Vol. 682 No. 3
60 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Finance the progress that has been made on the implementation of the Community part of the European economic recovery plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14634/09]
The European economic recovery plan was endorsed by the European Council at its meeting of 11 and 12 December 2008 and amounts to more than €400 billion. The Community part of the plan, which has been agreed by the European Parliament and the Council on a proposal from the Commission, will finance projects in the field of energy and rural broadband Internet, as well as new challenges identified under the CAP health check. This Community financed package of measures, which aims at providing additional stimulus to the EU economy and improving energy security, amounts to €5 billion. Almost €4 billion will be made available for the financing of the energy projects. The balance of a little more than €1 billion will be made available for developing broadband internet in rural areas and strengthening operations related to the new challenges defined in the context of the CAP health check.
Responsibility for implementation of energy and broadband projects rests with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of the CAP health check. However, in regard to the energy aspects of the proposals, the Deputy should be aware that this critically important package represents a comprehensive and co-ordinated EU response to the twin challenges of supporting economic recovery and achieving EU energy policy objectives, especially security of supply. It will provide tangible support to priority energy projects, ensuring the further integration of European energy markets and it will underpin our collective actions to tackle climate change. The package proposes undertaking a programme of investment measures during 2009 and 2010 for energy projects in the following fields: gas and electricity interconnection projects in the amount of more than €2.3 billion, carbon capture and storage in the amount of more than €1 billion and offshore wind projects in the amount of approximately €0.5 billion.
Recently, the Government announced that it has given a green light to the development by EirGrid of the €600 million east west electricity interconnector linking Ireland and Wales, running from Meath to Deeside. I am informed that, as a further stimulus to this project, the interconnector has been included on the list of energy projects under the European economic recovery plan, with a proposed allocation of €110 million. This is a welcome recognition of the strategic importance of the east west interconnector, which will underpin regional energy market development and the all-island single electricity market. It will ensure that Ireland, as a peripheral island nation, can benefit from and contribute to the development of a strong internal energy market in Europe, enhancing competition, contributing to security of supply and assisting Ireland in meeting our ambitious renewable targets.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Ireland could also benefit from the proposed allocation of funding for the North Sea grid, involving projects to support the integration of off-shore wind energy.
The opportunity to invest a little more than €1 billion in rural broadband is very welcome as is the opportunity to meet the ongoing challenges of climate change adaptation and mitigation, renewable energies, water management, biodiversity, innovation measures relating to these areas and the restructuring of the dairy sector.
I am informed that the rural broadband and CAP health check elements of the recovery plan are currently being finalised within the community. The European Commission will then allocate the funds according to an agreed distribution key. It is expected that the allocation of funds will use the historical rural development distribution key and this could mean an allocation of some €30 million for Ireland. As soon as the allocation of funding is agreed, I understand that Ireland's rural development programme will be revised during 2009 to incorporate both the additional funding and the new measures following consultation with the rural development stakeholders.
What proportion of the €5 billion specifically relates to Ireland? Will matching funding come from the State for these projects? Aside from the projects mentioned by the Minister, what other projects does he envisage? An energy storage project is proposed for the west coast. Will the Minister elaborate on its features?
The €5 billion community fund of the European economic plan must be matched. The Ireland to Wales interconnector has been included on the list and €110 million has been earmarked for that project. The list also contains a €165 million overall contribution towards the North Sea offshore grid which includes Ireland as a location along with the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France and Luxembourg.
Ireland also expects to draw down funds from the broadband and CAP health check elements of the plan on the basis that the funding would be distributed using the same distribution key used to divide rural development funding. Ireland would receive approximately 3%, or €30 million, of the available funding with flexibility on the use of the investment for either broadband or CAP health check.
The supplementary funding required for the east west interconnector is being pursued with relevant funding interests to ensure it is funded at the lowest possible rate for EirGrid.
What is the total amount?
Does the Minister agree that the poor broadband reception in many parts of the country, especially rural Ireland, is one of the critical constraints restricting people from creating successful businesses in small towns and villages and in larger towns and cities? The Government has failed to address the Eircom issue. The Fianna Fáil privatisation of Eircom turned into a disaster from an investment point of view. Does the Government have any proposals in the context of the EU recovery programme to recover the significant amount of ground lost? We were leaders in connectivity and linkages for telecommunications up to the time of Eircom. Since then we have continued to go downhill and we are now significantly behind competitor countries.
Does the Minister agree with the proposal to reduce the amount of red tape in respect of the European recovery programme? It is possible to go to any country in Europe and find food markets operating. In these markets women can bake and make apple tarts for the markets and for local restaurants and so on. However, in Ireland it is not possible to make an apple tart and sell it in a local market. One almost risks jail for doing so. Does the Government have any take on how to reduce red tape in respect of small enterprise initiatives?
I agree with Deputy Burton that this is an important issue and I understand it is being addressed by my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In regard to the question of availability of broadband, some of the funds will be committed to rural broadband. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is introducing several initiatives to address broadband deficiencies in rural areas.
61 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Finance the projects he hopes to finance by way of a new pension bond; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19035/09]
It is premature to identify specific projects that may benefit from any additional investment in infrastructure by pension funds. I note that we are spending a considerable sum on capital this year, some 5% of GNP, one of the highest ratios in the world. This supports a substantial level of employment, while the reductions in tender prices mean we can do more with less.
Nonetheless, the Government is prepared to examine new ways to fund needed capital investment and support activity and employment in the construction sector provided the terms are right and in the taxpayer's favour, the investment makes economic sense, value for money is secured, and the private sector shares the appropriate level of risk such that there is not a disproportionate impact on the public finances.
If possible, I wish to see moneys currently invested abroad put to work in Ireland if a sensible, workable proposal emerges. My officials have actively engaged with representatives of the pensions industry and other interested parties to discuss alternative funding proposals. These discussions have focused on the possible sources of additional funding and on what steps would be required to access such funding. Several meetings have taken place and further meetings will be arranged in the near future.
The Minister indicated in the supplementary budget that this was something he was hoping to develop. It would seem that some six weeks later little progress has been made because he is still referring to frameworks, he is unable to specify anything and he says everything is premature. Does the Minister believe this is a genuine starter? Does he believe this will be off balance sheet such that it will not form part of our borrowing requirement? Has the Minister identified the nature of the projects under consideration? Will it include school building, hospital building or roads? Will there be a requirement for a matching revenue stream? Will leases be entered into by the State to honour it? The House requires a little more elaboration because the Minister indicated a commitment to this during the budget speech. However, a considerable amount of time has passed and meetings have taken place. We must learn a little more of the detail.
The protection of the taxpayer and our borrowing capacity arises in this case. The crucial issue in any bond issue is the rate of interest which accrues, a matter of considerable sensitivity having regard to our general borrowing requirements. The advantages of accessing additional funding for infrastructure investment are clear. Infrastructure investment helps to create jobs. Although the employment impact of construction projects varies, research conducted in this area suggests that a range of between eight and 12 direct jobs are created for every €1 million invested in infrastructure. The directing of additional private sector investment towards infrastructure will boost our public capital stock.
The Minister is simply repeating the last answer. He is not even reading the supplementary answer.
It will support efforts to increase competitiveness and raise economic growth. My Department and the NDFA, National Development Finance Agency, are working closely together in exploring this area. A working group has been formed involving not only my Department and the NDFA but also the Central Statistics Office which has provided very useful advice.
Give us a clue.
I point out to the Deputy that simply achieving an off balance sheet solution or status for projects is not the main driver in our capital investment decisions. As I am often remind by Deputy Bruton, the priority must be to achieve value for money and protection for the taxpayer. That is my priority as the Minister for Finance and it is the priority of the Government. Given the difficult budgetary circumstances we face, we are mindful of the need to minimise the State's exposure to additional Exchequer borrowing. However, it cannot be at any cost.
Has the Minister read the Labour Party's detailed proposal in respect of the establishment of an investment development bank? Such banks exist in many countries and provide a mechanism for issuing bonds similar to those to which the Deputy has referred, whether on or off the State balance sheet? Is the Minister suggesting the price or rate of return investment and pension fund managers have sought in the recent discussions about such bonds is too high? Many in both the private and public sectors are extremely anxious to find safe places to save at reasonable rates of return. They are looking not for huge interest rates but for reasonable rates of return. Many of them end up going overseas. In the past, many of them invested in Irish banks because they felt, patriotically, that they were a safe place. How wrong they were, given that the Taoiseach introduced contracts for difference tax free and wrecked the value of Irish banks on the Irish Stock Exchange through gambling. Is the Minister saying pension funds are looking for excessive rates of return or that he does not want to encourage Irish savers to buy into Government products, perhaps because he wants to leave the money for the Irish banks? It is difficult to understand what approach he is taking. Will he explain it?
Deputy Burton asked a few questions. Of course, money is safe in Irish banks, by virtue of the Government guarantee to them. It is important to make that point. Money deposited in Irish banks is very safe and I do not understand why the Deputy would suggest otherwise.
On the establishment of a national development bank, the Government is optimistic that the private financing options it is considering will prove helpful. We prefer to explore approaches that retain as much of a role as possible for the private sector to avoid the setting up of an additional State body. Within its pension fund arrangement, the NTMA can invest in projects for a return, including projects in the State. Funds are available for this in the NTMA.
It has not been able to do it.
In that regard, it has been considering, for example, the east-west electricity connector. It is a question of identifying suitable investments that will give a rate of return to the fund. That is crucial in determining whether an investment can be made.
The Deputy has asked whether I have any reluctance about investment in Government bonds by Irish citizens. I certainly do not.
And by pension funds.
As the Deputy is aware, there are a number of possibilities, through An Post, for citizens to invest in entities managed by the NTMA.
I asked the Minister about the pension fund proposal.
On the pension fund proposal, of course, there is a concern, the same concern the Deputy expressed about the valuation of assets in the National Asset Management Agency. Any rate of return on the issue of these bonds would be a reasonable rate of return having regard to the interests of the State. The Deputy expressed similar reservations in previous parliamentary questions about the operation of the public private partnership system.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy O'Donnell.
The Minister says he is considering priorities for the pension bond. It is clear the school building programme should be a priority. I note the Minister cut €30 million from the programme in his recent supplementary budget. On the return, the investment managers of Ireland say they are interested in the scheme, but why is there no urgency? Infrastructure schemes under public private partnerships could be brought to the fore. The Minister needs to show leadership.
Progress has been made with the public private partnership system in the school building programme; it has been implemented. I am open to the use of infrastructure bonds in that context. One great difficulty in the PPP context in relation to schools is that, in general, PPP finance must be used for new projects. To attract PPP finance, a project must not involve refurbishment or an extension such as the building of a hall but must be a full, new project.
62 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Finance his proposals to help persons on high fixed rate mortgages and who may be having difficulties meeting loan repayments and who cannot afford the large lump sum charge to exit the fixed rate mortgage to avail of a lower variable rate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18957/09]
As the Deputy will be aware, fixed rate mortgages can be regarded as a form of insurance against interest rate changes as they provide certainty and security for borrowers regarding the level of their repayments. As mentioned in the Deputy's question, in circumstances where many households are faced with significantly increased financial pressures, the current environment of very low interest rates highlights to fixed rate mortgage holders the saving that would be available if they benefited from a variable interest rate. It is clear, therefore, why many fixed rate mortgage holders are anxious to switch to secure lower repayments. However, when a borrower signs a fixed rate mortgage contract with a mortgage provider, the lender, in turn, enters an agreement to borrow the money at an agreed rate and it must repay the money at this rate. There will be a cost to the institution if the fixed rate agreement is terminated before the end of the agreed term. This gives rise to the redemption fee charged in such cases.
In the House on 26 March I undertook to raise the concerns about the level of redemption fees with the consumer director of the Financial Regulator which has a statutory mandate to safeguard customers' interests. At the beginning of April my Department wrote to the consumer director to request confirmation that redemption fees charged for switching from fixed rate mortgages only covered funding costs and that no other costs were included. To date, the Financial Regulator has been able to confirm to my Department that all mortgage lenders have responded and provided the formula they use when they calculate the early redemption fee that applies to fixed rate mortgages. The Financial Regulator is awaiting independent verification by an actuary that the fee charged by a number of lenders recoups only the costs incurred by the lenders when they finance the fixed rate mortgage. However, the verifications received show that the formulae applied by the relevant lenders seek to recoup the loss to them arising from the early redemption of the fixed rate mortgage and do not seek to apply a penalty charge to the borrower.
The Financial Regulator is also examining whether any other costs are being charged such as administrative fees. Any such charges may be subject to approval by the Financial Regulator under section 149 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and will be examined further in that light. To date, the responses indicate that most lenders do not levy additional charges in the case of early redemption of fixed rate mortgages.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Financial Regulator has advised that further analysis may be necessary once all the information is received and reviewed. Should the remaining analysis by the Financial Regulator indicate that further consideration of this issue is required, it will be carried out.
The Government has put in place a number of important initiatives to assist borrowers who are in difficulties. These include the Money Advice and Budgeting Service which is developing a joint protocol with the Irish Banking Federation to ensure effective co-operation when dealing with debt problems of personal debtors. In addition, the mandatory code of conduct for mortgage arrears requires that when a borrower is in difficulty, the lender shall make every reasonable effort to agree an alternative repayment schedule. Under the code, consideration should be given case by case to alternatives such as deferral of payments, extending the term of the mortgage, changing the type of mortgage, and capitalising arrears and interest. In any case, lenders will not commence legal action for repossession until six months after the arrears arise. As part of the subscription agreement for their recapitalisation, Bank of Ireland and AIB will not commence court proceedings for repossession of a principal private residence until 12 months after the arrears appear when the customer continues to co-operate with the bank.
Does the Minister understand that a number of people are caught in a significant hole because they have been unable to benefit from the European Central Bank's reduction in interest rates? The Minister said in his budget strategy that, because of the reduction in ECB interest rates, he was significantly reducing mortgage interest relief for homeowners. Many people who are caught in the fixed rate mortgage trap borrowed five or six years ago and are losing their seven-year mortgage interest relief. They are losing €900 a year, as well as experiencing high interest rates.
We want to know about the breakage fees in coming off fixed rate mortgages. I have figures from people who have been quoted €10,000, €20,000 or multiples of these figures. I understand the Minister's point that the banks committed to buy the funding at a particular rate, but the variations in breakage fees are extraordinary. Some people who lose their employment and income will end up losing their home. As part of the NAMA negotiations on the funding of the banks, has the Minister asked them specifically to consider the plight of such persons? Has this been considered in discussing the funding of the rescue or bail-out of the banks through NAMA?
Once again, there is no such thing as NAMA negotiations on the funding or bail-out of the banks. This intellectually facile, lazy approach does not add anything to the public debate on the subject.
I am sorry if I am intellectually facile. I apologise.
There are no such negotiations. The decision on the valuation of the assets will be made on expert advice by the Houses, not by the banks. There is no question of negotiations preceding the establishment of NAMA.
Why not, or is that an intellectually facile question?
In order to protect the taxpayer, we will have to set the price. We will not engage in negotiations with the institutions concerned. We can certainly have discussions, but the idea they will have negotiating rights in the discussions is absurd.
The position on breakage fees is as I outlined in my answer. With the Financial Regulator, I will continue to monitor these matters and endeavour to ascertain what proportion of fixed rate borrowers have long-term mortgages. The majority of cases that have been drawn to my attention are considerably less than seven years in the degree to which the borrower has locked into the mortgage.
I would like to see this actuarial assessment because I believe the banks are hoodwinking the consumer director. Numerous people attending my clinics say they received one charge of a breakage fee of, for example, €25,000, but when they went back to confirm it the next day, it had gone up to €40,000. That does not suggest there are consistent formulae that are actuarially sound. I would like to see the evidence. Will the Minister get the consumer director to lay that evidence before the House so we can have it independently assessed?
Has the Minister got evidence, either from the consumer director or the financial institutions, that they have genuinely entered into long-term commitments matching those fixed rate mortgages? My impression is that it has been very hard for banks to enter into any long-term commitments for money. If they are not incurring that cost, they should not be charging the breakage fee.
While I have not yet received the actuarial advice, I agree it is important that we survey this matter with great care and that any actuarial assessment produced can be analysed by myself. I am certainly open to sharing that information with Members of the House. With regard to the suggestion that the banks do not fund fixed rate mortgages from borrowing at a fixed rate which is related to it, that is a serious suggestion and I will undertake to have it examined by the regulator.
Does the Minister accept that he and his office have the capacity to deal with this issue? Can he find some sense of fairness, given that taxpayers are paying the income levy and all the other levies and additional taxes as a consequence of the bankers' actions? Surely some kind of an equilibrium and fairness should be brought to bear to assist those who are suffering, largely at the hands of bankers, as a consequence of this downturn. Something should be given to these very hard-pressed people.
I gave my analysis in my reply. Like Deputy Morgan, I am well aware of those who are hard pressed by the current difficulties in our economy. However, the fact is that borrowers entered a contract to repay a particular loan on a fixed basis, the banks funded that on a fixed basis and there is a fee payable for the loss to the institution caused by the decision to end the arrangement. That is the difficulty. Were I, for example, to interfere in that arrangement, it would put into doubt the capacity of a banking system to enter into fixed term arrangements in future decades.
There are changed circumstances.
In regard to NAMA, the Minister stated he would dictate the terms with the banks. The banks are not getting long-term funding so there is clearly an issue with regard to the fixed rate they are paying. What proposals will the Minister introduce to help people with distressed loans, particularly mortgage holders? Those with young families are struggling to pay their mortgages. What proposals will the Government introduce?
Will the Minister lay out his analysis and publish this report? I understand the banks' problems stem from short-term borrowing on the international money markets to fund longer-term investments, so the notion the banks are not having to turn over their borrowing, funded by the bailout and guarantee which this Government arranged, is wrong. I have serious doubts about the explanation given by the Minister. While I do not know whether it comes from the Department of Finance or the Financial Regulator, I would like to see that report published so we could analyse it and perhaps then advise the Minister. They borrowed short — that is their problem — so why is Minister saying they are committed long?
I will reiterate what I said on the record: "When a borrower signs a fixed rate mortgage contract with a mortgage provider, the lender in turn enters into an agreement to borrow the money at an agreed rate."
For what length of time?
It is for the period of time of the fixed rate mortgage. I also stated:
The mortgage lender must repay the money at this agreed rate. There is a cost to the institution if the fixed rate agreement is terminated before the agreed term, which gives rise to the redemption fee charged in these cases.
What about distressed loans?
As part of the recapitalisation, a number of initiatives were taken in regard to the protection of those with distressed loans in the recapitalised institutions. The Financial Regulator has drawn up a code of practice which applies to all institutions.
63 Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Finance if a recapitalisation request from Anglo Irish Bank has been communicated to him; and his view on the performance, the challenges and the future for the bank. [19027/09]
My Department is in ongoing discussions with Anglo Irish Bank on a range of matters, including the bank's capital position. The Government has stated that support will be provided as necessary to Anglo Irish Bank, consistent with EU state aid requirements. As the Deputy will be aware, Anglo Irish Bank was taken into public ownership to ensure the stability of the bank and the financial system generally on foot of serious concerns regarding corporate governance and in a context where the funding position of the bank had weakened due to low market confidence in the bank's monoline business model.
With the stability provided by full State ownership, and with a new board appointed at Anglo Irish Bank, the bank is now in a position to address the issues it faces, including the development of a revised business model, to restore market confidence. It is likely that Anglo Irish Bank will need additional capital but the extent and the timing of that need is still being assessed and discussed. Deputies will recall that prior to the nationalisation the Government had envisaged investing €1.5 billion capital in Anglo Irish Bank. In this regard, the board of Anglo Irish Bank is currently preparing a new business plan for the bank, which will be required to demonstrate how the board will oversee the operation of Anglo Irish Bank in the best interests of the State and the taxpayer.
Has a report of stress testing of the impaired loans in Anglo Irish Bank been made to the Minister or has he received, either in oral or written form, a report on the stress testing of its loan book? Have any loans been written off to date by Anglo Irish Bank? Given the newspaper reports of €2.5 billion being a recapitalisation requirement, has this figure been reported to the Department of Finance and is it a likely assessment of the scale of recapitalisation that will be required? When will we see reports in the public domain on these issues?
An exact figure has not been reported to my Department. The matter is still under examination at my Department and the relevant information will be provided as it emerges.
In regard to the review of the loan books, Anglo Irish Bank is currently finalising its half-year accounts to be published at the end of May. As part of the preparation for the publication of these accounts, I understand that Anglo Irish Bank conducted a full internal review of its loan book. At the request of my Department, the Financial Regulator arranged for PricewaterhouseCoopers to examine Anglo Irish Bank's loan book and to report on the extent of the impairment provisions required in its half-year accounts. That report has been received and we are in discussion with Anglo Irish Bank about it.
Does the Minister have that report?
The report has been received.
Will the Minister tell us anything about it?
I do not have further details of that report to hand but it has been received and we are in discussion with the board of Anglo Irish Bank about it.
Does the Minister now regret that the proposal which was on the table on the night of the bank guarantee to nationalise Anglo Irish Bank because of its financial position was not taken up at that time and that, instead, Anglo Irish Bank was included in the guarantee and was in many ways the cause of fundamental damage to our reputation and to the two main banks, Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks? Second, does the Minister have a figure as to what the capital losses sustained by Anglo Irish Bank have been and whether the bank has in effect exhausted its capital?
Third, the Government was in effect considering guaranteeing bonds up to 2014 in certain instances — the Minister made reference to this in his Budget Statement but never elaborated on it. If Anglo Irish Bank has bonds due, does this mean, in effect, that the Minister has extended the guarantee period out to 2013, particularly for international bond holders? Will the Minister explain the impact of this for Anglo Irish Bank? Is it true some €30 billion or more of distressed assets are to be transferred from Anglo Irish Bank to be bailed out by NAMA? What is the story in that regard?
There are so many assumptions in the Deputy's questions that I wonder where to begin. NAMA is being established under the aegis of the National Treasury Management Agency. In bailing out Anglo Irish Bank it is bailing out the taxpayer, because the taxpayer now owns Anglo Irish Bank. Therefore, I do not see the relevance of the use of the word "bailout". The transactions that will take place between NAMA and the Anglo Irish Bank are transactions in which, in effect, distressed loans will be removed from the balance sheets. I am not in a position to put a figure on the record of the House this afternoon about the extent of that distress because we have not completed the valuation exercise for NAMA purposes. We are at the stage of establishing what the valuation procedure will be.
I am glad the Deputy asked me about the extension of the guarantee and the bonds. The reason the guarantee is proposed to be extended to medium term debt is that, as the Deputy is aware, the guarantee terminates at the end of September 2010 and the main banks have difficulties in accessing medium term debt financing beyond that period because of the total character of the cut-off date. It is not a matter, however, of guaranteeing existing subordinated debt or debt of that character which is an issue, but a question of assuring medium term finance is available to financial institutions. This course of action has been taken by many other European countries, as have all of the different courses of action we have taken, including giving the guarantee, capitalisation and nationalisation where appropriate. All these steps have been taken by countries throughout Europe to deal with the major crisis in the financial system, which will do incredible damage to our economies if it is not addressed.
On the specific question the Deputy asked about medium term finance, the answer is that the Government is working on proposals that will require approval from the European Commission. They will assure the various financial institutions in Ireland — in a currently improving money market — that they can access greater funding. This is very important for sustaining the viability of the banks and for the banks giving credit into the economy.
With regard to the suggestion that the Anglo Irish Bank should have been nationalised a few months before it was, it is clear from the discussion we are having today that when a bank is nationalised, the obligation to provide working capital for the bank rests on the taxpayer. I was determined to do all in my power to stave off that eventuality. The taxpayer has not had to commit a cent to the Anglo Irish Bank to date. Whether it would have been preferable to have nationalised the bank last September and immediately commit several billions of euro to it is a matter historians can debate. The course of ensuring the viability of the whole system as long as possible and using total nationalisation as a last resort was the correct route to follow.
What level of new business has been written by Anglo Irish Bank since it was nationalised? Will the Minister confirm that Anglo Irish Bank will be covered by NAMA, as his reply was somewhat vague?
My reply was not vague. Of course Anglo Irish Bank will be covered by NAMA, because it is owned by the taxpayer. What I was pointing out clearly, when Deputy Burton used the word "bailout", was that Anglo Irish Bank is now owned by the State — the taxpayers. The valuation procedure as between NAMA and Anglo Irish Bank carries no risk for the taxpayer whatsoever.
How much new business has been written by Anglo Irish Bank since it was nationalised?
If the Deputy would wait to be called, we could have an orderly Question Time. It is normal that the Chair calls and the Deputy then rises and puts his question.
May I put the question now?
Yes. The Minister is endeavouring to answer and it is not good that the Deputy shouts him down from his chair.
To answer the question, I do not have that information to hand. I accept new business has been limited in extent.
Can the Minister get the information?
We can contact the board.
Will the Minister make a statement available to the House with regard to his statement on medium term debt? What constitutes medium term debt? This is important because the Minister has indicated he is extending the guarantee for certain categories of debt until 2014. This is a major statement and the Minister needs to elaborate on it.
I am not elaborating beyond what I said in the Budget Statement, because we are in discussions with the European Commission. Anything we do will be in line with practice that has taken place already in the United Kingdom, France and in many other European countries.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
