A very important judgment was given in the High Court this week relating to the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008. The then Labour Party spokesperson on finance, Deputy Joan Burton, said in a debate on that Act that: "One of the difficulties with giving the Minister a blank cheque is that it can invoke what economists and philosophers like to call the law of unintended consequences." No one debating and voting on the 2008 Act knew the size of the blank cheque or the scale of the unintended consequences. We certainly know them now. This legislation remains on the Statute Book and the extraordinary powers given to the Minister for Finance are still in place. Will the Tánaiste, as deputy leader of the Government, raise in Cabinet the need to review and amend, or better still, repeal this Act?

First, in regard to the promissory notes, which were the subject of the case taken by the Deputy to the High Court and on which High Court on Tuesday gave a judgment in favour of the State and ruled in favour of the State on all substantive grounds, the Government's approach has delivered results for Ireland. The reality is that the promissory notes have been part of Government debt since they were issued in 2010 by the previous Government. It was never, therefore, an option for the State to renege on those payments, as non-payment would be akin to a sovereign default.

It was back in 2011 - Frankfurt's way or Labour's way.

The agreement which was reached in February 2013 in regard to the promissory note debt represents the best possible outcome available for Ireland and has been acknowledged as such by numerous independent commentators. The agreement was the culmination of many months of political and technical negotiations with our partners and provides a significant benefit to Ireland by eliminating the annual promissory note payment, reducing the State's cash borrowing requirement by €20 billion in the next ten years. Any suggestion that we would cease making interest payments on this debt is akin to potential default and carries with it substantial threats to our reputation. The approach the Deputy is recommending would, I believe, undermine the 250,000 jobs directly and indirectly supported by foreign direct investment-----

Was it not Labour Party policy before the election?

-----would make it very difficult to borrow the funds required to finance vital public services such as social welfare, health and the education systems, would further increase the cost of credit in the economy and have significant implications for our exit from the bailout programme. On the other hand, we are now in a situation where we are exiting that programme, we have resolved the issue of the promissory note, we have liquidated Anglo Irish Bank - the IBRC, as it became - to which the promissory note was being paid, and, as we have seen this week, we are now creating in the region of 1,200 jobs per week. It is important that we do not put the progress we have made at risk.

That was a speech the Tánaiste should have given last night in the debate rather than sending in his junior Ministers to respond to the Technical Group's Private Members' motion. Again, in the role of Labour finance spokesperson in 2010 on the question of extending the timescale of the powers given under the Act, then Deputy Joan Burton, in briefing the Labour Party parliamentary party and urging a "No" vote, said: "Labour does not do blank cheques". Now, it is standing over a blank cheque. The question I asked was will the Tánaiste, as deputy leader of this Government, raise in Cabinet the need to review and amend or, better still, repeal this Act because it is giving a blank cheque to this and future Ministers to pay up to any limit to bail out banks and financial institutions. This is even when we now know the full, unintended consequences. Is this not another capitulation by Labour to Frankfurt?

I do not know where the Deputy is getting the idea of a blank cheque. The fact of the matter is that this Government-----

Is he suggesting this was not a blank cheque? They said it themselves in 2008.

There is nothing blank about it. It was very clear. It was predated cheques that were signed by the previous Government. They were predated cheques for €3.1 billion every year, to be paid in March, for a period of ten years. There was nothing blank-----

They continued to pay them. They honoured every one of them in full.

Find Deputy Micheál Martin.

Settle down, please.

There was nothing blank about them. What we had to do-----

They had to do another U-turn on their policies. Is that what they had to do?

Find Deputy Micheál Martin.

What we had to do was to renegotiate that-----

We had to clean up their mess.

I think they have woken up over there.

-----which we succeeded in doing in the early part of this year, saving the taxpayers of this country €20 billion in the process. I will not take, from Deputy Kelleher or anybody else, on the issue of the bailout-----

Deferring, not saving.

I have it here. The vote was taken on 20 November last, so we do not have to go back to 2010. Twenty-five Deputies, including Deputy Joan Collins and Deputy Billy Kelleher, voted against exiting the bailout.

Not me. Get your facts right.

Deputy Finian McGrath was clever enough - he voted the right way. He got it right.

Down there for dancing, Finian. Well done. However, the rest of them - the troika 25 who voted to keep us in the bailout - I am not taking any lectures from them this morning on economics, blank cheques or anything else.

It is Frankfurt's way then, is it?

The Tánaiste could not be right about that. They did not vote against leaving the bailout, did they?

They did. Not, Finian. Finian got it right, and Mick and Ming got it right, but the rest of them got it wrong.

I was away that day. I did not know that happened.

Finian was hitting Barry with the crutch.