Yesterday, the Taoiseach admitted that his statement in the House that the taxpayer would not be liable for the consequences of the introduction of the bank guarantee was not true, and that the vast majority of the €22 billion pumped into Anglo Irish Bank will never be seen again. The taxpayer is therefore liable. The lives of the next generation have been mortgaged. Today, I notice in the national newspapers selected briefings by the Department of Finance that the Government now intends to introduce a punitive property tax ranging from €250 to €3,000. This is grossly unfair. I ask the Taoiseach to confirm — "Yes" or "No" — whether the Government is planning to introduce a property tax in the budget at the end of this year.
Leaders’ Questions
That is a budgetary matter that will be decided at the time of the budget. The Deputy will know that a site value tax is mentioned in the programme for Government, and the Commission on Taxation has suggested a need to widen the tax base. However, no decisions have been taken on these matters. I cannot comment on speculation.
The reports in today's papers were not straws in the wind. They were deliberate briefings to the media as the Government flies another kite.
There are 300,000 families in negative equity at the moment and more than 430,000 people on the unemployment register. Families cannot have any confidence unless there is clarity about the future of their incomes. People who are not yet in negative equity are struggling to meet their mortgage payments. Many people will not be in a position to make pension provisions for themselves. Yet there is no clarity from the Government on whether it is its intention to introduce a property tax in the budget at the end of this year.
The introduction of such a tax would be grossly unfair. Mr. McCarthy made a series of recommendations to the Government, fewer than one in ten of which have been implemented. There is plenty of scope there to reduce borrowing without the introduction of a property tax in this year's budget. It is the same old story. The Government will present straw men when it feels like it, saying there is no alternative to a property tax. There is an alternative. What the Government is now proposing is grossly unfair.
Does the Deputy have a question?
On the basis of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the introduction of a property tax in this year's budget would be unfair, and I will oppose it. I ask the Taoiseach again for confirmation that the intention of the Department of Finance is to prepare a plan for the introduction of a property tax in this year's budget.
I explained to the Deputy already that any introduction of a property tax would represent a major structural change in the taxation system and would clearly have to take into account the total tax impact on individuals. No decision has been taken on this matter. The Government will consider its budgetary strategy in the normal way and the Minister for Finance will consider the position. I refer the Deputy to the programme for Government and the report of the Commission on Taxation. We want to make sure we have a clear view of the impact of any such proposal. It would represent a major structural change and will need to be considered in that context.
It is not going to happen.
The Taoiseach is refusing to rule it out.
To date, €33 billion has been handed over or committed to the banks. Last week, the chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank said that the lion's share of the €22 billion that bank had received would never be seen again. Yesterday, the Taoiseach eventually confirmed that this was in fact the case. The money is gone.
It was a condition of the recapitalisation that banks would agree to extend credit to businesses so that jobs could be sustained and people could go back to work. This week, the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, published a report of a survey in which it interviewed 834 small and medium-sized businesses. Of these, 55% said they had been refused credit in the past three months. ISME has accused the banks of putting thousands of businesses and their employees at risk. It reports that banks are illegally requesting family homes as collateral for the extension of credit. It describes the actions of the bankers as giving a "two fingered policy response" to the Government and it calls for an investigation by the Central Bank into SME lending by the banks.
Can the Taoiseach tell the House what is being done to require the banks to extend credit to businesses? They have the money. As we now know, we will never again see the bulk it. It was a condition for the very large amounts of taxpayers' money that has been committed to sorting out the banks that they would lend to business. A report has stated that 55% of companies that applied for credit were turned down. What is the Taoiseach going to do to require the banks to deliver on the condition that was attached to the recapitalisation money, that they should lend to business in a normal way?
The aim of Government policy on banking has been to return the banks to a position where they can access funds and lend these funds to viable businesses and households in order to support enterprise growth and economic recovery. This is the whole purpose of the recapitalisation, particularly in the case of the two main banks which continue to service the country and their clients. The Government position is that both the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and the Minister for Finance are in touch with the banks to ensure we get sectoral plans that meet our requirements and as yet we have not received those or we are not satisfied with what we have received thus far.
With the greatest of respect, the Taoiseach is totally out of touch with what is happening in the country and with the reality of what happens when a business goes into a bank to look for credit. The reality of what is happening — I hear this all the time — is that businesses going into banks do not even get to make the application. They are told not to bother; they are told to go away——
Correct.
As soon as they see the bank manager or the bank official they are sent packing with a flea in their ear. It is one of the reasons ISME has suggested what it calls a re-education programme on business lending for the banks. The businesses are not even getting past the front door. Even of those who do get past the front door 55% of them are having their applications rejected. Time and again, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, when he replied to questions in the House recently, told us the Government is having conversations with the banks, that it is appealing to the banks and trying to encourage them to lend to business, all of which I believe and I am sure this is what is happening. However, we must get this straight, the banks have got the money and they are not going to give it back. Having got the money——
A question, please, Deputy.
——and having got the commitment from the taxpayer, the Government should now be telling the banks in no uncertain terms that they have to lend to small and medium-sized business. That is why they were given the money. If they are not lending — and it is the case they are not lending — that is what is still causing the problems of job losses and people not getting back to work.
While I am on the subject, the Taoiseach might have a word with the chairman of the now nationalised Anglo Irish Bank, Mr. Dukes, who came before an Oireachtas committee last week and gave as arrogant a performance as any bank czar has ever given at the height of their boom. He would not even answer questions from Deputy Burton——
He did it in French.
——or Senator Ross.
The Deputy should not refer to people who are not in a position to defend themselves in the House.
He refused to give answers to questions that were put to him.
Disgraceful.
The Deputy should ask a final question to the Taoiseach.
When will the Taoiseach tell the banks to do what he required them to do when he gave them the money?
The purpose of the recapitalisation of the banks was to provide adequate capital for the banks. It was not a case that the money was handed out, as the Deputy knows and if he does not know, he should know. The purpose of it was——
It was not given to businesses.
——to provide sufficient capital in the banks so that they could access funds for the purpose of providing credit. The Government has asked for plans from both Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks. They have to provide €3 billion each for new or increased credit facilities for SMEs this year——
They are roll-overs.
——and in 2011. We are in the process of making sure that the sectoral plans and the geographic plans they bring will be adequate to meet that requirement. That has not yet been met, so far as Government is concerned and we will continue to engage very directly with those banks to ensure that this is the case. The Deputy should stop putting out the trite comment that people got money so that they could give it out. The money was put into the banks for the purpose of having sufficient capital so that they can access funds in international markets to have a business.
So that they could give it out.
That is what that is about. The Deputy's usual trite, simplistic comments in no way reflect the facts of the situation.