Taoiseach denies 'economic treason'

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has angrily denied a claim by the Labour Party that he committed “economic treason” by deciding to rescue Anglo Irish Bank.

During Leaders Questions in the Dáil this morning, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore said the country in a “state of shock” this morning.

People were “bewildered” by the sheer scale of the amount of money that would be required to rescue Anglo, he said.

Mr Gilmore said the bank guarantee scheme amounted to a "blank cheque" and called for all documentation relating to expert advice received about the guarantee to be published.

“I believe that the Taoiseach and the Government made that decision in September 2008, not in the best economic interest of the nation but in the best personal interests of those vested interests who, I believe, the Government was trying to protect on that occasion.

Mr Gilmore alleged the Government had decided to introduce a bank guarantee for Anglo - “a rotten bank that acted as a piggy bank for property speculators” - simply to “save the skins” of a number of individuals, some of whom are connected to Fianna Fáil.

“If my belief is correct, and I have not been convinced to the contrary, then that decision is an act of economic treason for which this country is now paying very dearly,” Mr Gilmore said. He said the total bill for the Anglo bailout was equal to the sum total of the pay cuts and pension levy in the public sector.

A visibly-annoyed Taoiseach responded angrily. “I’m 25 years in politics. I am beholden to nobody,” he said. “Any decision I ever made in the privileged position I hold in this or any other office has been in the best interests of my country as I saw it.

“I will not be accused of seeking to cause treason to my country. I find that beyond the Pale,” he said.

“I know that people are angry about what has happened. And rightly so. I understand that,” he said. “But I also know that we have a responsibility, we have to fix this, we have to move on so this country can re-employ people, can have the prospects of growth, can have businesses with access to credit, can have a banking system that’s fit for purpose.

“Every decision that I’ve made in my time in this office, I want to assure you, whether you agree with them or not, be under no illusion about the motivations that moved me to make them,” the Taoiseach told Mr Gilmore. “They were the very same, laudable motivations that would have moved him had be been in my position.

“I’d never come into this House and accuse another Irish man of what you accuse me,” he said to loud applause from Government benches.

Earlier, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny accused Mr Cowen of treating the citizens of Ireland with contempt.

“You have levied their sons and daughters for the next generation with a burden that they did not cause and for which they were not responsible,” he said. “Because of lack of regulation, lack of oversight by you, as minister for finance and now as Taoisech, you’ve caused this cataclysmic financial consequence for every person in this country.”

Mr Kenny claimed every family in the country has been saddled with an extra debt of €50,000 as a result of Nama.

Mr Cowen said he would not have his "integrity challenged by Deputy Kenny".

In a statement issued this evening, the Taoiseach once again stressed that the decision to introduce the bank guarantee scheme "was based on extensive analysis and monitoring from the Governor of the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator, and senior officials from the Department of Finance and the NTMA.

"The decision was taken because of the need to take effective action to restore financial stability on the opening of the markets at 7 am the following morning," said Mr Cowen.

"The need to restore confidence required that the guarantee be robust in scope and duration. Protecting the interests of the taxpayer was reflected in the decision to provide the guarantee on commercial terms, and this was also the basis for deciding that Anglo Irish Bank – a bank of systemic importance – should be covered by the guarantee. The option of nationalisation of that bank at that time, would have triggered direct exposure of taxpayers to all its liabilities, whereas the guarantee gave the prospect of a resolution at a lower cost.

"There was also a risk that nationalisation of one bank would create uncertainty about nationalisation of other institutions," he added.