In the past 20 years a tradition has developed whereby the first bilateral visit by a new Taoiseach is to the British Prime Minister. The Taoiseach's two immediate predecessors had in-depth meetings with Mr. David Cameron's immediate predecessors within a week of taking office. In that context, I welcome yesterday's meeting and that it was held in a positive spirit. Everyone welcomes the shared resolve to face down the few remaining groups which want to undermine the peace and reconciliation process which is a great legacy of recent years. We should also note the Prime Minister's support for the fiscal and financial strategies outlined last year and the Taoiseach's detailed promotion of them earlier in the day. The meeting was announced by the Taoiseach's staff as the first major salvo in a significant diplomatic effort to win for Ireland better terms with regard to the international support package as part of the EU-IMF deal. Given that this has been a primary purpose of the various meetings in which the Taoiseach and others are engaging, particularly yesterday's meeting, will he indicate whether he enlisted the support of the British Government for a change in the terms of the broader EU-IMF loan facility and the Prime Minister's support for the Government's efforts to persuade the German and French Governments to change the terms and, in particular, to reduce the interest rate charged? On the specific bilateral loan, will he clarify why he did not ask for a reduction in the interest rate?
Leaders’ Questions
I thank the Deputy for his positive comments. The meeting took place as a result of the issuing of an invitation to me. At my first meeting following my appointment I met the British Prime Minister in Brussels. We have had a couple of telephone conversations, about which I have informed the Deputy. The Prime Minister said we should make an arrangement to meet before the Queen came to Ireland. Yesterday was a suitable date and, on that basis, the meeting took place. It was not announced as a major diplomatic onslaught but was part of a series of regular contacts between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, which is important for both countries in the keeping of good relations. We discussed the question of movement in the European Union. The Prime Minister is very supportive of Ireland's position and the decisions made by the Government which are attracting an element of international commendation, which is important. He is supportive of what we are doing and has said so. As I said in response to earlier questions, he is available at short notice to discuss any matter on which we wish to contact him. I said the same in response to him, particularly in the discussions we had on Northern Ireland.
In regard to the work of the Government in respect of the interest rate on the IMF-EU package from which Ireland is now drawing, and in regard to the EFSF, that is being pursued from a European perspective. The bilateral loan from Great Britain, which is not involved here directly, feeds into that. We are pursuing the question through the Ministers for Finance at European level and, obviously, we are hoping for a result there, probably during the summer, now that the bank stress tests have been cleared. The current situation in regard to the IMF is that officials in Portugal are dealing with the details of that country's draw-down. I did not go to London to raise directly the question of the interest rate on the British loan being reduced because it is not part of the main package, which we are pursuing through the European forum in the first instance.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I am surprised that the broader issue of enlisting support for change in the terms of the EU-IMF package was not discussed and that there was no specific request. The Taoiseach says we will leave it to the Minister for Finance, but it is advisable that it is raised at all levels, including at government-to-government level. I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that his promises and statements before the election are nobody else's responsibility. His response reflects a change in tone, attitude and approach to the fundamental issues. He is correct in now saying that we must be respectful of the positions of other countries when we are negotiating changes to the terms set in Deauville months before any support package for Ireland was discussed. That is a direct reversal of the position he adopted some months ago when he said in the House that if he had been there he would have expected somebody to say that this is about politics and that if he were not given a better deal than what the civil servants had put together, he would go home. Can the Taoiseach explain exactly why he has changed his mind?
The Deputy is misreading it. Our position is not a reversal or a change of attitude or tone. It is quite in keeping with what I have always said — that we respect the right of our European colleagues to have their point of view, that this is not a unilateral decision, and that it has to be worked out in co-operation with our European partners. I have always said that and did so at the eurozone meeting in Helsinki and at the Heads of Government meeting in Brussels. The decision was taken that, as the stress tests on our banks were not yet published, the Ministers for Finance should pursue the issue around the table. That is the reality and it is what I have always said. In our pursuit of a change in respect of the interest rates and the terms of the deal, I have said on many occasions that it can only be achieved through co-operation with our European colleagues. There is no change from that position.
There is now a space for that to happen, and I hope and am confident it will happen. The broader situation was discussed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, and me yesterday, and he is very supportive of the position Ireland has adopted. He also fully understands our position in respect of the corporate tax rate. It is not the first time he has given support to Ireland's position on that matter. We also discussed broader issues of the European Union in respect of innovation, the Single Market, regulation, and the question of Europe standing up for itself as a union. I pointed out to him that we had a divergence of opinion from the British Government in respect of our defence of the Common Agricultural Policy because the agri-sector is so important for production and for our economy. He fully understands that.
I note from media reports this morning that the former director of Allied Irish Banks, Colm Doherty, received a package of €3 million when he stepped down last November. I accept that this happened under a Fianna Fáil Government, or at least the contract was put together under that Administration. I call on the Government to intervene now to stop this obscene payment. People are in disbelief that this news has broken on the Taoiseach's watch. Despite all the promises of a changed regime——
Yes, the news has broken now but it happened last November.
We need to know there will be real changes. People who are victims of the universal social charge, people who cannot pay their rent, people who cannot put food on the table want to know whether the Government will intervene to stop this payment.
I was absolutely appalled to hear of this latest banker payment scandal. I was appalled that this should have been allowed to happen at a time when the people of this country own AIB. The news has broken on this watch and I am sure the Deputy will contribute to the debate tomorrow on the Nyberg report. He will notice a change in that the Government is publishing these reports as soon as is appropriate and having them debated in the House so that Members can express their view.
When the Deputy opens the Nyberg report he should look at page 6, section 1.5.3. The report refers to the Central Bank, the regulator and the Department of Finance but it also makes the following point:
People in a position to make decisions are and must be ultimately responsible for them regardless of what advice or suggestions they have received. The higher and more influential their position, the greater their responsibility. For instance, holders of public office are and must be responsible for directly and indirectly influencing others' conduct within their, often large, remit. They, no less than everybody else including borrowers, are, of course, also responsible for knowing what they are saying and doing.
Everybody will have an opportunity to discuss the report, but it appears to me that the culture that existed here was well known. The Government discussed the report this morning. What we want to see is accountability in the people's eyes for what has happened here. I do not know who was party to the discussions about Mr. Doherty's contract, remuneration and bonuses. That is gone; the payment has been made. The previous Minister for Finance did not want the director of the bank to be appointed, yet the Government of the day was not in a position to prevent that happening. I have asked the Minister for Finance to look at what evidence is available regarding how this was put together. Were the public watchdogs made aware of it? Was a copy of the contract made available to the then Minister and the Department of Finance? It is simply appalling that a situation such as this should arise when that bank and those working in it at senior level knew exactly the culture that existed and what was going on.
It is not good enough. This is an act of subversion.
Well may Deputies opposite laugh. It is the people's money; it is happening on the Government's watch.
It happened before the Government came to power.
The Government can bring in emergency legislation. It can put a stop to this, but it does not have the will to do so. The golden circle is as alive today as it ever was under the regime led by Fianna Fáil. Who were the public interest directors? Dick Spring, Declan Collier, Michael Somers — circle upon circle upon circle. The Taoiseach has a vast majority in this House and he will certainly have support from the Sinn Féin benches to take action. He must bring in legislation to put a stop to this payment and he must do it now. Cuir stop leis seo anois.
Dá bhféadfainn rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi seo, dhéanfainn láithreach é. I would also like to get back the moneys that disappeared in other situations.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has responded to the publication of the Nyberg report. First, it is being brought into the House tomorrow for debate by Members. In addition, the Government has decided to take a number of actions to ensure nothing like this can happen on our watch. We are seeking to enhance the capacity of bank boards and management. The report is highly critical of the role played by board members and senior management of banks in failing properly to oversee the institutions. The chairman of each institution will in future be asked to provide the Minister for Finance and the NTMA with a board renewal plan which must have regard to company law and regulatory requirements and which will set out, for each institution, the steps to be taken to ensure the skills and competency level of board members are fully adequate to the demands of the current situation and the planned future of the Irish banking system. In that regard, a programme of rotation of board members, commencing with those board members appointed before September 2008, will be expected to be part of that plan. This will apply to both executive and non-executive board members and provides a process to ensure a smooth succession of incumbent board members who were in place before September 2008. The Minister expects the succession to be substantially completed by early 2012 and will use his powers as a shareholder to effect such changes as are necessary.
Second, the board of each institution will be asked to provide the Minister for Finance and the NTMA with a management renewal plan. That renewal plan will set out for the relevant institution the steps to be taken to ensure the skills and competency levels of senior managers are fully adequate to the demands of the current position and the planned future. Third, the Minister makes the point that it is essential for the boards of banks to continue to have some independent, non-executive directors. Having regard to the size of its shareholding in each institution and the necessity of ensuring the State's interest is properly represented on each board, the Minister will actively nominate members of the board of each bank from qualified individuals with appropriate skills and experience.
The Deputy should note that the Government wants Members of the Oireachtas to be in a position to investigate the facts of what happened in those cases arising from the Nyberg and other reports. However, the clarity of the advice given to the Government by the Attorney General means I have no intention of going down a road in which the Oireachtas literally would be laughed out of court by attempting to pursue something that it cannot do because of the inadequacy of its powers. This has been pointed out clearly by the Attorney General. Consequently the Government decided this morning that a referendum should be held to deal with the consequences of the Abbeylara case.
Hear, hear.
After ten years of nothing being done about it, the Government will prioritise this complex, sensitive and far-reaching legislation. The legislation must be prepared and a question put to the people in order that the Oireachtas and the members of whatever committee thereof that will deal with this matter will have the right of compellability to call in personnel, not as a Star Chamber but in the investigation of facts with regard to public accountability in cases where things went astray.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Sorry Deputy, I call Deputy Higgins.
Working from the executive summary of the commission of investigation into the banking sector, that is, the Nyberg report, does the Taoiseach agree it is rather unfortunate that sheer naked corporate greed was not identified as the major driving force that led to the insanity in the property market and the subsequent crash? Does the Taoiseach agree that the herd instinct and group-think to which the report referred was to pursue recklessly massive commercial and corporate profits for a tiny elite at the expense of society? Does the Taoiseach think it strange that in the entire executive summary, not a single sentence is devoted to the role in this debacle of major political parties or the Government? The Fianna Fáil Party was colonised by the developers and bankers who, as Members are aware, entertained them like Arabian sheiks while they drove up fourfold the price of a home for an ordinary working person. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge the complicity of his own party, Fine Gael, which, during the ten years in which this was going on, did not once raise its voice in opposition to the profiteering?
That is not true.
That is not true.
It actively opposed the control of building land and of speculation on building land when we proposed such a measure in this House.
That is not true.
Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that implicit in the report is a devastating indictment of how the financial markets systems work, driven exclusively by the herds of speculators in search of private greed? Does he acknowledge that when the report refers to the many investors, consultants, analysts, rating agencies and the media, which incidentally kept very quiet about this because they were making millions from the developers and which lionised those characters who were making millions, that it is an indictment of the same financial markets to which the Taoiseach bends the knee today in hammering the living standards of our people?
Lastly, can citizens seriously have confidence that the Government will make any change? In response to a banker walking away into the sunset with €3 million from a bank that has been bailed out to the tune of €20 billion——
Thank you, Deputy.
——the Taoiseach states he is appalled, as though he were a letter writer to The Irish Times, who signs himself “Appalled from Castlebar”. That is not good enough.
I thought the Deputy also was appalled.
Thank you Deputy. I call the Taoiseach.
What will the Taoiseach do in this regard? His Minister for Finance has stated that he will not do anything because there was a contract.
Talk to Joe.
Thank you Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach end the humiliation of Irish taxpayers and people at the hands of the banking sector?
Thank you Deputy.
Moreover, as the Taoiseach walked out of Downing Street yesterday without having the bottle to ask the British Prime Minister for a reduction in interest rates——
Deputy, thank you but you are over your time.
——for another bank loan that was made to save British banks, what hope can the people have that he represents anything different?
Thank you Deputy. The Taoiseach has three minutes to reply.
Shocking indignation.
The Deputy was in the European Parliament for two years. I thought he would have it all solved by now.
Deputy Higgins's letter should be signed "Confused from Dingle".
Explain that.
The Taoiseach should answer the question. No fudge.
While it is true that it is "Appalled from Castlebar", there appears to be some confusion from Dingle in this regard.
The Taoiseach should explain.
The people can have faith and trust in what the Government intends to do because for the past decade, nothing has been done in respect of the capacity of this House or the Oireachtas to hold accountable persons who, by reckless greed, lack of oversight or whatever else, went off the rails completely and for whom the taxpayer must pay in consequence. The only way in which this can be achieved is by holding a referendum to give the Oireachtas and its elected representatives the authority and power to get to the root of such questions. The reason there is no direct reference to political parties in this regard is that it cannot be dealt with without having the approval for the consequences of a referendum arising from the Abbeylara case. This is the reason the Government intends to prioritise this matter, put it to the people and give elected Members of this House the opportunity on television, not in the manner of a Star Chamber, to have accountability in respect of the facts. This is important.
I agree with the Deputy that the element of greed in this regard has been evident for far too long. The Deputy made the point that people did not speak out about it. I remind him that in respect of the 2003 budget, I stated "we have a crisis in the management of our public finances". For every year of his term as Opposition spokesperson on finance, Deputy Bruton made reference to this. In his statement on the 2007 budget, he stated "you cannot build indefinite spending growth on the back of a building boom, no more then you can build long-term economic prosperity on the back of a building boom". It is confusing of the Deputy to state that these matters were never raised, as they were. At long last, however, there is an opportunity to do something about it. The Government will so do when it gets the imprimatur of the people by asking them a question as to whether they will give the Oireachtas the authority and the opportunity to hold to account those who should be held to account.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Deputy has one minute in which to reply.
I assure the Taoiseach I am not at all confused because I sat in this House for ten years while this insanity was going on and people like myself were referred to as contrarians in this report. The Taoiseach, however, was not a contrarian and nor was his party. Not once did it raise a voice of opposition to the level of profiteering in which developers and bankers were engaged on the backs of young working people being saddled with 40-year mortgages. The Taoiseach should examine the Official Report of the Dáil and if he finds it, he should show it to me in this Chamber in the future.
This morning, the Minister for Finance implicitly stated that nothing would be done about this further bank robbery of €3 million because there was a contract. In 2009, a draconian Act was passed, namely, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, which the Government continues to implement and which has slashed the wages of——
Does the Deputy have a question, please?
——for example, porters, cleaners and teachers in private schools who are not paid by the State but whose employers receive part payment from the State. No institution has received more funds from the taxpayers, to the obscene degree that has happened, than have the banks. Is the Taoiseach telling me that he will allow the porter, the cleaner, the teacher and other equivalent employees to be hammered by that Act and that he will stand idly by as these major bankers wipe the eye of the taxpayer while incidentally insulting the 2,000 low-paid bank workers who will be consigned to the dust heap, as far as they are concerned, in the next two years?
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach has one minute to reply.
Forgive me if I said Deputy Higgins was confused. Maybe it is false concern I detect coming from that side over there.
Hear, hear.
I will make this point to Deputy Higgins — this Government will reverse the minimum wage decision in respect of lower paid workers. This was agreed by the troika when it met with our Ministers for Finance. This Government has already made it perfectly clear that consideration will be given to lower paid public workers where savings can be made arising from the implementation of the Croke Park agreement. We want to see everyone have the opportunity to contribute and to have a meaningful quality of life. It is not good enough for the Deputy to suggest otherwise. If he wants to equate teachers with cleaners and whatever else, that is his prerogative. We have already made the case that it is very important that the Croke Park agreement be implemented in full. The consequences of the memorandum of understanding have been pointed out by quite a number of Ministers.
The position is that serious changes have now been outlined by the Minister for Finance in respect of the governance, regulation and oversight of banks. For the politicians and the Oireachtas, I want to see the people help the Oireachtas, give it the opportunity when the legislation goes through to answer the questions and allow Members of this House to be able to hold to account those who should be held to account. I am sure Deputy Higgins will contribute to that legislation when he gets the opportunity.