Gerry Adams
Question:1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will set out the protocols and procedures for use of the Government jet. [21199/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)
Ministerial Transport
Requests for use of the ministerial air transport service are made by Ministers' private secretaries to my office and are dealt with, in the first instance, by the staff of my office. Requests are examined by my staff with regard to the need for and purpose of travel, the destination, the availability and suitability of other travel arrangements and other logistical details. Any necessary clarification or further information is sought at this point.
Screened requests are then submitted to me for my consideration and approval, if deemed appropriate. Once approved, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the Minister in question and the Department of Defence or Air Corps.
The Taoiseach when replying to Deputy Finian McGrath earlier said "No, I cannot reverse these cuts now" but——
At this time.
——could not use the same plain language——
We are dealing now with questions to the Taoiseach.
——in response to my question about caps on bankers' salaries.
The question was if I would reverse them at this time and I said that I cannot.
The Taoiseach knows the point I am making and should not be dodging questions.
I do, but the Deputy needs to be clear about it.
I tabled this question prior to the summer recess, following the fiasco in regard to attempts to transport 14 year old Meadhbh McGivern to London for a life saving liver transplant. There was a whole series of blunders in that regard. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil sí níos fearr anois. Le cuidiú Dé, beidh sí maith go leor de thoradh ar an surgery. Was consideration given at that time to using the Government jet? Could it have been put at the disposal of the McGivern family? Would the jet be placed at the disposal of a family in similar circumstances?
I understand from a news report that during the past week the Learjet took part in an air show in Malta. What was the cost to the taxpayer of participation in that air show of a jet that is not apparently available to assist citizens?
The Deputy asked two questions. What happened in the Meadhbh McGivern case is to be deeply regretted. Deputy Adams is aware that the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, recently published its report into the failed transfer of Meadhbh to the UK on 2 July for a liver transplant. A key recommendation of that report is that a national aeromedical co-ordination group be established to implement its findings. I believe that is appropriate. The Learjet was used to transfer Meadhbh to the UK on 15 September. The Learjet has been made available on previous occasions for missions of mercy or for medical reasons. We must now move on to implementation of the recommendations of the HIQA report into Meadhbh not being transferred to London on time on the first occasion. I hope, as we all do, she makes a full recovery. I saw reports that a transfer back to Ireland was refused. While not a doctor, it seems to me that an aircraft with 300 other people would not be a suitable place for a young patient in her condition. If there is a request for her transfer back to Ireland, it will be granted.
The cost for the participation of the Government jet in the Maltese air show came to €13,095. This is based on 6.7 hours return flying at an average hourly direct cost of €1,940. This is not a request that comes across my desk when I deal with ministerial transport. The reason for the participation in the show was because the Maltese authorities supported us in transporting Irish citizens out of Libya to Valletta.
Cabinet Committees
Gerry Adams
Question:2 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Cabinet sub-committee on health met during the summer recess; and the number of occasions on which it met and the dates of same. [23765/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:3 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet sub-committee meetings that have taken place since Dáil Éireann rose on 22 July 2011. [24422/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the support structure, including staff numbers, he has put in place for each Cabinet committee. [26096/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the numbers of persons assigned to work full-time in support of the Economic Management Council. [26097/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on social policy met on 21 September. No other Cabinet committee meetings have been held since 22 July 2011. However, the Government and the Economic Management Council have met several times. Meetings of five Cabinet committees are scheduled between now and the end of October.
Each Cabinet committee is supported by a senior officials' group, generally chaired by an assistant secretary in my Department and with membership drawn from the relevant Departments. As in previous Administrations, supporting Cabinet committees is a core function of the relevant policy division in my Department and is undertaken in addition to other responsibilities of the staff involved.
A second Secretary General has been appointed in my Department, whose responsibilities include managing support for the Economic Management Council, which has the status of a Cabinet committee, and reporting to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on matters relating to the council. No staff have yet been assigned on a full-time basis to that committee. It is supported by staff from my Department with assistance from other Departments as appropriate.
Today some 394 patients are lying on hospital trolleys across the country. The largest number consistently is at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth. Last night 48 citizens were on trolleys. Over the summer, there were many reports on the long delays in filling vacancies for junior doctors. Some recent reports have stated some junior doctors from abroad had to return home due to long delays in processing their registrations. Did the Cabinet health sub-committee deal with these issues during the summer recess?
When the Government took office, we originally did not establish a Cabinet health committee. However, due to the importance of the issue in question, a health committee date has been set for the next fortnight. It will focus on this and several other issues. Over the summer, the Government, the Minister for Health and the Economic Management Council have been active on this issue.
I have visited several hospitals myself and spoken to patients on trolleys. It is always regrettable that this occurs. The special delivery unit, established by the Minister for Health to examine waiting lists and patients on trolleys, has made some interesting preliminary findings which will require a co-ordinated plan to be put in place to see such backlogs do not arise as they have consistently done so over the past 20 years. I have also visited Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. It is trying for patients to be left on trolleys, often in uncomfortable positions. Those at the front line of the health services do extraordinary work in dealing with a legacy and a structure inadequate for our current needs. Over the time ahead, this will be a priority matter for the Minister for Health. The Cabinet health committee will receive reports on several issues from the Minister, the HSE and so forth and we will have an opportunity to discuss those matters in the Chamber.
I am astonished a Cabinet health committee has not even been established yet. I was in the Chamber when its establishment was announced with a great brouhaha.
It was not announced with a great brouhaha. After a review of the Cabinet sub-committees, I considered there should be one for health and we set it up.
There are 400 people on hospital trolleys.
Yes, I accept that. An extraordinary amount of money is spent on the health system. Last week, nurses on a ward I visited informed me the wastage in their hospital is extraordinary. The Deputy has a part to play in resolving these issues. The Minister for Health and the Cabinet health committee will focus on these issues.
What is the function of the Cabinet sub-committee on health? How does it relate to the responsibilities of the Minister for Health and the HSE? The committee was established to underline the urgency of the needs of the health service and deal with the dramatic and disastrous effects of health cutbacks. It beggars belief that it has not yet met when hospitals across the country are suffering traumatically from the swinging and savage cuts imposed by the HSE on the Taoiseach's watch. The Taoiseach referred to wastage in the health services, as if it were a cover for the dreadful crisis that exists in them. The Government cut the number of beds in Blanchardstown hospital by 20%.
These are matters more appropriate for the Minister for Health. This question relates to Cabinet sub-committees.
The problem is that doctors and other health staff are treating too many patients and have been told to cut back. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. Who is going to bring sanity to this? Who will restore the services that have been cut, so that our health services are safe for patients?
The health committee meets on Wednesday, 5 October. Its purpose is to provide political oversight of the Government's programme to change the structure and nature of the health service to ensure it is fit for purpose in 2011 and onwards. This programme will also achieve greater efficiencies, a far more effective level and a better quality of service both for those who work on the front line and, in particular, patients. The forthcoming meeting will also be an opportunity for the sub-committee to focus on the oversight of delivering priority services for the Government.
Apart from this, over the summer I called together the Department of Health and HSE for a barnstorming session about several health issues. The committee was set up at the end of June and it will meet in October to provide a political oversight of the decisions being taken by the Minister for Health.
Which Ministers are on this committee?
The Minister for Health and his two Ministers of State, Deputies Kathleen Lynch and Shortall.
A Cabinet committee means it is composed of Cabinet Ministers. It cannot be a Cabinet committee if it just comprises one Minister and two Ministers of State. By definition, it should involve several Departments. Will the Taoiseach clarify what other Ministers and Departments are on this committee to implement the health service commitments in the programme for Government? The programme and the Fine Gael general election manifesto committed to changing completely the funding model for hospitals in the coming months. Hospitals were to lose their secure funding and move to a per capita system. This is a fundamental, substantive and radical change. It beggars belief that the Cabinet sub-committee on health has not met to consider this issue or the commitment’s implementation. There is no urgency attached to the implementation——
We are on Question Time. Could we have a question, please?
We are and I will put my question.
The Deputy's Government had no Cabinet sub-committee on health at all.
That there has been no meeting illustrates that no urgency is attached to the implementation of the proposal to change the funding model. I suspect there is no real commitment. Will the Taoiseach clarify this point?
The Deputy did not commit to abolishing the health boards, but that is what occurred.
Neither the Minister for Health nor the Government have an idea as to how to bring about the health insurance model they touted during the election campaign. It was to be the panacea for all of the ills of the health service.
I remind the Deputy that this is Question Time.
Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a lack of genuine commitment to the idea? There was no depth or substance behind it, as revealed by the facts that the Cabinet sub-committee has not met and, judging by his answers, the Taoiseach does not know who its members are. It is far from a satisfactory situation.
We are on Question Time.
Why is the sub-committee being delayed and will the frequency of its meetings be increased in the coming months to prepare for the dramatic commitment in the programme for Government? I disagree with the fundamental principles of the Government's proposal. It is a dramatic overhaul. May I revert on Question No. 5 after the Taoiseach has answered my supplementary questions on Question No. 3?
Yes.
I have rarely listened to such blather in all my life.
Hear, hear.
I chair the committee on health. The Minister for Health is its convenor. It is also attended by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the Minister of State with responsibility for primary care, Deputy Shortall, and the Minister of State with responsibility for disability, equality and mental health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. They are the members of the committee.
I thank the Taoiseach.
It meets on 5 October. It is completely irresponsible of the Deputy to say that there is neither depth nor substance in this——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——when, speaking as Minister on this side of the House he said he had not read his brief and that he had no responsibility for taking €1 billion from geriatric people in——
That is not true.
Yes, it is.
Hear, hear.
It is true.
Deputy Martin never read his briefing.
He denied all responsibility for it.
That is not true. What the report established was completely at variance with what the Taoiseach has just asserted. He is wrong.
On the contrary, the Deputy continuously goes back——
The Taoiseach should withdraw his remark. He cannot keep deceiving the House on this matter. It is rubbish.
Some 113 reports.
I implemented.
——to the programmes of Opposition parties. This party and the Labour Party have a programme for Government. It is very clear in respect of health and we intend to implement that over the lifetime of the Government. Even Deputy Martin will understand that, after six months, it is impossible to shift the leviathan that is the health service in a way that will answer all of the questions.
The sub-committee could meet at least once. It has not met.
The health committee meets on 5 October. We have a lot of committees to deal with and a lot of meetings to attend. This is a priority and the Minister for Health has been focused on that since his appointment and will continue to be so along with his two Ministers of State and the members of this committee as part of Government. Deputy Martin will have his opportunity to have his say here.
Too right. Address the record of Fianna Fáil.
The Taoiseach is misleading the House in respect of the Travers report on the nursing homes issue. The €1 billion in question dated back to 1976. The Taoiseach told an untruth.
Deputy Martin took the file home. It went missing.
I appeared before an Oireachtas committee and was vindicated by it and the Travers report.
The Deputy is not to blame for anything.
It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to keep bringing that matter back to the surface just to cover up his own inadequacies and his lack of substance as regards health policy.
The Deputy abolished the health boards. He is blaming someone else.
I stand over my record in the Department of Health and Children fully, particularly in terms of the National Treatment Purchase Fund, heart disease, cancer and anything the Taoiseach would like to discuss.
Could we get back to Question Time, please?
The fact that the sub-committee has not met once in the past six months is testimony to the Government's lack of urgency.
The Deputy stated on the public record that he took no responsibility for it.
Could we get back to Question Time?
I apologise.
Deputy Martin commissioned 113 consultancy reports.
With the greatest of respect,——
The Deputy promised fundamental reform.
Entirely blameless. He took no responsibility.
Would Deputy Martin mind speaking through the Chair, please? He is inviting this sort of thing.
The Ceann Comhairle should not justify the unacceptable interruptions by an unruly bunch across the floor of the House.
I am trying to control the Deputy and the other side.
He does not like to hear the truth.
I tell the truth all of the time. I will lay it on the line.
Ask a question.
The fundamental point is——
He never put it on paper.
Will Deputy Durkan stay quiet for a moment, please?
I apologise.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question. He never does. He just goes on a rant about something else.
Ask the question.
If the Deputy asks his question, we will see if he can get an answer.
I asked about the proposal in the programme for Government regarding a fundamental change in the funding model for the health service in terms of each hospital's secure funding. The Taoiseach did not answer my question.
I thought the Deputy was asking about the Economic Management Council.
I asked about the reason for the delay in the health sub-committee meeting and whether this means the programme's proposal will be delayed. The hospitals' funding model is a substantive issue.
Turning to Question No. 5, the Government has made much of the Economic Management Council, so much so that many Government briefers, including the Labour Party's briefers, have stated that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is jealous of its members because he cannot get on it.
Will the Deputy ask a question and cut out the——
Deputy Martin does not know the Minister too well, and certainly not as well as us. He does not get jealous.
The Taoiseach has been careful——
Could the Deputy cut out the phrases and ask a question, please?
(Interruptions).
I ask Members on the Government side to settle down, please. I am trying to chair Question Time.
The Deputy had better watch his back.
I asked about the committee's structure. The House is not allowed to examine its work or its structure. The economic division of the Taoiseach's Department, which was open to parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, seems to have been moved out and replaced by the Economic Management Council, which can hide every aspect of its work behind Cabinet confidentiality.
This is Question Time.
This is a long speech.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that this is the exact opposite of the transparency and accountability promised in the Government's programme? How will the roles of those co-ordinating the work of this Cabinet sub-committee differ from the roles of those who co-ordinate other sub-committees? Will the Taoiseach agree to make its work open to parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests? He can do so. There is no reason for it to be a Cabinet sub-committee. He could change its status if he wanted to do so. I ask him to do so in the interests of transparency and accountability so that we might ask questions about the economic work of the Department of An Taoiseach. The Dáil used to be able to do this but can no longer because that work has been subsumed within the Cabinet sub-committee. That we cannot ask parliamentary questions or make freedom of information requests means there is no accountability.
The Deputy is well aware that the confidentiality of discussions at Cabinet and Cabinet committees is protected by Article 28.4.3° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which states:
The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter—
i in the interests of the administration of justice by a Court, or
ii by virtue of an overriding public interest, pursuant to an application in that behalf by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into a matter stated by them to be of public importance.
These are the circumstances in which the confidentiality of discussions at Cabinet committees can actually be broken. In the light of constitutional provisions, the well established precedent in regard to questions on Cabinet committees is for the Taoiseach to answer matters of a factual nature. It is important to note that this is part of the requirement of the Constitution. The Deputy was on this side of the House for 14 years and would not answer anything about Cabinet committees or anything else.
This is pathetic.
He disavowed all knowledge of the nursing home issue.
The programme for Government made all sorts of commitments about transparency and accountability. I asked the Taoiseach a simple question. Will he open up the work of this council to the Parliament via parliamentary questions? It is his decision, his choice. I do not need any further recitation of the Constitution. I am well aware of it. The Taoiseach chooses to hide the economic work and move it to a Cabinet sub-committee on economic management and so forth. It is the Taoiseach's decision, not anyone else's. He should not keep mentioning ten years or the like. He made the choice and the promises.
Deputy Martin made choices, too.
Will he agree to open up the work to the Dáil? "Yes" or "No"?
Have we got an answer?
I will tell the Deputy why. The Economic Management Council is attended by myself and the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. It is backed up by Secretaries General from appropriate Departments and senior officials from Departments depending on the issues that are under discussion. It is a very effective way of streamlining business to bring to the Cabinet, where decisions are then made. These decisions obviously become public and the Deputy has an opportunity to debate them arising from opportunities in the Dáil and elsewhere.
Rather than have interminably long Cabinet meetings discuss everything, the Economic Management Council, the agenda of which is determined by the Tánaiste and which is now supported by the appointment of a second Secretary General, streamlines the work on very important issues that are then brought before the Cabinet.
For instance, if the Economic Management Council decides on an issue, its decision goes to the Cabinet for approval. If approved it becomes a Cabinet decision and once that is made public, the Deputy is entitled to ask questions about it, comment on it and debate it in the House. I hope that clarifies what we are doing in that room.
That does not answer the question.
I am not opening it up because of this.
No living human being could answer Deputy Martin's question.
He does not want to answer it.
There are two referendums in October. We do not want one on Article 28.4.3°, not yet in any case.
The Taoiseach is shutting everything down.
We will have an opportunity to examine all these matters after the presidential election at a constitutional convention.
The never-never.
I will allow a quick supplementary question from Deputy Boyd Barrett.
I have no intention of opening up the discussions at the Cabinet meeting to questions in here.
It is a kind of war office, or war Cabinet, to deal with the razed earth we found after Fianna Fáil left office.
Could I hear Deputy Boyd Barrett?
I was waiting for the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, to finish.
What the Constitution says is not really the issue or answer we are looking for. While the Taoiseach may have the right to maintain Cabinet confidentiality regarding the activities of the Economic Management Council — I have asked questions on this several times — we are in a very grave financial and economic situation that is very fluid. We and the public read daily about the next twist or turn in the economic and financial crisis in Europe and how it may have an impact on us.
Will the Deputy ask his question?
We wish to be able to question the Taoiseach on the ongoing deliberations of the Government because they are of such urgency and importance. That is why we want the Taoiseach to open up the debate that is taking place among members of the Government on very important decisions that affect the economic and financial future of this country and its citizens.
I am not sure when the Deputy thought up that particular question. I am quite sure he is participating in the debate here on giving effect to the decisions taken in July at the Heads' of Government meeting in Brussels, which decisions have a direct impact on the economic——
July was a long time ago. A lot has happened since then.
——position in so far as Europe is concerned.
The Government discusses matters on an ongoing basis at what are called Cabinet meetings. When the Cabinet makes decisions, as the current one is doing, they are made public and the House then has an opportunity to raise them, either during the Topical Issues debate or during other appropriate debates in the Dáil, or at meetings of Oireachtas committees. Perhaps the Deputy would like to participate in the Cabinet discussions himself, but he cannot do so yet. He may have to wait a while. In so far as it is possible to answer the Deputy's question——
The public.
——and do so legitimately, we will do so.
The Deputy is asking me whether there is an opportunity for elected Members in the House to participate in these kinds of discussions. There is.
It is very limited.
We have freed up the system for the Deputies. I am not sure whether Deputy Boyd Barrett submitted a request to have a Topical Issues debate today on the issue he mentioned.
About another issue.
If so, it is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle. The Deputy may submit the matter again tomorrow and may participate in the debate on the euro. Another such debate will be held next week. The Deputy will have plenty of opportunities to voice his opinions.
That is not true. The opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer and the Taoiseach is avoiding the issue all the time.
It is the opposite.
I call Deputy Adams on Question No. 6.
The Taoiseach is reducing his time in the House.
Next week.
Members should speak through the Chair. We will proceed to Question No. 6.
EU Affairs
Gerry Adams
Question:6 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had any contact with EU leaders during the summer recess. [23766/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:7 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the emergency EU summit on economic matters which he attended in July 2011. [23767/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:8 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the emergency summit of European Union leaders on 21 July 2011. [24424/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussion with European leaders over the summer on the crisis in the European financial markets. [24425/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:10 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the details and contents of bilateral contacts he has had with leaders of eurozone countries since the last emergency meeting of eurozone leaders. [24700/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:11 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has had any contact with Mr. Jean Claude Trichet or Mr. Mario Draghi since the last meeting of EU leaders; the nature and extent of each of these contacts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24701/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:12 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy concerning proposals for amending the EU treaties discussed by them during recent weeks. [24702/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:13 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the preparations he has made for submitting proposals to the EU Council concerning the consideration of reforms to the governance of the Union and the eurozone. [24703/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:14 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the differences between the text agreed by him at the July meeting of eurozone leaders concerning Ireland’s corporate taxation and the text proposed in March. [24731/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:15 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach his plans to talk or meet with other eurozone leaders in view of the ongoing eurozone crisis; if he will outline a schedule of these meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24751/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:16 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on discussions he has had with other EU leaders on the growing eurozone crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26071/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 16, inclusive, together.
I attended a meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area in Brussels on 21 July. The meeting was convened to consider the financial stability of the euro area as a whole and future financing of the Greek programme. We took important decisions in three key areas: improving Greek debt sustainability, addressing the risk of contagion and committing to improve the eurozone's crisis management. We agreed to support a new programme for Greece and, together with the IMF and the voluntary contribution of the private sector, to cover fully its financing gap. The agreed official financing of an estimated €109 billion will be designed, notably through lower interest rates and extended maturities, to improve decisively the debt sustainability and refinancing profile of Greece.
We also agreed important enhancements to the EFSF. It will get more flexibility to intervene in the areas of precautionary assistance; recapitalisation of banks through Governments, including in non-programme countries; and secondary market interventions in exceptional circumstances on the basis of an analysis by the ECB. Member states are now engaged in the process of legislative change needed to enable the new arrangements to enter into force. For our part, the necessary Bill was passed last week and now has been signed. The measures agreed in July were based on a clear acknowledgement that the Greek situation is different from that of other countries and required an exceptional response, including as regards the participation of the private sector.
The decisions made at the meeting will mean that the EFSF will lend to Ireland at a significantly reduced rate. This will apply not only to moneys yet to be drawn down, but also to future interest payments on existing loans. This is a saving in the order of several billion euro over the term of the loans. In this regard, I very much welcome the decision of the European Commission to propose that loans under the EFSM will come with zero margin.
The meeting in July recognised Ireland's resolve to press ahead with implementation of our programme, and expressed its strong commitment to our success. We tasked the President of the European Council, in close consultation with the President of the Commission and the president of the Eurogroup, to make concrete proposals by October on how to improve working methods and enhance crisis management in the euro area. This work is now being advanced, including through bilateral consultations at official level.
With regard to corporation tax, there was no new language agreed at the meeting. We agreed to engage constructively in what I expect to be a very long debate on the Commission's CCCTB proposal, and more generally in the structured discussions on tax policy issues provided for within the framework of the euro plus pact. There was nothing new in this and the Government's position on the substance of the matter has not changed in any respect.
In the period since the end of July, there has been significant and ongoing engagement at Minister for Finance level and through associated euro area structures in giving effect to the measures that we agreed. I will meet several colleagues when I attend the meeting of the Eastern Partnership in Warsaw later this week. The next meeting of the European Council is scheduled for Brussels on 17-18 October. It will discuss economic policy, including, I anticipate, any developments regarding the eurozone, preparations for the G20 summit and climate change.
Given that Questions Nos. 6 to 16, inclusive, are grouped, I would like to be as fair as possible in calling Deputies. Deputy Gerry Adams, whom I call first, tabled Questions Nos. 6 and 7.
I object to the Taoiseach's lumping together so many questions. It happens so often. I have specific questions on Questions Nos. 6 and 7. Have there been discussions with our European partners about the centralisation of fiscal powers? Has the Government ruled out this development?
I have had no discussions with European leaders on fiscal powers. There have been quite a number of meetings and contacts between Ministers for Finance and officials dealing with the technicalities of the decisions made in July. They were signed off on recently at official level and confirmed by the ECOFIN Ministers. The answer to the Deputy's question is that I have had no discussions about the centralisation of fiscal powers.
Will the Taoiseach give a very clear commitment that he will rule out the Irish Government going along with the centralisation of fiscal powers?
How does the Deputy define "centralisation of fiscal powers"?
With respect, the Taoiseach must know what it means because it has been proposed by some of the larger states. Having taken monetary power, they want to take fiscal power. It has been proposed by the French and Germans, and the Taoiseach needs to stand very firmly against it. He should take the opportunity to decide on this now. He should pretend we are talking about taking money from old people.
I do not contemplate any such move. The Deputy is well aware of the fluidity of the debate, both in and outside Europe, on Europe's difficulties.
This is a fundamental question concerning sovereignty. One reason the Economic Management Council has nothing to discuss is because it has ceded so much economic power to the European Union and International Monetary Fund. It is very clear that the Government is standing with the bankers. Has it taken the opportunity, given what is happening in the eurozone and the crisis, to tell the relevant authorities it will not pay the €31 billion to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide? The Government is committed to pay €7 million on 2 November. This would build approximately 200 schools or create 8,000 jobs. I do not understand it. Last week, I was in New York and met very senior Wall Street stockbrokers who were astounded the Government was not burning the bondholders and that it pays all of this money to a toxic bank. These people trade in their sector. As we see the eurozone crisis deepening, is it not time for the Taoiseach to seize the moment and for once stand up and state we will not pay the money? The Government is committed to removing €3.6 billion from the budget and at the same time will give €3 billion to Anglo Irish Bank. What does the Government owe Anglo Irish Bank?
It was a commitment of the previous Government.
No, it was not. They are not secured.
Who Deputy Adams meets in New York is his own business. All I can state is that the Minister for Finance has pointed out quite clearly that from his discussions with Mr. Trichet and Commissioner Rehn the question of burning senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank is something they would not contemplate. When this was mentioned in Greece, the contagion immediately spread to other larger economies, as Deputy Adams is well aware. What was signed off by my predecessor was a promissory note to Anglo Irish Bank and INBS for €30 billion, that is, €3 billion over each of ten years——
——with no interest to be paid until 2013 when the blended rate will be at more than 8%. The extent of moneys that might be saved by the State, while quite substantial at approximately €100 million in the case of Anglo Irish Bank and INBS, is much smaller than what could be achieved through the agenda now being pursued by the Minister for Finance, which is to deal with an extension of time and maturity in respect of the promissory note which was signed off by the previous Government. The savings there could be far more substantial than risking the enhanced reputation the country has achieved in the past six months internally in Europe and externally in the wider world from economic, business and political perspectives. It is a balance of looking at the risk to what we have achieved in the past six months and where we want to go. We want to be able to return to the bond markets ourselves and borrow at appropriate rates and be in charge of our economic future, which is the intention of the Government in implementing our programme.
The Taoiseach just stated that Mr. Trichet, who is the President of the European Central Bank, told the Minister for Finance he would not contemplate the burning of the bondholders and specifically that the €3.5 billion to be paid to unsecured Anglo Irish Bank bondholders by the end of June had to be paid. What is the point of the Taoiseach going to EU summits if it is not the political leaders, supposedly elected by the people of Europe, who make the decision but bureaucrats at the European Central Bank who obviously represent the interests of the major European bankers, bond dealers, hedge funds and the rest of it? Does this not turn what is supposed to be democracy on its head? In July, did the Taoiseach discuss with Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy the issue of €3.5 billion? The Minister for Finance stated categorically in Washington in June that Anglo Irish Bank was a warehouse of debt and speculative investment and the Irish people should not pay. Did the Taoiseach follow up this by stating to Frau Merkel and Monsieur Sarkozy that the Irish people do not owe this money and that we will not pay it?
We know what the question is; the answer is another thing.
The selfsame bureaucrats of whom Deputy Higgins speaks fund the entire Irish banking system to the tune of almost €150 billion at a 1.5% interest rate and his own salary is paid out of it. It is important to attend meetings of EU Heads of Government because agreement was reached on our proposal that interest rate reductions be applied. The savings that have and will emerge from this are very substantial. Of course in the general discussions that have taken place the Minister for Finance has been very vociferous about the problem of Anglo Irish Bank and raised the matter long before he came into government. However, the consequence of dealing with it in the manner spoken about by Deputy Higgins became evident very abruptly in Italy when it was mentioned in the case of Greece.
I am not sure what is the opinion of Deputy Higgins but the country has changed direction and there is now a very different reaction to us internationally, which is far more favourable. Political leaders in Europe look at this country as possibly being the first to emerge from this economic challenge with an enhanced reputation and heading in the right direction to be in charge of our own economic destiny. I remind the Deputy that at the end of the day, the ECB and Mr. Trichet have been very favourably disposed towards Ireland and its citizens and €150 billion at 1.5% is a very substantial contribution from people whom Deputy Higgins claims are just bureaucrats.
The point is that there would be no need for tens of billions of ECB funding if the policy of the predecessor Government now being followed and implemented by the Taoiseach——
A question please.
——had not been to guarantee €80 billion or €90 billion of gamblers debts. That is the point. Does the Taoiseach realise what he is saying?
I do.
The Taoiseach stated in opposition to my demanding the non-payment of the €3.5 billion, which the Minister, Deputy Noonan, stated should not be paid, that we should look at what happened when there was a threat that this might happen in Greece. What happened? The sharks in the financial markets ratcheted up interest rates for Italy and Spain and terrorised the political leaders of Europe who all fell on their faces in front of them. Who runs Europe? Is it a dictatorship of the markets, as the Taoiseach just indicated he cannot make sovereign decisions because he fears unelected unaccountable entities in the financial markets? Is this not what the Taoiseach is stating?
It was not Europe which downgraded the United States. The markets have their own way of making their impact, obviously with devastating consequences in some cases. I remind Deputy Higgins that the amount of unguaranteed residual bonds in Anglo Irish Bank is €3.46 billion, comprising €2.86 billion from Anglo Irish Bank and €600 million from Irish Nationwide. A voluntary burning of these bondholders might, depending on the price offered in any LME, liability management exercise, and taken up by the bondholders, raise approximately €100 million. As I pointed out, the savings that might be achieved in dealing with the extent of the promissory note would be of a far greater proportion than this and would not destroy the rising credibility and enhanced reputation that Ireland has achieved with our European colleagues and internationally in the past six months.
And the vultures.
I have tabled five of the questions included in this group and I hope I receive a reasonable opportunity. I agree with what Deputy Adams stated on the unsatisfactory nature of grouping all of these questions, which are on quite different topics.
The Taoiseach is spinning a great yarn about the international response to Ireland and our approach. The bottom line is that the response to Ireland is due to the fact that very severe budgetary measures were taken which hurt many people and which were politically unpalatable. The budget passed last year included a correction of approximately €6 billion. The international response to this has been——
I ask the Deputy to put a question please.
——that Ireland has bitten the bullet. It has nothing to do with what the Taoiseach did since he came into power because he has taken no substantive decision on anything. It is wrong of him to keep pedalling and spinning this yarn.
You must be joking. It is this Government that has implemented the pain, sadly.
We are not having a discussion or a debate.
That is what it is; it is a yarn.
This is Question Time.
Does the Taoiseach agree that he voted against every one of those measures?
What did the previous Government do about reducing the banks?
He behaved in a reckless and irresponsible way and is now claiming credit six months later because he has not changed any of them. That is basically the factual position.
I have never looked for credit in my life.
I asked the Taoiseach about the summit meeting which refused to address the issue of burning bondholders. Does he agree that the core issue is again about what politicians told the Irish people in a fundamental communication? I told people in advance of the election that there could not be a unilateral burning of bondholders.
Could I have a question please?
I put it to the Taoiseach that the public was fundamentally misled on the issue in that he and his party told them there could be unilateral burning of bondholders. The Tánaiste said that it would be Frankfurt's way or Labour's way. I will put the core question to the Taoiseach again because I did not get an answer. Does he not agree it is now on the agenda? Perhaps he cannot comment publicly but it is being talked about openly all over Europe and internationally that Greek sovereign debt is up for discussion. That is something we never contemplated in terms of a major burning of sovereign bondholders. That appears to be on the agenda in Greece——
It is not burning, it is writing down.
I am sorry. Deputy Mathews should not interrupt.
I am sorry.
——yet we are being told that anything to do with non-secured bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank is completely off the agenda. It is wrong of the Taoiseach as well to use the term——
We will leave history to the historians. The Deputy should ask a question please.
——"sleight of hand". I ask him to withdraw the term in regard to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan's late predecessor. It is unworthy. The Taoiseach is aware that it was quite transparent at the time and it was brought before the House.
What about from 2003 onwards when a hole was being dug for the national economy? For God's sake.
That is fine if issues arise on renegotiating the agreement. I have no difficulty with that.
Will Deputy Martin put a question to the Taoiseach please?
Why is that off the agenda? I put that point in particular to the Taoiseach in terms of the ongoing debate about Greece and the sovereign issue and the fact that he is working his way out in terms of spinning a yarn and getting off the hook of very clear commitments he made on burning bondholders, senior debt holders——
It is not burning bondholders, it is writing down to collectable amounts.
——and unsecured debt. I thank Deputy Mathews.
What is the difference?
The writing down in respect of subordinated bondholders has been significant. Deputy Martin seems to be taking a line that is completely irrelevant.
It is relevant.
The Government follows through on the programme for Government. I recall two of Deputy Martin's colleagues at the time saying in public interviews that they did not know the IMF was coming in, that they never heard anything about it.
We told them.
At least the public is now being told what the situation is.
Will the Taoiseach answer the question I asked?
The position has been outlined very clearly for Deputy Martin and for everybody else——
Does the Taoiseach regret making the commitments?
——by the Minister for Finance. In response to discussions both with Commissioner Rehn and Mr. Trichet, the question of writing down debt in respect of senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank is something that when it was mentioned in the case of Greece had an automatic spill-over in respect of the Italian economy and the situation arising there. The Minister rightly pointed out that he would reflect on the discussion but that a far greater opportunity for this country exists if we can do something about the promissory note. Perhaps Deputy Martin might like to explain to me why no interest rate was applied on it for two years, which is only going to apply as a blended rate of over 8% from 2013. Why did he not tell that to the people in the beginning?
We did. The Taoiseach keeps on saying "The Minister for Finance" as if he is independent of him. The Taoiseach is the Head of Government. Does he regret making the clear commitments to the Irish people that he made on senior bondholders — and made for a long time in this House, and attacked the outgoing Government on the issue time and time again?
Does Deputy Martin remember where he was when the IMF came?
I can indeed. Yes.
Does Deputy Martin remember who caused it?
Does Deputy Martin remember what he said when the IMF came?
Chancellor Merkel——
Deputies.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle.
Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy have announced proposals for radical changes to the European treaties. The Taoiseach was asked a question about that earlier and he almost feigned ignorance of it. The world and its mother know they did that. It is a dangerous trend that both Germany and France think that what they now say on future treaties goes, without challenge. I ask the Taoiseach to comment on that.
Today the world recognises that losses have to be recognised. That is what the markets are saying.
Please, Deputy.
I am sorry, Deputy Mathews should please not interrupt.
Am I allowed to continue?
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle.
It is very important. I asked a question and I did not get a response.
Will Deputy Martin please ask questions? Another Deputy has tabled two questions and we have 11 minutes left.
I have five questions.
What is the point, a Cheann Comhairle? The Taoiseach does not answer any of them.
I have asked questions. I am getting to the point of what preparations the Taoiseach is making to submit proposals to the EU Council. It is Question No. 13——
Deputy Martin should please put the question.
——concerning the consideration of reforms to the governance of the EU and the eurozone. Instead, the Taoiseach is feigning ignorance as if he is not contemplating anything or there is nothing going on——
Deputy Martin should leave out the padding.
——but that is happening. Will the Taoiseach answer me as to what preparations and submissions he has made about those fundamental issues? This House at least should have the opportunity to debate it.
There is nothing going on. Does Deputy Martin remember who said that?
The Taoiseach has repeatedly dodged my final question and he has used freedom of information legislation to avoid answering it.
This is the greatest laugh of all time.
Will the Taoiseach specifically answer the question on the corporation tax issue? He must show us the exact deal he rejected in March. He must show us the text of the Van Rompuy position he rejected in March. We must contrast that with the deal from last July. What is the difference between the two? I asked the Taoiseach in Parliamentary Question No. 14 the differences between the text agreed by the Taoiseach at the July meeting of eurozone leaders concerning Ireland's corporation tax and the text proposed in March. It is a simple question which could be answered if the Taoiseach were to publish both texts. That would be the end of the matter. Let the people judge.
As McEnroe said: "You cannot be serious." Corporation tax in the eurozone
Deputy Mathews should allow the Taoiseach to reply.
Mr. Van Rompuy did not circulate a text.
Let the expert speak.
He made a proposition. He did not circulate a text generally to leaders in respect of what Deputy Martin is talking about. He made a suggestion to deal with a particular problem but that was not accepted.
Does the Taoiseach acknowledge what he said previously?
That problem has been dealt with and Deputy Martin and his colleagues should move on and deal with the crisis.
The Taoiseach said in the House on the record that he did circulate a text.
I am sorry, but Deputy Martin should not interrupt.
In respect of Deputy Martin's comment about propositions for the next Heads of Government meeting, before that meeting on behalf of the country I intend to participate fully in a comprehensive discussion about what opportunities we might propose in a European sense that will help our colleagues in the European Union and the eurozone to deal with this particular crisis. As I pointed out to Deputy Martin, the issue that was raised in the Financial Times in January of this year in respect of the rate of margin of the fund was first raised by Ireland and was eventually carried through by a decision both of the European leaders and ECOFIN.
In respect of Greece and the current position, I expect that every country that has signed on for the conditions in July will go ahead and implement them, as we have done and are doing in this country. As the position evolves we will reflect on changing issues around the world but we will contribute a number of proposals that we think are important. They will come through my Department, the Ministry for Finance, the EMC and the views of our colleagues around the table because there are issues that would be opportune for this country to put forward and we will voice those articulately.
An intergovernmental conference must be called. That is basic in terms of treaty change.
The Heads of Government are meeting.
What is the formal Irish position?
No.
If Deputy Martin has a supplementary question he should ask it.
The Taoiseach acknowledged in the House before the summer that there was a text in existence.
I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.
He is now saying there was not even though he acknowledged previously that a text was produced by Mr. Van Rompuy.
Mr. Van Rompuy did not.
He cannot keep on changing his story.
He did not circulate a text.
The Taoiseach said that Jean-Claude Trichet ruled out the possibility of bondholders taking some of the burden of a crisis they created. Let us be clear; it is they, the bankers and others, who created it. Did he explain why? What is the rationale for saying that we cannot force bondholders, the financiers and the speculators, to bear the burden? The Taoiseach can correct me if I am wrong, but from what he is saying it seems to me that the reason is because it might spread the contagion into the rest of Europe. Is another way of putting that simply that what they are doing is defending the interests of German, French and British banks which are in fact responsible for the problem? In one sense is it in our interests or in the interests of dealing with the crisis as it is not to acknowledge that they are partly to blame for it and that they must share the burden? In these talks with either Jean-Claude Trichet, the eurozone leaders in general or the EU-IMF, I wonder if there is any discussion about the fact there is a serious body of opinion — not left-wing opinion but main stream opinion, including Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman in The Irish Times today, and the UN Committee on Trade and Development — which is saying the overall policy of prioritising bailing out banks and bondholders has a big cost attached because it imposes austerity on ordinary people. It is not just causing extreme suffering but is also strangling the real economy. It is contracting demand and the entire package will fail because the measures being taken to prop up the bankers and bondholders are ensuring there cannot be economic growth or recovery.
Could the Deputy ask the Taoiseach a question?
The question is whether there is any debate. Does the Taoiseach put that point to Trichet or the rest of them — that there is a serious body of opinion saying not just that it is unfair but that we are committing economic suicide?
Of course there is a discussion about these things and that is why, in part, ECOFIN ministers have been meeting regularly over the summer. It is also a fact that, as the situation evolves and changes rapidly here, at the end of the day politicians will have to make decisions in respect of their governments and collectively within the eurozone and the European Union. That is why each government has a responsibility to implement the decisions taken at the meeting in July. Ireland is doing that. As these discussions continue and as the situation changes, everything is discussed, from the crisis in particular countries in Europe and the impact of this infecting banks if one writes down debt from senior bondholders. However, at the end of the day politicians and leaders have to make decisions. In so far as that is concerned, we will contribute our part.
Nobody has been discussing with me the question of a new treaty for Europe. We have the Lisbon treaty and my view is that should be fulfilled and on a co-operative basis we should implement what we have to do to re-establish the primacy of the European Union, in which I believe very strongly.
In effect, is the ESM and the souped-up EFSM with corresponding or connected centralised economic governance criteria — the so-called six-pack — not a new treaty? It will centralise economic policy as a condition of bailing out countries and give more control to unelected and unaccountable central European authorities to dictate economic policy to countries that are in these mechanisms. The Taoiseach is not directly answering the question as to whether there is any discussion at all about these serious voices which are saying that the austerity strategy may not just be unfair, as many of us believe it is, but also counterproductive. Is there any discussion of that or acknowledgement that these people might have a point?
What is the alternative?
It is fiscal stimulus.
The Deputy should not go astray.
Do not continue bailing out the bondholders, but stimulate the economy, which this strategy is failing to do.
Will the Deputy come into the real world?
That is where one is in an opposition party.
Is there any discussion at all on that?
Will the Taoiseach please reply to that?
The Lisbon treaty set out its conditions clearly and they have been adopted by all the countries. The europack-plus and the six-pack are voluntary commitments involving voluntary co-operation. Participation is a matter for each individual country. Of course, everybody agrees that the indigenous economy here has been very flat for a long time, but it is important to note that the projections for next year are that we will see for the first time an increase in employment and growth. In so far as the preparation of budget 2012 is concerned, we are taking almost €5 billion out of the economy in what is a very difficult situation. Despite the fact that the interest rate reductions will provide almost €1 billion in savings to the Irish taxpayer annually, that does not mean we can turn our backs on sorting out the problem with our public finances. As has been pointed out on many occasions, we are going to do that in respect of getting the debt level down to 8.6%. We are not able to put a figure on what that actually means until all the Revenue and tax information comes to hand.
I agree, however, that it is necessary to stimulate the indigenous economy, which is why the Government made its decision in respect of PRSI, VAT reductions, the minimum wage and a range of other issues.
Unemployment went up.
Between now and the preparation of the Estimates and the budget, the Government will continue to turn its face towards that area. I have never come across more people who actually want to get stuck into creating their own business, employing people and getting on with it.
It will not work.
Even the Deputy supports that and when the time comes I will be happy to hear his proposals.
As regards the European Central Bank, why has the Taoiseach not sought a proper meeting either with the outgoing ECB president, Jean-Claude Trichet, or the incoming one, Mario Draghi, to deal with these fundamental issues?
The Minister for Finance spoke to Mr. Trichet on a number of occasions at recent meetings. I always speak to him when the EU Heads of Government meet.
I am referring to a separate, bilateral meeting.
I have not had a separate, bilateral meeting with Mr. Trichet because the Government decided that the Minister for Finance would raise the issue of writing down debt with the governor. He went off to meet him specially and had a serious discussion with him, as well as with Commissioner Rehn. Obviously, when the new ECB president is appointed, we will arrange to meet with him.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.