with the troika, but we still owe the European Union, the IMF and the ECB a lot of money. They will be here at least twice a year for visits, making sure we are meeting commitments and continuing to make repayments and they will be doing this for a while. We also have commitments under the six-pack and the two-pack in our EU targets. The most important target is reducing our debt to 60% of GDP over a 20 year period and that can only be done by achieving surpluses in that time.

Everybody accepts that the precautionary credit line is a finely balanced issue, but when I met representatives of the troika during their last visit two weeks ago as part of the Fianna Fáil delegation, they told us that the mechanism for having a precautionary credit line could extend to up to 57 days. Not only would it have to go through the European Commission, it would also have to go through several national parliaments. That would involve going through the Bundestag and as we all know, the Labour Party's colleagues in Germany, in the SPD, have been raising the issue of our corporation tax rate. The Labour Party Members would do us all a favour if they were to ask their party colleagues in the European Parliament to desist from raising this as an issue, which is not fair. While we have a low rate of corporation tax, many countries have a higher nominal rate but a lower effective rate. Other governments might take the opportunity to raise a variety of issues and it would have been very difficult if the issue of Ireland's precautionary credit line had been kicked around the floor of various national parliaments. The Government was afraid to go down that road because we do not know what might come from a debate in the various national parliaments. We could get drawn into another debate unconnected with Ireland. Parliamentarians in some countries might suggest all programme countries should come under one precautionary credit line system and not deal with Ireland on its own, even though we are the first to leave a programme. Fees would also have to be paid for the facility. While we might not draw down any money, the fee would have to be paid to put the facility in place and we probably would have to sign a new memorandum of understanding. These were complications from which the Government shied away. That is one reason it has chosen not to take that route.

I welcome the conclusion of the programme. It was always the intention that we would leave at the end of the defined three year period. The fiscal targets have been met and well achieved and people abroad are saying Ireland is in a strong position as we leave the ECB-IMF programme. On behalf of my own party, I can only say we hope the entry back into the private fundraising market is a success for Ireland in the years to come.

I thank Deputy Seán Fleming for sharing his time with me. It is appreciated.

I would like to refer to the text of the statement, on which we will be voting later tonight. The Minister stated the Government's decision to exit the EU-IMF programme of financial support in December without applying for a precautionary credit line "is the right decision for Ireland and now is the right time to make that decision." That is a long sentence and clumsy. It is possibly illogical because if one makes a decision, its timing, by definition, needs to be right, rather than it being the right time to make it. There is cloudy thinking. We are exiting a programme. It is the effluxion of time and our arrival at a calendar date. The programme started on 29 November 2010.

People have forgotten that what propelled the troika to come to Dublin to arrange emergency finance for the country in an orderly way was the fact that the six Irish banks had €140 billion from the ECB, the exposure of which was maddeningly alarming and frightening. That is why it came. It had to stabilise the country's consolidation programme for the next three years in order to provide the finance that would meet the difference between expenditure and taxation during that period. That amounted to €67.5 billion in loans. At the end of the period of disbursement - the last disbursements finish on 15 December - there will be a period of review and surveillance. That is naturally the case because that is what lenders do after they finish disbursing a loan.

We have not come from a battlefield of austerity into a meadow of milk and honey. We must describe it truthfully to the people because we need to acknowledge in this debate that the sacrifices, resilience and patience of the people of Ireland in achieving that fiscal consolidation, mapped out in the framework of the troika, have been remarkable. The Minister of State, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, spoke about the journey on which the Government had embarked. This is like poetry. He stated it was extraordinary that the gap between spending and revenue was now nearly 3%, which was extraordinary. He spoke about the legacy debt that remained. A figure of €30 billion is odious. He referred to Deputy Shane Ross looking for a write-down of that debt, using the filthy word "default" and stating Argentina was the example that should scare us. After the Second World War in Germany there was creditor compression; all of its creditors agreed to write down the debt in an orderly way in the 1951 debt agreement. Greece also recently had an orderly negotiated debt write-down. That job remains for the Government. Deputy Lucinda Creighton referred to the expectations of the people when there was a change of Government in February 2011; they expected more than they have received to date. I am not trying to undermine what has been achieved, but we have not yet got there; we are not even halfway there. There is an odious debt of €30 billion that needs to be negotiated away.

Professor Honohan was the man who alerted the troika to enter and provide the memorandum of understanding on 29 November 2010. At the time, he saw the scariness of a debt of €140 billion outstanding to the ECB by six Irish banks and the panic button was pressed. It had to get here to enter a programme. The last Dáil - the Opposition as well as the Government parties - was hugely culpable in not understanding what had gone on with regard to policy here and that the banks had trashed the country with a turbo-charged splurge of credit. Professor Stiglitz, to whom Deputy Derek Nolan referred, explained the situation in The Price of Inequality . I am glad that the Minister of State, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, has read that book which I gave to him because it is a great analysis of economics and policy that is needed to generate growth in a western democracy to underpin a more just, fair and democratic society.

The unfinished business involves the legacy debt. I implore the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to don the breastplate of armour and go in and negotiate on it. I would take from Professor Honohan the keys to the desk drawer that contains the bonds, rip them up and then invite Mr. Draghi to come and show him why this was the right thing to do.

That certainly would be a credit event.

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few points in this discussion. I would not agree with the remedy Deputy Peter Mathews suggested, but he is right about there being unfinished business and how the legacy debt should be dealt with. I am not sure his recommendation is a genuine solution that can be agreed to, but the Government must turn its attention to this issue more strongly than ever. Like all previous speakers, I was here for the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan's statement that we were in the last few weeks of the ECB-IMF programme. As the Minister outlined last week when it was announced that the Government had decided not to seek a precautionary credit line, the intention on entering the programme would always have been that we would leave it.

At different points in the past three years many speculated that the country would not be able to leave the programme. There were particularly churlish comments from people in Fianna Fáil about the necessity to have a precautionary credit line and an almost complete failure to acknowledge their role in bringing us into a programme. Deputy Peter Matthews spoke about the role of the Governor of the Central Bank. Perhaps the greatest indictment of the last Government is that it was left to the Governor of the Central Bank to go on the national airwaves to say what was actually happening with the national finances, while Cabinet Ministers were either too incompetent to know what was happening or lied through their teeth about the presence of members of the troika in this city. I do not know which is worse, their being incompetent or telling barefaced lies. That is the situation the country faced.

I was a maths teacher in a previous existence and there is no definitive correct answer to the question on the Government's decision not to seek a precautionary credit line. We do not know and only with the benefit of hindsight will we be able to tell whether it was the correct decision. On balance, based on the facts as we know them, the interest rates available to Ireland on the international markets and our success in exiting the troika programme, it was the correct decision to take. Most of the commentary by independent commentators outside the House has reflected that, on balance, it may well have been the right decision, but we will not know definitively for several years to come.

I agree with many previous speakers and have listened to most of the debate. Deputy Derek Nolan spoke about the origins of the economic crisis of the last five or six years and the housing market bubble. While he was correct, some political decisions made along the way led to that housing market bubble. The Deputy said no attempts had been made to interfere in the property market. Actually, several attempts were made. I was not a Member but a councillor and a student when Mr. Peter Bacon who is now producing reports for private bodies was engaged by the Government to draw up reports on housing market issues. The first Bacon report in 1998 was primarily focused on trying to squeeze investors out of the market and reduce excessive investor demand by changing the tax treatment of certain investment incomes. His 1999 report focused mainly on the position of the many people who were renting and seeking to get on the property ladder. As a result of his reports, in the following few years the Government led by Fianna Fáil with the Progressive Democrats and their Independent friends decided to establish a committee that would examine the role of the Central Bank and regulation of the banking sector. That committee has been largely forgotten and written out of history, but it was chaired by then Deputy Michael McDowell. It made some worthy recommendations, the principal one being that the function of regulation should be removed from the Central Bank and an independent Financial Regulator established. This was accepted by the Government. That decision was subsequently reversed and the Financial Regulator is effectively the No. 2 in the Central Bank. There is much closer co-operation, to say the least, between the two bodies.

There was a dismal failure, in particular following the second Bacon report which examined the level of mortgage people could obtain. It spoke about basing borrowers' mortgages on their net income rather than 2.5 times gross salary. As a result of this, former Deputy Michael McDowell's committee spoke about the need to establish independent regulation and the entire nature of banking in this country changed in a relatively short period. The economy also changed. Up until approximately 2002 the economy was not as focused on the construction sector, but after 2002 the property bubble took hold and future generations will have to come to terms with the disastrous fruits of it. Many more text books will be written about it.

On balance, I agree with the Government's decision. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in his time in office has instilled confidence back into the country. I have confidence in him that he has made the correct decision but only time will tell if that is the case.

I thank Deputy John Paul Phelan for sharing his time with me.

I return to some of the commentary made by Deputy Seán Fleming before he left the House. The vacant Fianna Fáil benches are reminiscent of the vacant attitude Fianna Fáil took to the running of the country when it was in government. Unless I was in a parallel universe, Deputy Seán Fleming made out in the contribution that the troika programme was somehow a good thing for Ireland and that the people did not mind having a group of outsiders overseeing what we were doing. I find it very difficult to understand how anybody could suggest the surrender of the country's sovereignty was anything other than treachery and a bad thing. Deputy Seán Fleming may get another opportunity to speak when he might like to enlighten us on how he thinks giving away the country's sovereignty is a good thing. That remark cuts to the bone of how out of touch Fianna Fáil in opposition has been about this issue.

Last week we saw the spectacle of the Fianna Fáil leader, with a belated interest in financial responsibility, coming into the House to oppose the taking of the order to announce the fact that the Government was not going to seek a secure line of credit but was going to inform European finance Ministers that we were going it alone.

The attitude of the Opposition that day, Fianna Fáil in particular, smacked of a group of people who had learned nothing from the cataclysmic destruction of the economy into which they led us over a 14 year period. This destruction was symbolised by the arrival of three people, representing three organisations, on the day Dublin Airport's new terminal was opened. This, again, was another symbol of what the country was facing because that terminal has been used in the intervening period and is still being used for the export of some of our brightest because of our economic collapse.

And excess credit lines.

The Deputy had his chance to speak.

On the significance of the decision made, I pay tribute to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. There is no doubt that he has made an excellent start in leading the country's economic recovery. The analogy he used at the weekend was that when one was learning to swim, sooner or later one had to let go of the bar and take off the armbands. We may never again have the opportunity we have at this time, where the climate within the European institutions and our environment is as good as it is to make the break we need to make. Deputy John Paul Phelan was right to say history would be the ultimate gauge of this. Sooner or later, the country was going to have to make the decision and it was going to make it now or in 12 months' time. We do not know what circumstances will be like in 12 months or whether conditions will then be as good for us to make it.

People have taken a massive amount of personal pain, be it through their pay packet, their mortgage or the fact that they have lost their house, their job, their children to emigration or a future generation. They need some hope and a sense that somebody is back at the helm. We now have the opportunity to decide our future economic destiny. The day we surrendered it was a day when we had to ask ourselves what had been the purpose in 1916 or 1922 or in the intervening period if, at the stroke of a pen, we could give away our economic and fiscal independence because clearly we were not able to manage it. The country was dragged through indignity and embarrassment as a result. The damage this surrender did to families, individuals, businesses and a whole generation will take a long time to be undone. Trust must be rebuilt in the political system.

We have taken the first step, in which I wish the Government well. We have opposition for the sake of opposition, but now of all times people need to get behind the country, regardless of who is in government. They must support the country and sell it in a positive light. They must stop knocking the Government just for the sake of knocking it. Everything the Government has done since it took office has been knocked for the sake of it. That record needs to change.

I remember this time three years ago when the ECB and IMF came to town. It was a very dark day for the country. I am not telling stories out of turn about our parliamentary party, but at our parliamentary party meeting on that day Fine Gael Senators and Deputies were incensed. Fine Gael is the party that fought for the State and set up and defended the institutions of State. We were incensed, but I saw real leadership in the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, that day. He turned to us and said we could take on the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European Union, but we would lose. He went on to say what we were going to do.

I am delighted that three years later, through the direction of the Minister for Finance; the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin; the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes; the Taoiseach; the Tánaiste and a Government that worked cohesively, we have waved goodbye to the troika. As Members know, the country was under huge pressure; unemployment was on the rise; the banks were in crisis, and competitiveness had declined dramatically. Our reputation with the European Union had been shattered. We saw speculation in various areas and the property market and failed to support manufacturing and farming, an indigenous industry which effectively ensures we can have an export led economy.

What is happening now? We are talking about knocking down ghost estates, many of which are in my constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim. One wonders why a Government should knock down houses that are half built. However, when one looks at the price of houses in my constituency, one can see, as Deputy Michael Colreavy will agree, that a brand new three bedroom house can be bought for €40,000 and an apartment for €20,000. After years of being told there was no future in farming or manufacturing and that the real future was in banking and financial markets, we are in a situation where the Government and local authorities must knock down half built estates. This is probably the best solution because the cost of a new house in these areas ranges only from €30,000 to €35,000. This shows where we are now.

Fine Gael has delivered on all of the 260 actions under the ECB-IMF programme. I commend the Ministers, Deputies Michael Noonan and Brendan Howlin, and everybody else who has helped to get us out of the mess so far. There is a long way to go, but much work has been done.

Everyone knew we would exit the bailout programme at some point and that a decision would have to be made on whether we would go for a backstop. Whether that decision would be taken now or in 12 months was a matter for the Government. It was up to it to weigh up everything that was happening and make an informed decision. It was obviously a surprise for us on Thursday morning to receive an e-mail calling us to gather in the Chamber to hear the announcement, but that said, Sinn Féin agrees with the decision taken by the Government. Our opinion has always been that signing up for a precautionary credit line or a backstop, without knowing the full conditions that would be attached to it, would be akin to a second bailout. We have seen the damage the previous bailout programme has inflicted on the State and its citizens.

It was astonishing to hear some of the mutterings from the Fianna Fáil benches when they were asking us to sign up for what Sinn Féin believes would have been a second bailout or to hear them suggest that would be in the best interests of the State. How anybody can take seriously anything said by a Fianna Fáil leader, particularly one who was a Minister at the time the troika came to these shores, is beyond me. It was as a result of decisions taken by the then Government and policies implemented by it in the main that we came to be in this situation. We cannot lay the blame solely on this factor, however, as there were other external factors that led to our economic demise. However, nobody could argue with the fact that it was the way the matter was handled, decisions made and policies implemented that plunged the State into economic crisis. As a result, we have had a number of years of austerity and tens of thousands of our young people have emigrated because of the economic situation in which we have found ourselves. These young people are the highly educated workforce we need to try to regain our economic sovereignty.

It is ironic to listen to Fianna Fáil Members and former Ministers lecture others in the House about regaining economic sovereignty. Many of the measures implemented as part of the troika plan had already been agreed to in Fianna Fáil's national recovery plan. Calling it a national recovery plan is a joke in itself.

Last Thursday I watched Leaders' Questions at the RTE studios and it came across clearly that very tough economic decisions had to be made. No one in the House is under any illusion that the troika has gone home because this is not the case. Our budgetary process will still be scrutinised and we are still signed up to the fiscal treaty with all of its economic ramifications. It is clear that there are still tough times ahead for Irish citizens. The one thing that came out of the Taoiseach's statement, in particular, concerned the short-term economic strategy which would be finalised before the end of the year. It will guide us in the coming 12 months, a time period which will be critical in terms of the economic fortunes of the State. I am not sure what the figures are, but we probably have funding in excess of €22 billion or €23 billion which will probably see us through all of next year at least and perhaps part of 2015, depending on growth rates. After this, we do not know what will happen or what the external factors in Europe will be. We do not know how they will impact on us. We have enough funding in place to run the State next year and for this reason, we believed it was the right decision. The short-term economic strategy which will be put in place will be critical because if it does not work or bear fruit and we do not implement the right policies, we will not see the growth rates we need to enable us to maintain our economic sovereignty and access the bond markets year after year. The strategy will be a key Government policy document and how it is implemented will set out the stall for the coming years.

It will not come as a surprise to the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, that we will have differing opinions on how the strategy should be implemented. We did not do enough to stimulate the domestic economy in recent budgets and many agree with me. We kept taking money out of people's pockets and perpetuating a situation where people had less to spend in local shops. As a result, local shops were finding it increasingly difficult to meet their overheads. Businesses were closing, as a result of which more and more people sought State assistance through the Department of Social Protection. It is a vicious circle and we need to re-evaluate how we do business in terms of the domestic economy. We must start stimulating it and investing in the small and medium enterprise sector.

We must start to tackle the issue of youth unemployment. The youth guarantee gives us the potential to start to tackle youth unemployment at least. We are debating a Private Members' motion on the youth guarantee this week, but what Government officials and Deputies state about it does not give me any confidence. The International Labour Organization and the National Youth Council of Ireland state approximately €400 million to €435 million is needed to properly fund the youth guarantee, but last year the Taoiseach returned from Paris speaking about a figure of €200 million, two thirds of which will be financed by the European Union. It will probably require approximately €66 million in the next two years, but we have only budgeted for a figure of €40 million this year. I presume the strategy plan which will be published will address some of these issues and we await its publication.

It is important that we instil confidence in the domestic economy. The only way we can do this is by putting money back in people's pockets and having spending power again. Unfortunately, we cannot do this if we keep taxing people. Next year we will have the property tax which will be due for a full year; we will have the introduction of water charges and are taking money from jobseekers under 25 years. If these types of policy continue, we will not have the growth needed next year through the strategy plan to build and maintain the economic fortunes of the State.

Many people are hurting and it is very difficult to hear about some of the hardship being felt. There is no monopoly in hearing about it on the Opposition benches. I am sure every Government and Opposition Deputy week after week in his or her clinic hears about the hardship being experienced. We must start instilling hope. People come to my clinics who, unfortunately, are their wits end and suicidal. I am sure it is the same in the Minister of State's clinic. People come to my clinics who are working full time and trying to pay bills and find themselves accessing the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other charities. For their sake, as well as that of the State, we must start to implement policies which not only will put money back in their pockets but also give them back a sense of hope and dignity because without these, what are we doing here? What is the function of this Chamber if we are not here to protect and enhance the lives of the citizens we represent?

We await the publication of the strategy which will be a key policy document. We will examine it when it is published and where there are parts to be welcomed, we will welcome them, but we also appeal to the Minister of State to take on board some of the propositions the Opposition has articulated in recent years. The introduction of a wealth tax is not something the Government favours and we have been criticised for even suggesting it, but according to the Minister's own figures in replies to parliamentary questions, he estimates that if we were to introduce a wealth tax based on the criteria we put forward, it would raise approximately €400 million, which would go a long way towards stimulating the domestic economy and easing some of the hardship and burden placed on the shoulders of citizens. I appeal to the Minister of State to think outside the box and not dismiss every proposal coming from the Opposition as harebrained or fairy-tale economics.

I will spend the limited time available to me speaking about something not in the exit arrangements but which should have been - the issue of legacy debt. All Deputies have received a flood of e-mails from people affected by legacy debt because a Private Members' motion on the issue will be brought before the House next week. The volume of e-mails indicates a tremendous sense of people having been wronged and a palpable sense of anger that the issue has not been addressed. We are exiting the programme and there is no mention of it.

The story being told is that we are out of the woods and that other than having to deal with the public deficit, all future budgetary measures as part of the austerity programme will be aimed at tackling the need to pay for public services. That is not accurate and misrepresents the position. It overlooks entirely the reasons the austerity programme was introduced in the first place. It is true there would be issues regarding the deficit in public spending in the context of any economic downturn, but this is something with which we have been dealing for the past 80 years, as have other democratic states. What is not being talked about is the fact that not only as the economic downturn made greatly worse and partly caused by the type of speculators connected to Anglo Irish Bank but also that the debt of Anglo Irish Bank and other banks has added massively to the burden being imposed on the people of the State.

It is dishonest in the extreme to claim, as some are doing, that the cuts being imposed and the extra taxes being raised from struggling households are necessary to pay for public services.

The fact is that the measures have been enormously magnified by the taking on and paying off of bank debts. We will continue to strongly urge that no further repayments be made. It will also be the case, as indicated by the troika, that the IMF will continue to exercise a role in monitoring and, to a large degree, framing the economic and financial policies of this and future Irish Governments. This will certainly ensure that the ideology of privatisation and curtailment of public services and investment will continue. In that context, I recall a promise to the effect that the Government was to create a new company involving a merger of Coillte and Bord na Móna. I also recall a promise to the effect that €1 billion in investment funding would be made available for this enterprise. I suspect that the troika have let it be known that they are opposed to any such public entity and that what will now happen is that a report on the proposed merger of Coillte and Bord na Móna will be compiled. I doubt the latter constitutes a major public investment programme in renewable energy.

Despite the spin surrounding the exit from the bailout, unless there is a clear change of direction on the part of the State all we can look forward to is more of the same. We need investment, including public investment in indigenous sectors such as energy. It is in such sectors that the potential to stimulate overall growth in the economy and create jobs exists.

My final point relates to democracy. We are supposed to live in a democratic Republic. If a referendum were put to the people tomorrow as to whether the Irish State should repay the outstanding promissory notes, I have no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of people in this country would vote "No". In a democracy, the job of elected politicians is to represent the views and interests of those who voted them into office. The current Government is in place because it promised to do things differently from the previous lot. However, it has not kept that promise. It is arrogant to assume that the troika, the economic management council, EMC, and the Cabinet know better than the people of this Republic, particularly when it is the latter who are paying the costs relating to the choices made by those opposite.

The next speaker is Deputy Breen, who is sharing time with Deputy O'Donnell. Deputy Breen will have five minutes and Deputy O'Donnell will have ten.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As the Taoiseach stated last week, the decision to exit the bailout without a precautionary credit line "is the right decision for Ireland and now is the right time to take this decision". This decision has been made possible by the people, who have been obliged to endure one of the most periods in the country's economic history. When the troika arrived, Ministers in the previous Government told the people that the attention of the EU and the IMF would be limited to measures to improve the liquidity of our banks. The latter was, of course, total nonsense. We were tied in to the bailout and that left us little room for manoeuvre. When the Government entered office, there was a crisis in employment and some 7,000 people in the private sector were losing their jobs each month. In addition, Ireland's international reputation was in tatters.

I remind the main Opposition party across the floor that many of the controversial proposals we have been obliged to introduce, such as the property tax and water charges, were all elements of the four-year fiscal plan to which that party signed up when in government. What the previous Administration's plan lacked was a credible growth and jobs strategy. In the past three years we have been working to address the deficit in order to bring our public finances under control and establish the correct conditions for a clean exit from the bailout. The economy has returned to growth and Ireland is one of the minority of eurozone countries to achieve two successive years of economic growth, which it did in 2011 and 2012. Many organisations are predicting that growth next year will be even stronger than the 2% predicted by the Minister for Finance. Jobs in the private sector are being created at a rate of 3,000 per month and international confidence has been restored. The fact that our international reputation is now at an all-time high is no coincidence. The Government has gone out and sold Ireland abroad, while at home it has continued with the task of getting the economy back on a sustainable footing and successfully meeting all of our obligations with the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF.

The views of the Opposition party leader who wants to tie the Irish people into another bailout programme are not shared by international experts or the markets. Responding to the decision taken by the Government last week, Ms Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, stated that the Irish Government has a strong record of policy implementation and that this bodes well for Ireland's exit from the bailout. The Vice President of the European Commission, Mr. Olli Rehn, stated that it was a good day for the country. Ireland is the first country in the eurozone to exit its bailout programme. The reality is that a rising tide raises all boats. With the eurozone economy showing some signs of improvement, the Government's decision provides a much needed boost for the eurozone in general but for Portugal in particular as it reaches the end of its own programme. It is worth remembering that the battle for a retrospective deal on the recapitalisation of our banks continues in Europe. The fact that we are emerging successfully from our programme will enhance our reputation among our EU partners. It will also enhance our bargaining power.

I look forward to the verdict of the international ratings agencies. If, as a result of last week's decision, Ireland's credit rating is upgraded to, for example, investment status, money will begin to flow back into the country from pension fund investors and others who are prevented from investing here at present. The leader of the main Opposition party claimed last week that we should have an insurance policy in place in the context of the headwinds which may come to bear on us. We already have an insurance policy in place. We have this Government and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, who has demonstrated a capacity to keep a tight rein on our finances. Unlike his predecessors, the Minister does not pursue reckless policies. Within Europe there are strong preventive fiscal controls in place in the form of the Stability and Growth Pact. The markets are relaxed about last week's decision in light of the transformation in our economy. We have a strong buffer in place in the form of €20 billion in cash reserves. Our public finances are under control and economic sentiment here is at its highest point since 2007. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I have seen evidence of how much our international reputation has improved during my travels abroad. That reputation is at an all-time high.

Now is the right time to exit the bailout. I commend the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach and the other members of the Government whose efforts made last week's decision possible.

I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I welcome the fact that Ireland will formally exit its bailout on 15 December next. We have already exited it to a substantial degree in the context of the type of options we are taking. I commend the Government and all those involved in the discussions in respect of this matter.

What is the purpose of exiting the bailout? One of the key aspects is that we will be able to borrow money on the international markets. Before coming to the House, I had a quick look to see where Ireland stands in respect of those markets. Our bond yields have continued to fall since we announced our intention to exit the bailout without a precautionary line of credit. On the date on which we made our announcement, our yield for ten-year bonds stood at 3.56%. That rate fell to 3.53% today. This shows that the markets are comfortable with the decision the Government has made and are willing to support us by supporting funding. Ireland will formally return to the markets in January or February. People should not overlook the fact that we have borrowed consistently on the markets at reasonable rates of interest since 2012.

A great deal has been made of the decision not to accept a precautionary credit line. The key focus in this regard relates to three areas. The first of these in the reform agenda, which must be maintained but in a way that is fair to people. The second area is that which relates to growth and jobs. The facts do not lie. At present, in excess of 3,000 jobs net are being created each month. Prior to our taking office in 2011, some 8,000 jobs net were being lost each month.

This is significant, especially as approximately 250,000 jobs were lost in the previous three years. While growth is low, it is improving, and countries elsewhere in Europe, including our near neighbour the United Kingdom, and the United States are also experiencing economic growth. The fundamental requirements for continuing this phase of generating employment and getting people off the live register are being met.

Banks are a key issue. Significant progress has been made in the banking sector through restructuring and the measures taken to deal with Anglo Irish Bank. One issue that remains to be addressed, however, is tracker mortgages, which account for 59% of the mortgage loan books of the three banks being funded by taxpayers, AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB. Tracker mortgages have a value of approximately €46 billion. Various analysts estimate that in 2012 they contributed approximately €700 million to the losses of the three pillar banks, which is a significant amount. Ireland has an unusually high rate of house ownership and tracker mortgages when compared to other European countries. Tracker mortgages were offered at a time when banks were able to borrow on the EURIBOR and inter-bank markets at interest rates lower than the ECB rate. This allowed them to manufacture a product charging 1% above ECB rates for mortgages. However, they did so on the basis that the interest rates on the EURIBOR and inter-bank markets would continue to be below the ECB rate, which is no longer the case. Traditionally, banks borrowed short-term funds from the European Central Bank and long-term funds on the inter-bank market. The ECB is trying to progressively wean banks off ECB funding, which requires banks to turn to other sources of funding which cost more. This has created an imbalance in the financing of tracker mortgages and resulted in banks losing money on them.

Banks across Europe will face a liquidity cliff risk as they switch from ECB funding to inter-bank funding. They need to ensure they make sufficient profits from their mortgage book to cover the cost of borrowing, which is not the case with tracker mortgages. One mechanism that should be considered, perhaps via a combination of the ECB, the ESM and long-term refinancing operations, would be to move the tracker mortgage loan books of the three main Irish banks into a special purpose vehicle financed through low-cost funding. This would make a significant difference to the operations of Irish banks in terms of lending because a number of them have become highly risk-averse and are protecting their balance sheets. While tracker mortgages are a specific feature of the Irish banking system, the issue must be addressed in a European context. We need to come up with some form of financial engineering to deal with them.

In a period of three years, we have been able to exit the bailout programme with our finances stabilised and the economy back in growth. Employment is also growing, with approximately 3,000 jobs being created each month. While the banking system has been reorganised, the issue of tracker mortgages must be addressed in a European context. The funding model I have in mind would involve funding these mortgages at low cost with a view to rebalancing the balance sheets of the banks. Any such model must not disadvantage tracker mortgage holders, as we must always be conscious of those who have borrowed from our banking institutions.

The Government will continue with its reform agenda, and I look forward to the economic strategy it will announce in December. I have no doubt it will place considerable emphasis on growth and jobs. As someone who was self-employed for many years, I like to be master of my own destiny.

That all changed in June 2010.

Regaining our sovereignty allows Ireland to make independent decisions, a privilege that was robbed from us in November 2010 when the troika came to town.

I congratulate and commend the Government on the motion. Exiting the programme is a step towards restoring the country to full economic health. The fundamentals are good in terms of the cost of borrowing and the growth in jobs. The issue of the tracker mortgages held by AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB must be addressed in a European context through ECB funding.

This is a significant debate as it marks the beginning of the end of the bailout phase of our economic recovery. While it is significant that Ireland is the first country to exit a programme, there is no cause for celebration, as many challenges lie ahead for the country and families.

I am being generous in describing this as a debate, as debates normally involve an exchange of views and information. The House was not given any information today. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, spoke about the Government's decision to exit the bailout without a precautionary credit line following "a careful and thorough assessment of all available options, and various consultations". The decision was, apparently, finely balanced, but we have been given no evidence in this regard, nor was any presentation made on the alternatives or their cost. Some Deputies have been critical of the decision and argued that we will be signing up for a second bailout with more stringent conditions. We have not seen any evidence to this effect. The Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform was not given a presentation on the options available to the Government. If, to use the words of the Minister, the decision was "finely balanced" and the Government could easily have taken a different decision, the Oireachtas should have been consulted and the joint committee should at least have been involved to bring balance to the debate.

While I do not doubt the Minister's word on this issue, either the Government is serious about Dáil reform or it is not. It frequently parades the idea of Dáil reform. This was a perfect opportunity to present the options available to the Government on exiting the bailout to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. Even if the joint committee were involved retrospectively, as is still possible, it would still be preferable to having to wait for an inevitable leak from the German Parliament or State records on the matter.

We must also consider what will be the role of KfW Bank.

We have a serious problem, to which Deputy Kieran O'Donnell referred in his presentation on tracker mortgages. Banks are not lending. We had a two-night debate on the issue last week. There is a programme for Government commitment to establish a strategic investment bank. We have shown examples of and everybody on every side of the House has spoken about the difficulty in getting credit for SMEs. The Taoiseach, to use the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan's phrase, "mentioned" the role of KfW bank as being a game changer last week - one will recall that old phrase that we have often heard from the other side of the House - but we do not know what they have done and what the bank's role will be. I placed a series of parliamentary questions to the Minister and received the response this evening. His response to the series of questions states:

Officials of my Department have already exchanged working papers on this subject with KfW and the German Ministry of Finance. We have held a consultation with the German embassy in Dublin which helped pave the way for discussions with the German Ministry which were held in Berlin yesterday and further discussions will be held with KfW and other key stakeholders over the coming weeks both here and in Germany.

That is all fine. It is lovely that the German embassy knows more about the Government's plans for KfW than we do. What will be the KfW initiative? What will it mean? Will it help to address the issues of bank balance sheets? Will it allow for further lending? Will it be specifically focused on SMEs or broader companies? Will it have a role in personal lending? Will it have a role in addressing the major challenge facing many SMEs which have fine and viable businesses and are good going concerns but which are being pulled down by property or legacy-related debt? We do not know where the Government is going with this initiative, yet it is engaged in discussions with German embassy officials, as well as with the German Ministry of Finance. In tabling a parliamentary question one receives that answer. That is crucial. We have economic growth and limited employment creation, but if companies are to ride the wave of growth, we need to address the banking problems, in particular for SMEs. The Government seems to have given up on the idea of having a strategic investment bank. The Minister's response tonight was quite vague. This seems to be the vehicle the Government will use, yet we are as much in the dark about it as we were when the Taoiseach mentioned it seven days ago and there has been much talk about political reform here today.

Exiting the bailout programme will mean nothing for those who are unemployed. There is job creation, but there are so many who have been parked - there is a debate ongoing in the House with private business on this issue - for the want of training places and opportunities. Addressing the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, wearing his public sector reform hat, until such time as the Government states a Department of jobs is all about jobs and we do not have a situation where the issues of job creation and activation are shared in three Departments, the Departments of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Education and Skills and Social Protection, the way of doing government business in a silo will block opportunities which people will lose because there are three Departments involved. If we are serious about job creation which the Government keeps stating is the next big project, the Government should create a real Department of jobs to drive it. That is the way it will maximise opportunities and be able to state to people the economic growth and recovery about which we all are talking will mean something to them. The way it is doing it, with three Ministers and three sets of officials squabbling over budgets, the person who is unemployed and wants to seek a path to employment is dealing potentially with three Departments. That is not the way to do it. That is not a crisis response for the 400,000 persons who are looking for employment in the economy. In whatever economic plan that will be presented some time between now and Christmas, there is a need for whole-scale reform of the operation of that side of government because no job creation plan will work in the way they are operating it.

I have been listening all day to Government Deputies clapping themselves on the back and saying they are a great bunch of guys and gals for having done this. They remind me of somebody who joins the marathon three quarters of the way through, manages to cross the finishing line and is getting his or her medal. The Tánaiste was congratulating Deputies last week for sticking with it. The Labour Party, in particular, was elected on a programme of opposing every measure it has implemented in the past two and a half years. Fine Gael at least stated there would be tough decisions, but the Taoiseach has forgotten the five point plan.

We are delivering on it. I will go through it for the Deputy.

The two point plan.

For all of the self-congratulations, they should remember they opposed every point in the plan for which they are taking credit today. It is a significant occasion, but there is much information missing from this so-called debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Before I came into the House, I was listening to the contributions of many Deputies. I also looked back over some of the debates on the ECB-IMF deal when it was being negotiated in November-December 2010. I read the contributions of some of the main Opposition spokespersons at the time in the Official Report. What was said then and what has transpired are, at best, at variance. It is timely that I record that I have more at stake as a citizen and parent in this country to see that the Government succeeds than I do as an Opposition Deputy to see that it fails. My starting point is I hope the Government succeeds. I hope its decision is the correct one. Seeking a precautionary credit line would have been a prudent step, but that is a decision the Government made. As Deputy Dara Calleary said, I would have liked to have seen the evidence on which the Government had based its decision not to opt for a precautionary credit line. What were the conditions? Were they too onerous? Were the interest rates too high? What was the downside in going for a precautionary credit line?

I do not know because we have not been told.

Three years ago we were told that we were being disingenuous because we had not told the people the full truth and the import of what was happening in the discussions. Three years on, as the Minister of State will be aware because he has access to the files, the Government had little choice but to accept the need for a bailout programme. It did not give me much comfort - certainly I was not filled with pride - the day I had to vote for the EU-IMF-ECB bailout programme but at the same time, choices were limited and difficult decisions had to be made.

In the context of the programme, let us be clear that the Government is claiming vindication. I stand vilified on a programme that has been vindicated and the Government stands vindicated for a programme that it vilified. That is the fact of the matter. I do not expect great platitudes for the decisions made. Let us be honest: we know the reasons we were in the programme. Every political party in the House at the time had supported the expansionary policies that were being pursued, not only by Fianna Fáil-led Governments but also by the social partners and all other Members of the House. Every campaign was fought on the need for increased public expenditure and reductions in taxation. We will have to have that debate again on what we will do as a people because of the difficult decisions foisted on the people under the programme. The programme has been vindicated but at a significant cost to society. There are significant social pressures, of which the Minister of State will be aware. There is massive dislocation in society. There is significant stress among mortgage holders who are in negative equity and among those who have lost their jobs and young people to other parts of the world. There is much work still to be done. The programme has achieved one goal - it has stabilised the economy which was the critical issue in terms of the reason the bailout programme was essential in the first place.

I looked at some of the debates. I refer, for example, to the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore's contribution on 15 December 2010 in which he stated:

The Labour Party supports the programme's objectives of achieving fiscal and financial sector stability. We have consistently argued over several years that Ireland faces a three-legged crisis - a banking crisis, a fiscal crisis and a jobs crisis. We have supported the target of reducing the deficit in line with our obligations as a member of the eurozone.

He went on to say:

Our concerns about the deal are not with the objectives or the four key elements of the programme. Our concerns are about the overall structure of the deal, the assumptions that underlie it and whether it will work, as well as with individual components within it.

The reason I outline what the Tánaiste said is there was much dishonest debate in this Chamber in 2010 and the issue must be revisited. He continued:

The test of this deal, therefore, is whether, over the period of the programme, it will result in a return of investor confidence to the point where money will be lent to Ireland at reasonable rates of interest and the banking system will be able to fund itself.

The purpose of the programme was to put Ireland in intensive care, while we worked through the banking crisis, the jobs crisis and the inability of the sovereign to borrow on the bond markets. By any independent assessment, the economy is now able to borrow on the bond markets. It is in the market and bond yields are currently low, at 3.5% to 4%.

I would have preferred to have a precautionary credit line in place to strengthen our hand in the markets and I have yet to hear the reasons the Government did not consider one. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, will say it was not needed because there was sufficient confidence in us, but my concerns in this regard remain. It would have been a straightforward insurance policy to put a precautionary credit line in place. I do not know whether the conditions were onerous or the interest rates prohibitive, but I know one thing for sure - the eurozone economy is under huge stress. Unemployment is a major problem for most eurozone countries; our competitiveness is still a big issue; we have a banking and financial crisis, as well as a currency crisis. These issues have not yet been resolved. While Ireland weathered the difficult storms of 2008 to 2012, we will face further storms in 2014 and should have put an insurance policy in place. For the sake of the citizens of the country who have made considerable sacrifices and reluctantly embraced the programme because they believed it was the best option at the time, I hope the Government made the right decision in deciding otherwise.

Many of the Deputies who are now in government argued against entering the bailout programme and urged us to default instead. I do not think we should have defaulted. I recognise we are now facing a huge burden, particularly in respect of the socialised banking debts that have been foisted on the people, but we can have that debate on another occasion in an historical context. The cost of the guarantee, its implementation and the socialisation of banking debt onto the sovereign have had an impact, but I still need to know whether other options were available. Commitments were made by certain Government Members while they were in opposition that they would address the issue of socialised banking debt. That legacy issue has not been addressed and the Government is duty bound to address it because it sought a mandate based on dealing with the issue of legacy debt. I earnestly hope it made the right decision.

This has been a useful debate, in stark contrast to what occurred in 2010 and 2011. I am more of an optimist than a pessimist. I do not know what good will come from looking backwards. Clearly, we have to make sure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, but a certain element in this country appears to be addicted to failure and does not want to recognise that the country has turned a corner such that we are beginning to see real improvements in our economic performance. Whether that is done for party political advantage or to get certain commentators out of the hole they dug three years ago when they argued that the country should default is a question for another day. However, we need to provoke ourselves to the understanding that, having gone through dreadful turmoil, the country is coming out the other end a better place.

I congratulate the Minister for Finance on the great judgment he has shown in the past two and a half to three years. The years of experience he gained in various political positions have made a huge contribution to the negotiations in which he and our officials have been engaged. I also congratulate the public servants of the country. The people do not know them because they are not on television, but I have seen close up, at many meetings in Brussels, Luxembourg and elsewhere, the extraordinary expertise displayed by the officials of the Department of Finance and the diplomatic community as they worked to get the country to a better place.

Deputy Billy Kelleher spoke about our mandate to renegotiate the programme agreed by the previous Administration. I am not going to spend my time arguing about the way in which we went about it, but history will show we have renegotiated the programme to ensure the country can exit from it. Nobody owes this country a living. We live or we die economically based on whether we can obtain funds from the international money markets. Obtaining money at good rates is more important to the country than to any other eurozone member state because we depend hugely on our international reputation. This is an open trading and highly deleveraged economy. Unlike the Mediterranean economies, we do not have a big public sector. We never had an industrial revolution. This is a very nimble economy. Financial services, pharmaceuticals and information technology are big. All the elements that represent the global economy are in the economy of the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is not like Greece or Portugal, which is why it is crucial that we extend our wings and fly independently of any programme or precautionary credit line.

Opposition Deputies have posed a fair question in asking why we have chosen to exit the programme now. All of the buying and selling that takes place in the sovereign debt market occurs in the first two quarters of the calendar year. By May it is all done and dusted. January and February are the months when countries go the sovereign debt market to sell their wares. The NTMA and the Governor of the Central Bank have pointed out that people require absolute certainty on Ireland's position at that stage of the year. If we were to apply for a precautionary credit line, I am sure the other governments would agree in principle, but unanimous agreement would be required from the 28 member states. In some cases, the decision would have to go before countries' parliaments for approval. A parliament might choose to delay the decision, seek additional clarification or introduce conditionality. In these circumstances, the NTMA would be in the markets in January and February while the debate on the precautionary credit line was rumbling on. We need certainty in circumstances where the authority mandated to borrow the money is already in the market.

We would have required a precautionary credit line were it not for the fact that the State had amassed in excess of €21 billion in cash reserves, which allow the interest rate on debt, particularly on ten year bonds, to fall to an historical low. Last week Standard & Poor's stated the average cost of ten year money was 5% in the last decade. The current cost is slightly over 3.5%, even though we are still in a programme. My arguments are set out in a context of absolute certainty for the NTMA, the Governor of the Central Bank and the status of Ireland as we try to return to the markets.

It is not just about the sovereign debt markets. As an open trading economy that is highly deleveraged and much more privatised than many of the economies I mentioned, our big advantage is not only in terms of the sovereign but also in terms of the banks, semi-State companies and large public limited companies. The markets do not distinguish between an Irish PLC and the Irish sovereign. Diminishing risk in the sovereign diminishes the risk for PLCs, banks and all of the things that make the Irish economic engine work. That is the essential point we are making. We are well funded into 2015 based on the assumption that the State will be unable to raise any money next year. Mr. Corrigan of the NTMA said at the weekend that his objective was to obtain €7 billion next year. As part of a programme, through the work of the NTMA, he has already obtained €6.5 billion, albeit in short-term and long-term money. This was the first allocation of ten year money we got away in the past three years. This is not some kind of risky move as some would like to pretend. This is a move based on where market sentiment lies for Ireland and the sovereign debt markets. Thankfully, the British economy which matters more than anything else suggests a growth rate of 3% next year. This will have a huge impact on the Irish economy because 10% of all jobs in the country are related directly to exports from Ireland and Britain. Things are moving in the right direction.

The Minister for Finance is correct that these are finely judged and balanced issues. In the decision the Government has taken and its endorsement by Dáil Éireann we can point to a credible exit from the programme to the markets. No one owes us a living and we live or die based on what we can afford to borrow. If we cannot afford to borrow, the country has no future. In the decisions we have taken we will be vindicated.

I am delighted to speak on this important issue. Having listened to the debate over the past two years, we must ask ourselves when it is a good time to make an exit from a programme like this. The answer is when it is most advantageous to the economy and the people of this country, who made huge sacrifices albeit with the leadership of Government. When major sacrifices of this nature are made, it is incumbent on the Government and management to ensure the decisions taken are correct for the country's economy and the people. I am amazed there is so much negativity, so many counter questions and doubts being cast on every move. I thought we should have some semblance of recognition that the country is progressing. We had it from one or two Members.

The national ship of this country was heading for the rocks before a strong wind and was in danger of destruction in 2010 when the decision was made to enter the programme because there were no other options. Since that time, I have repeatedly heard from those in opposition about the multiplicity of options the Government had. Where were they when the decision was entered into in the first place? There were no options.

I did a small calculation based on the number of occasions the Opposition, in the past two and half years, put forward proposals for greater expenditure. It would have left this country with a further debt of €40 billion. It is time reality dawned on everyone in the House. The Government is to be congratulated. It has been tough this far and will not be any easier. It was never intended to be easy. Once we were in this situation, there were no easy ways out. We are stuck with it.

In any other country, the country coming out of a situation like this would have been a time for general agreement that we were going in the right direction. Not so in this country. We are beset with the problem of doing ourselves down. This is part of our psyche and is something we must deal with. It is becoming invasive and a dominant feature of this society and its debates. There is no sense in people coming forward and suggesting that we will never get out of debt. We are improving in a serious way.

Some three years ago, Deputy Durkan said the opposite.

When Deputy Billy Kelleher sat on the Government side and had the mixing bowl, we know the ingredients put into it and we know the length of time it took to sink the economy. It took ten years to sink the country's economy and the Opposition is now disappointed when the economy has not recovered in two and a half years.

I am being constructive.

This falls on deaf ears but pretending is what brought this country to where it is. I remember a Minister at the time saying the Government did not need the money being generated. A senior Minister said the Government had so much money that it did not need it. Deputy Billy Kelleher was inquiring about why people felt there was so much money around. There were no options. The Government has taken the right option, which is tentative but well-balanced and calculated. It will have the desired benefit of stabilising the progress so far.

It has been mentioned that there was no relief for the hard-pressed, which is true unfortunately. Everyone in the country is hard-pressed. Even someone as optimistic as Deputy Billy Kelleher, who was always optimistic in government, is suggesting the poor unfortunate people of the country will receive sudden overnight relief now that someone else has taken over when it took ten years to sink the economy to the depths it was in then.

I am hopeful rather than optimistic. Where is the social dividend?

I am not blaming Deputy Billy Kelleher personally, which would not be fair because he was not fully responsible. The people accepted the option put forward by the then Government and made a wrong decision because they were given wrong information. The information they were given at the time was wrong. It has not been easy for the people. It is to their eternal credit that they stuck with it. They showed the rest of Europe they could do things that were not expected of them and in a short time. They had the ability to resolve this country's problems with good leadership if given good leadership and shown a good example.

Deputy Billy Kelleher mentioned Ministers squabbling in the course of the budget and in a recent debate. That is a big change. At least the Ministers were engaged and fighting for their Departments as they should be. This is unlike what happened in the past, when Ministers opted out, did nothing, tore their hair, wrung their hands and beat their breasts and brows and did nothing. They let the ship of State slide into the murky waters we found it in.

I congratulate all concerned. I congratulate the civil servants, members of the Opposition who have been encouraging and the Minister and even Deputy Billy Kelleher, who is looking for his social dividend. It will come. There have been great sacrifices and when it comes, I hope the people of the country will be able to enjoy the riches that will flow accruing from the leadership and their sacrifices.

I propose to share time with Deputies Seamus Healy and Maureen O'Sullivan. The Government has orchestrated a major charade around the ending of the three-year troika programme, which meant that the Irish people were saddled with overwhelming levels of debt to rescue international bondholders and bankers from their reckless pursuit of exorbitant profits through speculation in the Irish property bubble during the first decade of the 21st century. Two successive Governments in the State capitulated utterly to pressures from the European Central Bank, the European Union establishment and the International Monetary Fund to the effect that the gambling losses of private speculators should be heaped upon the shoulders of our people and a ruthless programme of austerity should be imposed to see through the execution of that decision. Throughout the saga, the troika has acted not in the interests of Irish people or in the interests of the ordinary people of Europe but in the interests of European capitalism, the financial markets and the bankers and bondholders. The troika has acted to salvage European capitalism from the chaos into which its own laws plunged it. In so doing, it has savaged the livelihoods, incomes, public services and economic security of our people.

The conclusion of the three-year programme of bank bailouts and austerity has precipitated what we can only call an outbreak of duplicitous showmanship by the Fine Gael and Labour Party Government. In a welter of spin, propaganda and stage gimmicks such as emergency Cabinet meetings and Dáil debates, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have attempted to cast themselves as heroes in this issue. They would have us believe that they orchestrated the great escape of 2013 and our intrepid leaders would have us think that the troika jailers had been slipped and we were now free men. When we look a little closer, we find that our leaders have shackles on their ankles that lead to a gigantic millstone of debt belonging to private bankers and bondholders. When we examine it even closer, we find the millstone is resting on the shoulders of the Irish people, who continue to groan beneath its weight.

Far from being the liberators, as the leaders of the Government would have us believe, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste are only prison trustees. They have connived in shackling the Irish people to decades of unsustainable debts and the sharks in the financial markets. They have agreed that not only children yet unborn but the children of children yet unborn should be enslaved to the financial markets for debts that the Irish people have nothing to do with amounting to 120% of gross domestic product, the majority of which is odious debt. The crushing burden of the debt can be seen and this year alone €8.5 billion is being paid in interest, with €9 billion to be paid for many future years. It is an incredible burden on the people.

The choice before this State is not between relying on the sharks in the financial markets on the one hand or on the other depending on the wolves in the European establishment who represent the interests of the market as well; working people in Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal are victims of the dictatorship of the market in front of which so-called democratic leaders have based themselves continually. We need to overthrow the financial market system, which is undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable, and we must bring the financial markets into public ownership and democratic control, with investment in the interest of the majority. We should repudiate the odious debt and join hands across the borders with working class people everywhere for a democratic and socialist alternative to this system of crisis and suffering for our people.

The mountain of debt heaped on the backs of Irish people over the past number of years is not our debt and we should not have been burdened with it. We certainly should not have had policies of austerity that were followed by this and the previous Government and which arose because of that debt. I have absolutely no confidence in this Government, particularly in any hope that it will give a fair crack of the whip to ordinary families, the poor and those on low or middle incomes across the State. The suggestion we have recovered our sovereignty is of course nonsense.

The real question is whether exiting the bailout - with or without a credit line - will make one bit of difference to hard-pressed families across the country. We know the answer is "no", as it will not provide one additional discretionary medical card to a sick child or adult, build one extra house for any of the 112,000 families on waiting lists around the country or give a single euro more to schemes such as CLÁR or RAPID that help disadvantaged and deprived areas across the country. It will not restore the telephone allowance for elderly people who depend on personal alarms and it will not restore a single euro of the cuts to child benefit, despite the Labour Party giving absolute commitments not to touch it. It will not even restore the very cynical and mean cut to the bereavement grant which came in the last budget. It will not stop the unfair local property tax, which the current Taoiseach has in the past stated would be wrong, unfair and unjust. It will not stop the water charges being introduced next year.

Next year we will face another austerity budget with at least €2 billion in increased taxes and cuts, and we know the current Government's policy will continue. It is the same policy as that of the last Government, and we have had much of the pot calling the kettle black this evening. The current and previous Government have been committed to a policy whereby ordinary people, including the poor and low and middle income families, will be made to pay for a recession they had absolutely no hand, act or part in creating.

What will future policy look like? The fiscal compact treaty will bring about more austerity and not less and a reduction of the debt to 60% of GDP will mean that over the next 20 years, there will be cuts in the budgets of anything from €3 billion to €4.5 billion each year. The policy currently pursued by the Government means there is little or no growth, and expectations have been downgraded again as late as today. Thousands of our young people will continue to leave these shores when they are pushed from the country by reducing the rate of jobseeker's allowance and ensuring they do not get a fair crack of the whip. The elephant in the room is the debt and it is not ours so it should not be heaped on the backs of the Irish people.

Bhíos ag smaoineamh ar cén saghas comparáid a dhéanfainn i gcóir na díospóireachta anocht, agus bheartaigh mé ar chomparáid a dhéanamh le príosún. When we think about prisons, people go into them and there is an idea that they are either about incarcerating for punishment or, alternatively, rehabilitation. A person coming from prison might emerge in a crumpled suit or worn tracksuit carrying possessions in either a battered suitcase or a plastic bag. In many cases they face homelessness and unemployment. Some leave prison with a plan or a programme for recovery and entering society again, where they wish to play a role. One must ask the question of which scenario is applicable to us as we emerge from this prison of the bailout. Depending on one's perspective, our jailers - the troika - were either benevolent or malevolent. Leaving jail is of course a positive act and leaving the bailout must be acknowledged as a positive development, although many of us might think we should not have been in that position in the first place. It is rather ironic that those who brought the country into this scenario have not been punished in any way whatever.

Certain economists tell us the Government has had a steady hand on the country during the bailout programme and it took tough decisions. I have no problem with tough decisions, provided they are fair and equitable, but the decisions taken certainly were not equitable, and they were tougher on certain sections of society. It was very difficult to take the comments today from the European Commission's top official working on Ireland's bailout to the effect that the better-off sections in society had paid a heavier price, as that argument is not borne out by reality. It is certainly not borne out in the world in which I live.

The comments are true.

The wealthy have more ability, capacity and means to absorb austerity so their experience of austerity measures is very far removed from the experience of those on middle or low incomes, or whose sole income is a social welfare or disability payment. I am really appalled by the graphic image from the weekend of the wife of a discharged, bankrupt developer awarded €9,000 a month, which is considered appropriate by a judge for monthly expenses.

That is at the taxpayer's expense, at a time when people are lucky to have €90 in disposable income at the end of a week or a fortnight and we expect unemployed young people to live on €100 a week.

The troika’s loans facilitated the repayment of debt to banks and bondholders who had lent and borrowed unwisely. The conclusion that must be drawn is that the wealth of the rich is protected at all costs. It was very handy to have the troika to blame for the tough decisions, but at meetings with the troika it was very clear that the decisions had been made by the Government. We have heard the metaphor “turning the corner”, but one could ask what we are turning into; there is a danger that it is a cul-de-sac, especially when one looks at the reality of the exit. Everything hinges on the economy growing by 2.4%, but the extent of the debt is crippling. I pay tribute to the Ballyhea Says No group. The Technical Group will introduce a Private Members’ motion calling on the Government to lobby the ECB in order that the Central Bank will destroy the €25 billion in sovereign bonds issued in lieu of the remaining promissory notes and also lobby to bring interest payments on bonds to an end and for all related debt to be cancelled. What a difference that would make. One could imagine the situation the country would be in. The point is that we have more debt than we could realistically, let alone morally or ethically, be expected to repay.

In the docklands area of the Dublin Central constituency we have a massive reminder of the worst excesses of banking and development, namely, the carcase of the Anglo Irish Bank building, for which lots of suggestions have been made for it. Some say it should be turned into a museum as a constant reminder of those excesses. Another is that it be ploughed up and turned into an urban farm that could produce quality food for constituents in the area or that it could provide the site for the long-awaited primary school for the Sheriff Street-North Wall area.

People talk about positive signs, but what I see emerging is a rise in property prices and rents, an increase in homelessness and charges and a health service in crisis. There is no doubt about this. It is ironic that yesterday was the centenary of the founding of the Irish Citizen Army which was set up to look after the interests of working class people. The Government has stated all our woes are over. I would love to believe this. I hope it is correct, but I do not think it is borne out in reality. The Millward Brown opinion poll last week indicated that seven out of ten people thought there would be more tough budgets. I hope they are wrong and that the three out of ten who think we are in a better place and that there will be better times ahead will prove to be correct.

I am particularly pleased to reply to the debate. Last week's decision by the Government was an historic one and marked the end not just of a programme but of a most difficult period for the people. Three years ago our sovereignty was ceded by a Government that had squandered the most prosperous period in our history. We had reached the point at which nobody would lend to the country because nobody believed in the competence and word of the Government. Having spent 35 years of EU membership, on all sides of the House, building and developing our reputation in Europe and elsewhere, to lose it in a couple of years marks the biggest setback in our history as an independent state. Arguably, the situation could have been worse. As the Government of the day imploded and yet hung on to power during 2010, it was the duty of the public service to keep things afloat until a new Government was elected by the people. That the public service succeeded in doing this is evidence of its commitment and resolve.

Today, regaining our national credibility in so short a time is a testament to the will and endurance of the people. Again, as I have said before, when we look back at this period from more optimistic times, we will be able to see more clearly the scale of our collective success in exiting the programme on schedule. That is not to say for an instant that there are no difficult days and decisions ahead. There are, but the existential threat to the very viability of the State that culminated in our entering the troika programme is well and truly behind us.

There was nothing hasty or rushed about the decision taken by the Government last week. It followed extensive consultations, led by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in recent months with all relevant parties. It followed consideration of feedback across the Government and the responsible State agencies. The decision has been welcomed by all our European partners. I, for one, can say it is the decision to which we should have aspired. The Government was elected on one overarching promise - to reclaim our national sovereignty in as speedy a fashion as possible.

Did the Minister read the Labour Party manifesto?

In the absence of compelling reasons to do otherwise, our decision was the natural one to make.

Last week we weighed up the options facing us. As the Minister for Finance has stated on more than one occasion-----

He is the boss.

-----the decision was a finely balanced one and we were obliged to give it careful consideration. Following on from it, as the democratic Government, we took a decision that we were as well positioned to exit the programme as we could possibly be in a year's time. Our first action following the taking of the decision was to inform the people through the House of their directly elected representatives, but even that drew scorn from those who had caused our problems.

The economic environment in which have we made this decision is good. Our bond yields are low and have remained stable since the announcement last week. The public finances are now under control. Our targeted deficit for next year is 4.8% of GDP which will deliver a small primary surplus. We have met every fiscal target required of us by the programme thus far. As the Minister for Finance informed the House, we met in excess of 260 targets.

The banking challenge is a pan-European one, but unlike others, our banks have already been significantly recapitalised to a higher level than that required by the European wide stress tests. In addition, the Irish taxpayer will not be the first port of call for any future findings in the European stress tests for the Irish banks due next year. The Irish banks have a number of options open to them if they need to raise capital in the future. On that point the House might be aware - if those opposite were evenly marginally interested - that today both Allied Irish Banks and Permanent TSB successfully concluded significant funding transactions in the international debt markets, raising a combined total of €1 billion of long-term funding. Both transactions which were heavily oversubscribed represent another significant step forward in the rehabilitation of the Irish banking system.

Deputy Michael McGrath asked about the conditionality that would attach to a credit line. The reality is that the Government decided, for of all the reasons set out, that there would be no application for a precautionary credit facility once we exited our programme. In view of this, we did not get into the issue of what conditionality might arise. I reiterate a point made by the Minister for Finance this morning, that applying for a precautionary credit line would not actually cover the risk should a wider problem emerge in the euro area.

Both Deputies Michael McGrath and Pearse Doherty sought clarification on aspects of outright monetary transactions, OMT. In relation to OMT, it is important to be clear on one fundamental aspect, as the Minister for Finance outlined this morning. The September 2012 press statement outlining the ECB governing council's decision to establish OMT outlined its technical features. According to it, the purpose of OMT is: "Safeguarding an appropriate monetary policy transmission and the singleness of the monetary policy". It is, therefore, aimed at addressing systemic risks for the euro area as a whole and is not country specific in that regard. Having a credit line does not of itself guarantee access to OMT. The critical point about OMT is that its activation is a matter for the ECB acting with full independence.

On this basis the Government concluded that the time was right for a clean exit, and I am pleased that decision has been endorsed by our friends and allies across Europe and elsewhere. It has been understandable over the past few years that we, as a people, have reflected on the catastrophe we have endured. However, while not disregarding the challenges that still lie ahead, we must acknowledge that exiting the programme is a national achievement for which we should all take credit. It has contributed further to our international standing. Without gainsaying the real challenges that still lie ahead, we should, as a country, perhaps for the first time in a quite a while, be proud of what we have achieved and confident of our future.

That concludes the debate. I must now put the question.

On a point of order, the motion that was submitted by the Government was a motion tabled at short notice. The Standing Order dealing with motions requires that they be submitted four days before they are taken in this House. The Government's motion was tabled three minutes before 5 p.m. yesterday. Discretion was allowed to the Government to include the short-notice motion but discretion has not been given to the Opposition to amend it. I tabled an amendment to the Government's motion at 2.15 p.m. today but it has been rejected. Therefore, we cannot vote on it and we are being forced into either endorsing the Government's policy or opposing an exit from the programme. We reject that choice. Some of us will have to abstain from what is a charade.

I dealt with that issue this morning when the Deputy raised it.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 95; Níl, 25.

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Wallace, Mick.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Browne, John.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Seán Ó Fearghaíl and Michael Moynihan.
Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn