I wish to raise the Government's A Strategy for Growth document in which I found only two sentences relating to the issue of the retrospective recapitalisation of banks. The document is 66 pages long but there are only two sentences on page 26 relating to this crucial issue, which read as follows:

...the Eurogroup has agreed that retroactive recapitalisation may be agreed on a case-by-case basis as part of the European Stability Mechanism's Direct Bank Recapitalisation instrument (DBR). Significant work remains to be done on the details of this instrument.

We can only come to the conclusion from this that the Government has thrown in the towel and accepted that retroactive recapitalisation is not going to happen. The Taoiseach and his Government are accepting the situation where 40% of the cost of bailing out the EU banking system is being borne by this State, with only 1% of the population of the EU. Is the Taoiseach accepting the situation where each and every person in this State is saddled with €9,000 of bank debt as against an average of €200 per person in the rest of the EU? Does he think this is fair? I certainly do not think it is. This country has an unsustainable level of debt, amounting to €200 billion or almost 125% of our GDP. We are in a very precarious situation and are dependent on the international bond markets to be able to borrow at affordable interest rates. Ireland needs a growth rate of 4%, sustained over the next decade, to make this level of debt sustainable. Given the commitment of this Government to tight fiscal policies, we would need a very favourable international economic climate to achieve that level of growth. There is no guarantee of this happening. What could and would make our debt sustainable is a debt write down on the €64 billion bank bailout. Does the Taoiseach agree that retrospective recapitalisation through the ESM would achieve that? This should be a key priority for the Government and not a footnote in its medium-term economic strategy.

Some Deputies in this House have not thrown in the towel. I instructed my legal team this morning to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the recent High Court decision on the promissory note and the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act of 2008.

It looks like the Attorney General will be working over Christmas.

That was Deputy Mathew's speech there. He has made it on a number of occasions.

That is what the Government promised.

The Taoiseach should stand up to these people.

I did not realise that he had become the financial adviser to the Technical Group and others.

The mid-term economic strategy document published yesterday sets out the major signposts for what the Government hopes to achieve. Our aims are very clear and include reducing our debt and putting our people back to work. We are trying to restore the 330,000 jobs that were lost because of the incompetence and maladministration of the previous Government. Every Department will provide details in the new year of the proposals from the agencies for which they are responsible, within that framework.

What about the banks? The Taoiseach needs to answer the question he was asked.

I ask Deputies to be quiet, please.

Previous Governments set out volumes of detail on objectives that were completely unachievable.

Deputy Collins asked about bank recapitalisation. Clearly, the successful sale of €2.05 billion in preference shares, including principal profit and accrued interest, by Bank of Ireland last week was important and a sign of confidence in itself. The State has now recouped a net positive cash return of €1.1 billion from its overall investment in and support for Bank of Ireland. That net cash return is before account is taken of the State's continuing equity investment in the bank, which is worth a further €1.2 billion at current market prices.

We dealt earlier this year with the constant barrage of comment about the promissory note and the liquidation of the former Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. The question of bank recapitalisation is the subject of quite a deal of current discussion. Last night at the ECOFIN meeting, EU Ministers for Finance continued to deal with central elements of this issue.

I have always said that dealing with the decision made last year regarding the possibility of the ESM being able to recapitalise banks directly could only happen after banking union is fully in place. It is not fully in place yet but the Deputy will be aware that the Eurogroup meeting of 20 June this year made the decision to which she referred, namely that the potential retroactive application of the instrument would be decided on a case-by-case basis and by mutual agreement.

I do not accept the Deputy's assertion that the Government has thrown in the towel on this. This is very much a live issue and the subject of complex and technical negotiations which are continuing. There is still a lot of negotiation to take place on this matter.

According to the Schäuble agenda.

We always said that when the Single Supervisory Mechanism was in place, involving all of the agreements required there, the question of retroactive recapitalisation on a case-by-case basis would be dealt with.

Following the decision last year to break the link between sovereign debt and bank debt, the ECOFIN group has made substantial progress, which is to be commended and accepted.

For the future.

We will continue this process. When banking union is fully in place by the second half of next year, we will continue to make the case for implementation of the decision made on 29 June last year which still stands and which has been clarified on a number of occasions. At every opportunity the European Council has discussed it and the decision stands. That is an issue we can only deal with, as we have always pointed out, when the issue of banking union is dealt with and in place by the second half of next year.

I do not accept that the Government has thrown in the towel. The negotiations are quite complex and the argument will be made on a case by case basis. Many European countries have recognised the scale of the specific and particular circumstances this country has had to deal with and that they have to be taken into account in dealing with claims on a case by case basis.

The Taoiseach started off by saying the document was a major signpost to economic recovery over six years. Two sentences refer to the recapitalisation of the banks. It is said it “may” be decided on a case by case basis. The issue is not high on the agenda, but it should have been at the forefront of the document that we demanded a write-down of the debt, on which everything depends. We are talking about a figure of €64 billion. We are depending on international bond markets and interest rates remaining low. The inflation rate will go up if the United States stops printing money. We require 4% growth in the next ten years and everything depends on outside factors. This is one area in which the Government has a responsibility to the people to take the €9,000 debt burden from around our necks and relieve the situation in order that we can then consider the provision of cochlear implants and the health service. I do not accept what the Taoiseach said.

That is right.

We would do nothing at all if we were to listen to the Opposition.

The Taoiseach has thrown in the towel. He has played footsie with the European Union; he should play hard ball.

Deputy Peter Mathews is not always right.

I am not sure whether Deputy Peter Mathews gave Deputy Joan Collins that supplementary question, but the Government has not thrown in the towel. I have made it perfectly clear that there is a process that has to be gone through before we can deal with the specific negotiations. If the Deputy thinks one can go to a European Council meeting and say to 27 other leaders, "By the way, I want a cheque for €50 billion,"-----

We bailed them out.

-----she is very naïve about the way in which negotiations are conducted.

They bailed us out.

We bailed them out.

Will Members, please, abstain from interrupting?

The fact of the matter is that for a number of years when the warning signs were there and they were indicated by this party in opposition-----

I thought it wanted more.

What warning signs?

-----the Government of the day failed to listen and act and put the noose around the neck of every single person in the country and lost 330,000 jobs in the process.

There are two sides to the Opposition.

Fine Gael wanted more and more.

We are going to clean up the mess. It might surprise Deputy Joan Collins to hear that from 1 January this year we had to deal during the six months of the Irish Presidency of the European Union with CAP reform, the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, the banking union negotiations, the abortion legislation, the promissory notes, the Magdalen laundries, Priory Hall, the preparation of a budget and the exit from the bailout programme.

Let us work together.

Even within Fine Gael.

Members should sit back and listen to themselves.

It is terrible.

This has been a good year for the people in dealing with much of the atrocious economic and social mess left behind by the previous Administration. We have not thrown in the towel and when banking union and the single supervisory mechanism are in place, as I said, potential retroactive applications will be decided on a case by case basis and by mutual agreement.

Will Members, please, stay quiet?

That decision still stands and it is in that space that we will negotiate with our colleagues in Europe when banking union is fully in place.

Now Mattie; throw another sod on it.

That will happen in the latter half of next year.

Deputy Joan Collins is right - the matter should be at the top of the agenda.

Peter’s exit.

Is Deputy Peter Mathews still independent?

Deputy Joan Collins presented the question. I had nothing to do with it.

The Fine Gael Whip needs to have a private meeting with his members.

It is Deputy Joan Collins's initiative. I am only a listener, but I agree with her.

For a listener, the Deputy talks a lot.