It is proposed to take No. 5a, motion re the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the draft scheme entitled Credit Institutions (Eligible Liabilities Guarantee) (Amendment) (No. 2) Scheme 2010; and No. 15, Local Government (Mayor and Regional Authority of Dublin) Bill 2010 — Second Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings in relation to No. 5a, shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: the speech of the Minister or Minister of State and those of the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case, the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes in each case, Members may share time and the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed 15 minutes. Private Members’ business shall be No. 77, motion re nursing home care (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m., if not previously concluded.
Order of Business
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 5a agreed to?
This guarantee is not to run out until 31 December. We are told personnel from the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF are coming to Ireland tomorrow to discuss structural deficiencies in the banking system. I suggest we postpone discussion on this motion for some time until we know exactly what is the extent of the new liability for which we shall have to fork out. There is plenty of time until 31 December. Rather than just pushing it through in this fashion, I suggest we await the full facts so that we may have clarity in regard to what we will be liable for.
I raised this matter yesterday. The Taoiseach needs to tell us whether the Minister for Finance will be here for this debate at the outset as he is the person in negotiation with both the eurozone and ECOFIN Ministers today. It would be very odd to have this further extension of the guarantee without the Minister of Finance being present and actively listening to the all of the debate.
I remind the Taoiseach that when Mr. Rehn came here last Tuesday, he said he was accompanied by officials whom he described as working in the Department of Finance. We need to have the Minister for Finance here to tell the people honestly and truthfully what is going on. If we can begin to understand and have confidence, perhaps we might be able to project that. At the moment people are generally fearful and do not know what to believe. They certainly do not believe that everything is fine with the banks.
Deputy Burton, we are on the Order of Business.
Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking to the House now that the Minister for Finance will be present for the debate? If the Minister for Finance is unable to be here for the debate this afternoon, will the Taoiseach defer it until this evening, tomorrow or whenever he can be present? I suggest also that the time allowed for this debate, which deals with an important matter, be extended. This debate provides the Minister and Government with an opportunity to truly tell the Irish people what is going on.
Deputy Burton, please. We are on the Order of Business, which makes no provision for Second Stage contributions. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Sinn Féin Deputies are totally opposed to the taking of No. 5a and to the proposal in that regard which seeks to provide a further extension of what has been the disastrous blanket bank guarantee introduced by this Government. The guarantee was first introduced in 2008 under false pretences. It was presented in terms of dealing with the issues arising in regard to the deposits of ordinary bank customers and of protecting access to credit for small businesses. This has not been the case. The guarantee has proven to be all about guaranteeing the risks taken——
The Deputy is branching into a Second Stage contribution——
——by speculators, domestic and international for whom——
——and that is not contemplated on the Order of Business.
——we have no responsibility. This proposal is unacceptable. Sinn Féin rejects it and will take the opportunity to say so if the matter is to be forced onto today's agenda.
I call Deputy Quinn on the same matter.
On related legislative matters, I received a letter from the Secretary General of the Taoiseach's Department asking us to evaluate various Departments, including the Department of Education and Skills. I want to bring to the notice of the House — I do not know what it can do about this — that substantial amendments to the students support Billdue on Monday are not yet in. We are supposed to submit our response to those amendments——
I ask Deputy Quinn to wait until after we have dealt with proposal No. 1 to raise that matter with the relevant Minister.
On the debate due to take place today, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, as everyone knows, is attending an ECOFIN meeting today. The proposal involves the extension of an existing guarantee in relation to these matters. Members will be aware that the Minister is by way of his responsibilities involved in the four year plan and budget preparations. We need to proceed with this matter.
The debate needs to be rescheduled.
We must move on. We have spent reasonable time on the matter.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Is it intended that as the discussions take place between officials from the Central Bank, the Office of the Financial Regulator and the Department of Finance that the Opposition parties will be kept briefed on what is happening in the discussions or will they continue for a few days to a conclusion after which and we will be informed about what decisions have been arrived at? I hope they will not be works of fiction, as the Minister for Justice and Law Reform has alluded to.
I have already indicated on the record that the Minister did not say anything that was not in line with what the situation was at the time and I do not see any purpose in continuing with that line of approach. It was an issue to be addressed and if the Deputy wants to have it dealt with seriously, we should take it seriously.
The meetings will begin tomorrow and we should allow those meetings to progress and, until such time as we see what emerges from that, I do not believe we should breach the confidentiality of those discussions other than to let people know in general terms what is involved. It is important to reiterate that people throughout the country need to know that this is a structural issue that is being spoken about. There is no issue whatsoever regarding individual issues with banks and people's own accounts, etc. Those deposits are guaranteed and the ECB stands fully behind those banks.
To follow up, Opposition parties will not be involved in these discussions. I know the IMF is party to the discussions and as it is based in America, its representatives would understand the importance of Ireland's 12.5% corporation tax rate. That may not be shared by some European views. I expect that this will be defended by officials from the Department of Finance on the instruction of Government in the discussions. Were the rate to change for some reason or other, it would be seen as a massive breach of trust between this country and those responsible for foreign direct investment here.
This is not on the Order of Business but it is important to repeat to the Deputy what the Minister for Finance said this morning. These are treaty matters which have been dealt with and negotiated. The competence issues are very clear with regard to taxation policy.
We have been told that discussions are taking place between officials who do not have a mandate to negotiate. As I stated earlier on Leaders' Questions, the Taoiseach and the Government does not have a mandate to negotiate an entirely new scenario with this tripartite discussion group which will effectively put the next generation in hock.
This is not Question Time but I will make the point again to the Deputy. There are technical discussions taking place——
We live in a democracy. Officials do not negotiate policy.
Deputy Barrett——
They are not entitled to negotiate policy on the 12.5% tax rate.
Deputy Barrett, please. This is the Order of Business and not Question Time.
It is up to this House and the Government to negotiate the issues.
I just made the point——
We should remember that we belong to this Parliament.
Deputy Barrett, order will break down if this continues.
I made the point——
It has nothing to do with officials. This is a policy issue. People's futures are at stake.
Deputy Barrett, the Taoiseach is in possession.
That is the problem.
This is the Order of Business. I made the point clearly that there are technical discussions continuing that will take days——
What technical discussions?
I am entitled to speak without interruption. That is the position.
The Taoiseach is playing with words.
If and when negotiations take place——
These are policy issues
Deputy Barrett.
——this Government will decide on those issues. The Deputy can be assured of that.
Unfortunately, we cannot be assured of anything.
These are policy issues and not technical.
The Deputy should listen.
I have two related questions for the Taoiseach. The first relates to the reply from the Taoiseach to my supplementary question on Leaders' Questions. In the course of that the Taoiseach said he did not wish to reveal the Government's negotiating position with the EU institutions and the IMF. When did the Government decide on its negotiating position in respect of those discussions?
The Minister for Finance this morning suggested that the four-year plan might not now be published until the end of the month. I understood from the Taoiseach's comments yesterday that it would be published next week. Will he clarify whether it will be next week or the end of the month?
I answered a question asked by the Deputy about our negotiating position. I said I would not tell him if I had one. It is not very clever to suggest what it would be in public. That is what I said. We should get away from word games and treat the substance of the issue.
I am not engaging in word games. I am just trying to get to the point. It is very hard to get it from the Taoiseach.
It is not. What is very hard to get from the Deputy is his position on anything without revising it. It is the same as he has revised his political career every five or ten years.
I have been absolutely clear. I asked questions.
The Deputy asked a question on Leaders' Questions.
Yes.
I told him I would not divulge a negotiating position to anybody if we were in negotiations. We have not opened any negotiations, as I have told the Deputy. If the Deputy was prepared to read the statement from the European group, which he is not——
I have read it.
He will not refer to it because it is supportive of the Government position and everything the Government has been seeking to do in order to achieve stability, in stark contrast to anything the Deputy has had to say in this House regarding the achievement of stability. He only tries to see if he can get a few votes from it. That is his game.
That does not become the Taoiseach.
It is a ruse.
We will not have this argument on the Order of Business. It is not appropriate.
I do not want to unduly provoke the Taoiseach but will he answer the second question I asked concerning the four-year plan? Will it be next week or the end of the month?
I answered that question yesterday. I said it would be——
Yes, but——
The record will show——
I am only asking a question.
I am making the point. The Deputy seems to want to outline what I said as well as what the questions were.
It is only a question.
I am answering the Deputy's question. He suggested that I said yesterday that the plan would come at the beginning of next week.
The Taoiseach said it would be next week.
No, I did not say that. The Deputy can check the record of the House as he asked the questions himself. I know from memory what I said. I indicated that when it was finalised and approved by the Government, it would be published. It is a matter of priority for the Government. The Deputy should check to see if that is what I said rather than what he suggested I said.
When will that be?
It is the oldest game in the book to misquote people day and night.
We must move on.
He would not be the only one to do so.
What we need is a credible recovery plan, not an EU bailout, so will the Taoiseach accept that he has no mandate for his current negotiating position, the four year plan and the signalled cuts in the coming year? Will he publish the four year plan, suspend the budget and go to the people so that we can have a Government mandated to address these problems?
What piece of legislation is this?
That is an assertion on the Order of Business.
It is absolutely pertinent.
There should be queries on promised and urgent legislation.
Is the Taoiseach ready for it?
I know I should not be giving lessons in constitutional law to the Deputy as he would probably claim to have a superior knowledge of it. Under our Constitution, the mandate of the Government is determined by majority support in this House. The mandate which this Government has is the very same as any other Government has had in this House. We will bring forward the budget and put it to the House, and I am confident it will command majority support. That is the position.
Nobody voted for this course of action.
I am glad the Tánaiste is present in the House. The Student Support Bill first saw the light of day approximately two and half years ago and completed Second Stage. Amendments have been brought forward for the Bill and were supposed to be with the Deputies in question on Monday this week. Responses to the amendments are to be received by 19 November. Will the Tánaiste and the Minister for Education and Skills extend that closing date as the amendments are already three days late?
I understand the debate will take place tomorrow week. I am sure this is a matter for the Bills Office but if the amendments are being published a little later than expected, I assume Opposition Deputies will be accommodated with a couple of days to put in amendments if required. I ask that the matter be dealt with by the Bills Office in an appropriate way consistent with the timeframe we have in mind.
I thank the Taoiseach.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government recently announced he would publish the report on the severe weather conditions from approximately a year ago on 1 November. That date has passed so when will the report be brought before the House?
On the Order of Business last Thursday morning I indicated to the Tánaiste that the working group on mortgage arrears is due to publish its report soon. I understand the report is to be brought to Cabinet so does the Taoiseach have a date for this? Will time be given in the House to discuss the findings of the report?
I understand the mortgage arrears group report is coming to hand and will be published imminently. It may be published today, tomorrow or later this week but it is a matter for the group to publish the report. I thank the group for the work done on the matter and I believe further recommendations made in the report will be helpful. It is important that the work be commended and acknowledged. The Deputy could put down a question to the Minister or call the Department to elicit the information required in the first question.
I support the previous speaker on the issue he raised, having regard to the ongoing and ever-increasing problem relating to mortgage arrears and the promises made to the House. What is the extent of discussions with various stakeholders, including An Post and its workforce, in preparing for the introduction of the postal services Bill to this House?
The Deputy is into detail.
It is relevant.
It is a question for the line Minister, not the Taoiseach.
It is relevant. I asked the question of the relevant Minister previously but the relevant Minister did not respond.
To get into detailed discussion on such matters is singularly inappropriate on the Order of Business.
It is crucial information that the constituents of Donegal have been inquiring about in the past few days. Perhaps the Taoiseach might give some information to the House in the absence of the relevant Minister.
I am aware the legislation will be coming before Cabinet imminently, this week or next. Upon its approval, it will be published and I understand it will be taken by the Seanad in the first instance.
I thank the Taoiseach. In view of previous debate in this House on 29 September 2008, when the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance indicated the intention was to bring the banking system back to traditional lending and borrowing policies, and in the context of the sensitive discussions that are taking place at present, at whatever level, here or with various EU institutions, is the Central Bank (No. 2) Bill, which is deemed to be "To address the question of necessary changes and enhancements to the regulatory functions——"
If the Deputy leaves it, we will inquire.
No, you will not, a Cheann Comhairle. This is on the Order of Business on promised legislation. You do not have to inquire at all. If you waited until I finished——
The embellishment——
Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish finish the sentence and quote exactly what the proposed legislation is about. The sentence finished as follows: "——to the regulatory functions of the Central Bank." Is it deemed that those changes are necessary, particularly in the current environment? It was deemed "necessary".
This is a question that would be much more appropriate to Question Time. We cannot have detailed debate on Bills on the Order of Business.
It is appropriate to the Order of Business on promised legislation. If other Deputies are asking on the same matter, I will wait.
On the same matter, the Minister for Finance advised us some months ago that the Central Bank (No. 2) Bill, dealing with a number of reforms in regard to banking and regulation, would be brought before the House quite soon. In fact, we expected it to have been produced about a month ago. The Minister responded to me that he was considering the introduction of a bank resolution mechanism because, at present, there are six banks in the guarantee scheme——
This is the Order of Business.
——and two and a quarter years after the guarantee, we have no resolution in regard to any of those six institutions.
We cannot have an unstructured debate like this on the Order of Business. It is a very important subject and it is inappropriate to debate it in this way.
With respect, the Minister for Finance has already indicated an intention on his part as a member of the Government to have a bank resolution mechanism.
We will make inquiries as to whether such a Bill is coming.
I am asking the Taoiseach when the bank resolution mechanism is proposed.
Second, in regard to the team from the ECB, the IMF and the Commission which is visiting Dublin, under what legislation are the Irish negotiators——
We cannot have this on the Order of Business.
Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, under what powers——
It is an inappropriate time to raise this matter.
——are the Secretary General of the Department of Finance, the Governor of the Central Bank and the regulator——
I advise the Deputy to try some other way of raising the matter.
This is a serious constitutional issue.
It may well be but if I, as chairman of Dáil Éireann, allow this to continue, we will be on the Order of Business all day.
I want to know under what powers they are negotiating on behalf of Ireland. The Taoiseach said the Government has not decided——
The Deputy will have to find another way——
——a negotiating position but he has selected negotiators.
The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue the matter.
Will the Taoiseach give us a briefing on that?
So much for substance. It was Tanzania last night.
We are moving on. I call Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.
Sorry, can I hear about the bank resolution mechanism, which is part one of getting us out of our troubles? We are trying to be positive.
That would be unusual.
The Central Bank (No. 2) Bill will be next year.
On a related matter, the Taoiseach addressed the House yesterday on the bank resolution regime in response to a question by Deputy Rabbitte. In terms of separating bank debt from sovereign debt, we need to know when the Taoiseach proposes to introduce it.
This is the Order of Business. The Deputy will have to find another way to raise the matter.
We are hearing rumours that the IMF is already in Ireland in an unofficial capacity.
There is a very serious stand-off and disagreement between the Office of the Ombudsman and the Minister for Health and Children, which I believe was exacerbated by the Minister's comments in the House yesterday. The basis of this concerns the fact the Government has not introduced the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill, which has been promised for a number of years. It was on the B list at one stage and the heads were agreed but it is now back on the C list.
We will make inquiries as to its position.
I want to know when the legislation will be introduced. At present, we do not know the basis upon which people have rights to health services.
That legislation will, hopefully, be next year. I indicated to the House yesterday that the relevant legislation to provide legal certainty in respect of the matter raised by the Ombudsman had in fact been enacted prior to this inquiry having taken place. Any Deputy is entitled to come to the House and give their views in regard to matters, particularly in regard to any points of view that have policy implications.
The point is that the Ombudsman does not agree with that. She believes it is the Health Act 1970 that is the relevant legislation until this Bill comes through.
On the same matter——
We have had the answer.
What the Taoiseach does not seem to realise is that while we do not know the content of the heads of the eligibility Bill as proposed, the key point in the Ombudsman's report and in the response from the Government——
That matter is being dealt with on Private Members' business today.
I know. I am trying to make a point. If the Ceann Comhairle allows me, I will be finished in 25 seconds.
We cannot have a debate on the Order of Business.
I am not having a debate. I am merely making a point that is relevant to pending legislation, which is that the Bill may define eligibility but it is not defining entitlement. That is the issue for people, namely, clarity as to what they are or are not entitled.
I will inquire about a second Bill, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle. Ambulance services are currently not subject to HIQA inspection, as far as I know. There is a situation in Dublin city where there are Dublin fire brigade ambulances and also HSE ambulances. In Fingal, north Dublin, an ambulance which made 4,500 calls last year will be withdrawn because the HSE will not continue the service.
The Deputy is out of order on the Order of Business.
I want to know whether the licensing of health facilities Bill will cover ambulances, which are health facilities. Following the Finance Bill, will we see a further reduction in fire brigade ambulances in Dublin, thereby putting lives at risk, because that is exactly what will happen.
Have we promised legislation?
There is no date for that legislation.